Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:
The problem is..which general is going to risk it all
by not arming the A4-SU with AIM-9X and stuffs
i rather they carry 1 or 2 JDAM smart bombs which hit the target
rather den 10 to 20 bombs which spread over target..if miss might
kill some innocent pple
the SAF is not a merciless killing force..if it is..then it would
have lost it's principle in the 1st place
Furthermore, even though there may be escorts , there may be alot
of problems when it comes to escort..the formation might need to
break up sometimes to engage enemies coming from different
directions
when the fighter escorts..say F-16 engaging up 12 o clock north
faces
threats from 3 and 9 o clock at a similar timing ...the A4-SU might
need to defend itself..
F-16 will be used for bigger missions..of course =)
But im thinking that the F-16 will go first in the event of a
conflict to maintain aerial superiority
A4-SU and Harrier II..which 1 better?
A-4 has not seen any major conflicts since Falklands war..
but Argentinian A-4 has managed to fire a missile onto a british
warship..causing severe damage
A4-concept was in 1950+
whereelse Harrier II ...is in 1970+ same age as F-16 and F-18
IMHO A-4 should have been phrased out due to it's weak airframe and
inability to pull Gs.. even though with advanced avionics
it is the equivalent of upgrading a WWII Spitfire aircraft with
ability to fire AIM-120 AMRAAM
The Harrier II is better then the A4-SU is many aspects..
for example the Harrier II does not require runways.
Just imagine..if a guerilla group [b]manage to steal a
Harrier II jet and operate it against the police force in the
area..
They can VTOL ... hit and run... come out from hidden
locations..conduct ambushes..
The most significant edge is indeed still VTOL , i must
stress..
Helicopters are also VTOL ... but why a fighter jet VTOL?
It combines many platforms together..and also boosts the
concept..of defending singapore..we must be prepared for many
scenarios..one of which enemy might attack and destroy runways and
remember nothing is 100%
as i have highlighted in my above war scenario 1..it is indeed
crucial for VTOL even as for a naval aircraft or a RSAF
plane..
If it is not crucial..why even F-35 SVTOL variants in the first
place?
The Harrier II in simple terms..has easy take off and
landing as a helicopter
but PACKS the punch of a fighter plane.
The Harrier II may be weaker and require CAS..but one should not
ignore the ability of it..
Like a guerilla warfare machine..Lets push our scenario back to
southern islands of singapore..
If the main runways are gone..(ignore the usage of highways for
tengah jets)
the southern islands are TOO small to have any..stretched run way
for F-16 or A4-Su..
solution? get the Harrier II ASAP...[/b]
It is so shameful to see someone who didn't do his home work on
the Skyhawk A-4. Have more respect for the A-4 , it is one mean
machine which any pilot whether F15, F14, F18, F16 or harrier, will
give a lot of respect. This is one mean plane that have proven
itself in vietnam and middle east. It is also used in the Top gun
school, the old trainees and instructors from there will laugh till
death, if you tell them the Skyhawk cannot pull Gs !!! You moron,
the skyhawks there have been out fighting F14s, F18s till they are
retired, cannot pull Gs, then they sure pull shit over you.
Yes may be old, but it is still very good and effective. The
falkland wars is not a good judge of a comparison of harrier and
skyhawk. The harrier have the advantage of better pilots and the
new 9L sidewinder.
Singapore A4-SU is a better machine, not just convention bombs but
guided ones, which is very acurate.
Yep why are you comparing so much into Gs, a bomber and a fighter
have different roles. Look at all the famous strike bombers -
intruders they are little in Gs, but they get their job done. Yep
next you be writing to US airforce to tell them to about Gs - B52
is no good, for lack of Gs.
