some F35 info

GrauGeist said:

Hitting fuel and ammo dumps don't help the guys in the holes that are staring down advancing enemy armor

Click to expand...

Kindda depends when you hit the fuel dumps...but I don't disagree, nor am I callously suggesting that the grunts should be left in the lurch. I'm simply pointing out that there's more than one way to skin a cat (or stop a tank). Starving them or stopping them moving (M-Kill) can be just as effective as outright destruction depending on the tactical situation.

To be honest, about the best approach for neutralizing a massed tank formation might be a swarm of UAVs. Tanks are reasonably identifiable - made of metal, slow moving and of pretty consistent length/width ratios. Sending in a swarm of cheap armed UAVs that can detect and attack the tanks might be a better idea than sending manned aircraft against the organic air defences...but we're a few years away from that being a viable technique.

buffnut453 said:

The only aircraft in the world that's even remotely "like" the A-10 is the Su-25 which, apart from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, is not operated in serious numbers by any other air force (most export locations have a single squadron or less which doesn't make a compelling case for operational efficiency - how many airframes out of 12 purchased would actually be operational at any one time? Maybe 4?).

Although the CAS role is still entirely valid, the need for a dedicated low-n-slow attack aircraft is far less compelling...other aircraft can do that job sufficiently well to neutralize the benefits from maintaining a discrete type dedicated to getting up-close and personal (I'd rather stay as far away from the enemy as possible and neutralize him with a long-range pointy stick than get up close in a knife fight where luck may not be on my side). The only way to make the A-10 affordable is to restart production, and begin re-equipping squadrons on a much larger scale with an airframe that can only do CAS. The financial case for such a course of action simply isn't there.

I like the A-10. It's cool. I'll never forget watching one on a live fire exercise and hearing the gun sounding like a huge zipper being drawn. Unfortunately, in a high-threat layered air defence network it simply is not going to survive. It spends way too much time being visible and can't get out of the way quick enough (and I don't mean dodging missiles...I mean its exposure between periods of terrain masking, such as when attacking targets). Necessary, needed and affordable are 3 very different things. I can believe that the A-10 is needed but not that it's either necessary or affordable (under current fiscal constraints).

Click to expand...

AMX intl. AMX and the J-22/IAR 93. The A-10 still reigns as the cheapest aircraft in the Air Force for both maintenance and flight hours. Once that cost exceeds that, of say, an F-16, then it is time to replace it. And the simple fact is that yo don't use A-10s in a layered defence environment. Leave that to the B-2 and F-16/15E. The A-10s main use is to support soldiers in a situation where rotory types and F-16s won't cut it in an asymmetrical/crippled symmetrical It's a niche role, but there is a need for it.

GrauGeist said:

Hitting fuel and ammo dumps don't help the guys in the holes that are staring down advancing enemy armor

Click to expand...

And a BN of Apaches can do just fine as well agsinst that armor. It's what it's designed for. Hide, shoot, move, hide, shoot...

ScreamingLighting said:

AMX intl. AMX and the J-22/IAR 93. The A-10 still reigns as the cheapest aircraft in the Air Force for both maintenance and flight hours. Once that cost exceeds that, of say, an F-16, then it is time to replace it. And the simple fact is that yo don't use A-10s in a layered defence environment. Leave that to the B-2 and F-16/15E. The A-10s main use is to support soldiers in a situation where rotory types and F-16s won't cut it in an asymmetrical/crippled symmetrical It's a niche role, but there is a need for it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't class AMX or J-22 as even remotely comparable to the A-10 - both are light attack aircraft more akin to advanced trainers. They have little comparable capability to the A-10 "tank killer".

Cost per flight hour is only one metric. Air Force planners must also consider survivability and operational relevance to the tasking today and in the future. The A-10 provides less support to troops today than the F-16 and F/A-18 so it's not uniquely relevant for today's fight. You also don't specify an operational scenario where the F-16 "can't cut it" but the A-10 can. F-16s are cutting it today in the asymmetrical fight and in order to reach a "crippled symmetrical" situation, we must have done something to attrit the enemy before the A-10s go in...again, why is the A-10 so good in that scenario over other platforms?

As for your comment about layered defence, Russian Army doctrine has always associated longer-range SAMs with higher echelons of command to provide layered defence as you move up the command chain from 2S6 (8km range) thru SA-15 (15km range) to SA-11 (28km range). Apparently the Russian Army is also getting the S-400. I think we can safely say the Russian Army's air defence capability is entirely layered.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

And a BN of Apaches can do just fine as well agsinst that armor. It's what it's designed for. Hide, shoot, move, hide, shoot...

Click to expand...

And they proved themselves a pretty capable SEAD asset in Desert Storm.

Got into a big argument this morning with a few friends over the F-35 and this article: With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down | The Fiscal Times

They were giving me this "told you so" attitude and I was giving them the "you're on the verge of a throat-punch if you don't stop reading RT"...

I had to make clear a few points before EVEN discussing the aircraft itself:
1) DO NOT turn to social media for news.
2) DO NOT view anything from RT (Russia Today) as anything other than satire/parody
3) DO NOT view any page linked to RT as anything other than satire/parody
4) DO NOT argue with me when your only source is #1, #2 or #3 above

GrauGeist said:

Got into a big argument this morning with a few friends over the F-35 and this article: With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down | The Fiscal Times

Click to expand...

I posted the same article several pages back as part of the BS being put out about this aircraft.


In the mean time...

First version of F-35s will not outdo A-10 in battlefield capabilities - U.S. - Stripes

If you read this they're making comparisons with the F-38B to the A-10 as we been discussing but no mention about the US Marines not being the operators of the A-10!!! No comparison to the AV-8. Total media BS

FLYBOYJ said:

I posted the same article several pages back as part of the BS being put out about this aircraft.


In the mean time...

First version of F-35s will not outdo A-10 in battlefield capabilities - U.S. - Stripes

If you read this they're making comparisons with the F-38B to the A-10 as we been discussing but no mention about the US Marines not being the operators of the A-10!!! No comparison to the AV-8. Total media BS

Click to expand...

Is that because they are both vertical take off? ( I get my info from the UK Sunday Sun)

GrauGeist said:

Got into a big argument this morning with a few friends over the F-35 and this article: With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down | The Fiscal Times

They were giving me this "told you so" attitude and I was giving them the "you're on the verge of a throat-punch if you don't stop reading RT"...

I had to make clear a few points before EVEN discussing the aircraft itself:
1) DO NOT turn to social media for news.
2) DO NOT view anything from RT (Russia Today) as anything other than satire/parody
3) DO NOT view any page linked to RT as anything other than satire/parody
4) DO NOT argue with me when your only source is #1, #2 or #3 above

Click to expand...

Bacon'd for #4! Made me splurt out my lunch!

buffnut453 said:

Bacon'd for #4! Made me splurt out my lunch!

Click to expand...

Sorry about that, next time I'll give you advance warning!

I will say that I am not a huge fan of the F-35, but I give credit where credit's due. My opinion however, is not a solid argument against the F-35 and it truly does have promise and potential and there is a great deal of hard data to back that up.

So the bottom line is: I like a good debate, but bring facts and solid points...not some Putin-puppet fantasy BS!

I'm not a fan of the F-35B. I like the A and C variants and think they'll be very capable platforms. Clearly, the A-10 does what it does better than anything else around. The problem is its job can be done by other aircraft types. I'd never see the F-35 as a direct A-10 replacement but, alas, filthy lucre always comes into the decision and the new shiny thing will always win over the old, but still viable, proven capability. That doesn't change whether you're talking about going from Buccaneers to Tornados, F-4s to F-15s or any other combination of aircraft. Pilots get very attached to the type they fly, even when a newer, better aircraft is available.

pbehn said:

Is that because they are both vertical take off? ( I get my info from the UK Sunday Sun)

Click to expand...

The US Marines are replacing the AV-8 with the F-35B, the USAF is replacing the A-10 and F-16 with the F-35A

buffnut453 said:

I wouldn't class AMX or J-22 as even remotely comparable to the A-10 - both are light attack aircraft more akin to advanced trainers. They have little comparable capability to the A-10 "tank killer".

Cost per flight hour is only one metric. Air Force planners must also consider survivability and operational relevance to the tasking today and in the future. The A-10 provides less support to troops today than the F-16 and F/A-18 so it's not uniquely relevant for today's fight. You also don't specify an operational scenario where the F-16 "can't cut it" but the A-10 can. F-16s are cutting it today in the asymmetrical fight and in order to reach a "crippled symmetrical" situation, we must have done something to attrit the enemy before the A-10s go in...again, why is the A-10 so good in that scenario over other platforms?

As for your comment about layered defence, Russian Army doctrine has always associated longer-range SAMs with higher echelons of command to provide layered defence as you move up the command chain from 2S6 (8km range) thru SA-15 (15km range) to SA-11 (28km range). Apparently the Russian Army is also getting the S-400. I think we can safely say the Russian Army's air defence capability is entirely layered.

Click to expand...

Good thing we'll have bigger things to worry about if we're fighting Russia...
An F-16 won't cut it after it's dropped it's bombs, and when forces on the ground are rolling up against heavy opposition and can't wait for more F-16s to be scrambled/fly over, but need the punch of a fixed wing aircraft. Aircraft like the A-10 can offer longer and more comprehensive support than an F-16 can. The A-10s numbers should be cut, but not killed (until it get more expensive than the F-16) It may be a niche, but it's a niche which must be filled.

ScreamingLighting said:

Good thing we'll have bigger things to worry about if we're fighting Russia...

Click to expand...

For a major force-on-force conflict, yes. However, there is the risk of a more limited conflict if Putin tries the tricks he's playing in Ukraine in other areas or if he continues escalating the Ukraine crisis. And with news breaking yesterday about Iran potentially buying S-300 SAMs, the prospect is increasing that our pilots will soon face a far more lethal threat environment than has been the case since 1991.

buffnut453 said:

For a major force-on-force conflict, yes. However, there is the risk of a more limited conflict if Putin tries the tricks he's playing in Ukraine in other areas or if he continues escalating the Ukraine crisis. And with news breaking yesterday about Iran potentially buying S-300 SAMs, the prospect is increasing that our pilots will soon face a far more lethal threat environment than has been the case since 1991.

Click to expand...

NATO (see the 'all for one, one for all' policy, it would require us to get into a two step war with Russia along with all of our NATO allies,which would be disastrous) doesn't have the balls to do that, and again, the A-10 isn't quite the tank killer it was designed to be. Back to my comment about it "not going into layered defensed areas", it won't. Seed my "Leave that to the 15E/16," comment, the A-10 isn't going to kill tanks anymore, it going to provide CAS for soldiers in dire need. See the rest of my earlier post.

The A-10 right now has a max airframe life of 18 - 24,000 hours. No one is not going to authroize any aircraft to fly beyond that without a major rebuild program. With that said, there are some people who were thinking about a life extension till 2040.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...5b79134aa77caaf58f8fe0b44ae0&tab=core_cview=1

I'd like to address CAS. There are many stories stating the F-35Bs the USMC will declare IOC with are not as capable as the A-10 when it comes to the CAS mission. While that is true today with 2B software, it won't be true in the future when all the F-35Bs are flying with 3F software. Remember, the Marine Corps isn't buying the F-35B to replace the A-10, they are replacing the Harrier. In a March 25 hearing before Congress, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for aviation stated:

"The F-35B with the current software provides tremendous capability that we don't have today. I have no fusion in the airplanes I operate today. The pilots who fly it love the F-35B and they wouldn't go back to their original platforms. In many ways, that software is giving us a lot more capability that we have in our current fleet today."
As far as the A-10 is concerned, Dr. Gilmore, in his submitted testimony to the HASC, stated the following:

"Of course, the F-35 is designed to do more missions than CAS, which is the primary mission for which the A-10 was designed. Also, F-35 development is not complete. If the capabilities stated in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) are realized, Block 3F F-35 aircraft will have the ability to carry weapons externally, for an increased payload, as well as a gun. For example, a Block 3F F-35A aircraft could carry six GBU-12 laser-guided bombs (vice two in Block 2B) along with four air-to-air missiles (two AIM-120C and two AIM-9X). Fusion of information from on-board sensors and data from off-board aircraft (both F-35 aircraft in formation via the multi-function advanced data link (MADL) and other aircraft via Link 16) is planned to be much more capable and would provide better battlespace awareness than that being fielded with Block 2B and better than the capability of an A-10."
All the decision makers and military leaders understand our program and the progress it's making. It is a bit trying at times to read what makes it to the press, but if the F-35 program was easy, it wouldn't be worth doing. Keep in mind, even with the challenges we face we've flown more than 18,000 sorties and 30,000 hours of safe flight. The best thing we can do for the warfighter is to fulfill our commitments to bring them the best 5th generation fighter the world has ever seen.

Turning to events out in the field, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort held its air show over the weekend featuring the F-35B. The F-35B demonstrated its STOVL capabilities and showed the crowd of nearly 100,000 people what the future of Marine Corps aviation looks like. Eventually MCAS Beaufort will have 27 F-35Bs training USMC, U.K. and Italian pilots. This air show was a great chance for the community to get an up close look at what will be a common sight in the community for many years to come.

This week F-35 Chief Test Pilot Al Norman traveled to Tel Aviv Israel where U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Schapiro experienced the F-35 by means of the Cockpit Demonstrator. Al and Ambassador Schapiro were at Nevatim AFB where pilots will train when their first jets are delivered in December 2016. The Ambassador appreciated the demonstration and commented about the amazing capabilities that the F-35 will bring to the Israel Air Force. The partnership with Israel will help to upgrade their Air Force to the next generation. This is the ultimate strong example of the commitment the U.S. has to the future security of Israel.

Two F-35Cs from VFA-101 'Grim Reapers' at Eglin AFB, FL made a cross-country flight for their first appearance at Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA, where the Navy's first operational squadron will be based. The visit to NAS Lemoore was a great opportunity for sailors, local media and members of the surrounding community to see the carrier variant up-close and in their own backyard! Captain Dave Koss, Commander Strike Fighter Wing US Pacific Fleet, stated at events held at the base:

"It's a great day for Lemoore and the community to see the next generation fighter come and join an already very competent force that we have. The F-35 is going to be able to greatly enable battlespace awareness which is very important as you go out there and operate both offensively and defensively. "
Lemoore's mayor, Lois Wynne had a thrilling flight in the F-35 cockpit demonstrator and couldn't wait to share her thoughts.

"The technology is simply amazing – it's almost too much to comprehend. We're so lucky to have the F-35 here in Lemoore and we look forward to having it become an integral part of the local community."

NAS Lemoore is scheduled to see its first airplanes arrive in early 2017. Thank you for your continued support of the F-35 as we grow this fleet and stand up many new bases in the coming years.

From one of our higher ups...

Thanks Beau for the update. It's always great to hear this from someone who is there, hands on, in the flesh. Like many of my other friends who are on this program, if it was the dismal failure some try to make it out to be I'm sure you would have jumped ship a long time ago, settled at Northrop/ Grumman or General Atomics. I heard about the Beaufort show and am waiting to see clips of the F-35B flying. Anyone who labels this aircraft as junk, a failure or "a contraption" either has bias against the aircraft or LMCO or is just purely ignorant, especially when it's capabilities are becoming more evident. The only thing I really am upset about with regards to the F-35 is the cost overruns and how they were allowed to perpetuate. While LMCO is not faultless, no one on the government side is willing to take responsibility and just continues to allow the press and some politicians to bash this program.

(Stepping off soapbox)

....and a thingmajig then?

I'd say that it goes for the press as well....