Forum: Off-topic

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

Why is the F-35 even in this? If you want to compare something to the Skyraider, compare it to current aircraft doing CAS in permissive environments, like the A-10 or (God forbid we should admit there is such a thing) Predators and Reapers.

Didnt you know - the A-1 is far superior to every other jet in all missions ( especially the F-15) - maybe NASA could replace the shuttle with it.

Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by broncazonk on Jul 12, 2011 - 11:20 PM; edited 3 times in total

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

If only we had some sort of guided weapon so aircraft wouldn't have to fly low- imagine if the ground troops could just send the enemy's position to an aircraft, and the aircraft could drop a bomb that would guide itself to the target. Wouldn't that be something!

But your missing the whole point (and value) of CAS. When you get on the radio begging for air support (and trust me on this, you're always begging) you need it NOW, not 45 minutes from now, or two hours from now, like the way it is these days.

You bet, having super accurate CAS is wonderful. But having CAS right now is GOLDEN.

We would be much more successful in our Afghanistan/Iraq ground operations if we could pick up the CAS reponse times up in firefights. Its stupid silly right now. By the time the package arrives, all the (smart) bad guys have run off, departed, fled the scene, because (1) it's patently obvious to the enemy when we call in an airstrike and (2) sometimes they have over an hour to clear the area.

So all that F-35 high-tech CAS will be/is meaningless, if we can't/don't improve the Johnny on the Spot quotient to CAS.

We need something that has the ability to get down in the weeds and stay there. All that 5th-Gen technology needs to be going towards that. Something that will loiter on overwatch while our ground units are out on patrol and then target an enemy force with a wide-angle FLIR if we are engaged and then something that will keep the enemy fixed in place (and keep them from running off) while our guys get out of the kill zone and into position to liquidate the enemy is what we need. The Reaper/Predator system carries just enough ordanance to be lethal, but not enough to be decisive in big, extended shootouts.

Bronc

diegoepoimaria wrote:

P.S. : The eagle it's better than the skyrider, because it can shoot down other eagles and land completely without a wing! Razz

Thats a truly valid argument as this thread goes - I have to agree that the F-15 might be better than the A-1 after all - nice one Laughing

And a prop airplane is going to follow around every squad? That's the plan?

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

And a prop airplane is going to follow around every squad? That's the plan?

Well it goes about the same speed as a bunch of squadies on an afternoon stroll - so another reason to use it I reakon.

broncazonk wrote:

But your missing the whole point (and value) of CAS. When you get on the radio begging for air support (and trust me on this, you're always begging) you need it NOW, not 45 minutes from now, or two hours from now, like the way it is these days.

You bet, having super accurate CAS is wonderful. But having CAS right now is GOLDEN.

We would be much more successful in our Afghanistan/Iraq ground operations if we could pick up the CAS reponse times up in firefights. Its stupid silly right now. By the time the package arrives, all the (smart) bad guys have run off, departed, fled the scene, because (1) it's patently obvious to the enemy when we call in an airstrike and (2) sometimes they have over an hour to clear the area.

Bronc

And what would you know about that exactly?

flighthawk wrote:

And what would you know about that exactly?

Way, way way more than you. Trust me on this.

broncazonk wrote:

flighthawk wrote:

And what would you know about that exactly?

Way, way way more than you. Trust me on this.

Judging by what you have put so far, I can only put my trust in your nurse taking good care of you.

flighthawk wrote:

Judging by what you have put so far, I can only put my trust in your nurse taking good care of you.

Well... If you don't trust what I'm saying please spend some time on CombatReform.Org. http://www.combatreform.org/aircommandos.htm

30-minutes of some very simple reading should straighten your little weenie out. Laughing

This (below) is a very good two-page paper on the issue from some fairly credible guys.

http://www.combatreform.org/AFJIdecembe ... ative3.jpg

http://www.combatreform.org/AFJIdecembe ... ative4.jpg

Please read and learn for 30-minutes before you embarr-a$$ yourself again.

Bronc

The USN has already been testing at least one Super Tucano in the COIN role under the Imminent Fury program. SOCOM and the USN believe there is a requirement for such an aircraft. The USAF at one time planned on fielding a COIN wing but canceled this for various reasons.

A COIN aircraft operates under a low threat environment and it not a replacement in any way for the A-10. The aircraft is oriented around ISR, communications relay, etc. with the least important aspect being weapons delivery. Especially in COIN one is often fighting a few individuals and going low and slow for extended periods is rather important and is not best performed by helicopters, fast jets, or UCAV's. At least this is the view of SOCOM and USN who are driving the requirements.

An A-1 class of aircraft is actually overkill to the requirements- it's five times heavier than a Super Tucano. This class of aircraft evolved into the A-10. While one can certainly argue the F-35 is a poor replacement for the A-10 in terms of CAS it's another matter to argue the A-10 should be replaced by an A-1. Note anyone arguing against the requirement to at times go low and slow and assuming CAS is always dropping guided weapons from 20,000+ ft does not understand the total mission requirements and entirely miss the point that if all you need is a bomb truck other platforms will often be superior. A UCAV is far more economical and a heavy bomber more cost effective if one requires a large weapons load; moreover, both provide far more loiter capability. The F-35 is a strike fighter. It certainly will be pressed into service for CAS and will perform fine but it's not the optimal platform except possibly for very high threat environments.

As an aside the attack helicopter was invented by the US Army because they were both prevented from flying armed fixed wing aircraft and the USAF was seen as not being very interested in close air support. They are not as survivable as fixed wing, as can be seen from actual modern combat experiences, and lack loiter capability. They do various things very well and other tasks less well. If today's requirement for a COIN aircraft could be filled by a helicopter, which SOCOM already operates, then Imminent Fury would not exist and would not be testing the Super Tucano.

Finally it's worth pointing out that Vietnam was not a low threat air environment. The requirement today is for a COIN aircraft operating low threat. The A-1 is total overkill for this specific requirement; however, then postulating the F-35 in this role is really rather ridiculous. This is not my opinion but reflects the war fighting driven requirements of SOCOM and the USN.

broncazonk wrote:

flighthawk wrote:

Judging by what you have put so far, I can only put my trust in your nurse taking good care of you.

Well... If you don't trust what I'm saying please spend some time on CombatReform.Org. http://www.combatreform.org/aircommandos.htm

30-minutes of some very simple reading should straighten your little weenie out. Laughing

This (below) is a very good two-page paper on the issue from some fairly credible guys.

http://www.combatreform.org/AFJIdecembe ... ative3.jpg

http://www.combatreform.org/AFJIdecembe ... ative4.jpg

Please read and learn for 30-minutes before you embarr-a$$ yourself again.

Bronc

Touch a nerve did we - poor you - extra Valium for you tonight!

Okay so you have finally learnt how to post a few links - this is certainly more promising.....so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and see what it says on the F-35 Vs A-1 debate you keep going on about - might even translate it so you can try to understand what it is actually saying.

broncazonk wrote:

Yep. That's the point. We need a modern all-weather version of the A1-D / A-10. And you wouldn't get 5 to 7 of them, more like 10 for the cost of each F-35.

Feature creep would push it over $50 million easily. Hell, I'll bet just trying to recreate the A-10 production line would cost you that much.

broncazonk wrote:

Here's another clue. What is the F-35 supposed to do exactly? What is its core / fundamental mission?

Bronc

Replace the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B. Derp. Rolling Eyes

Here's a picture of what happened at Duxford.

Yes we have videos online now in the 21st Century - the footage was on several News web sites yesterday......

flighthawk wrote:

Yes we have videos online now in the 21st Century - the footage was on several News web sites yesterday......

You need to calm down son. Just get to reading what CombatReform.Org has to say about CAS, and by implication, the F-35. Then report back to us with something insightful.

Bronc

Forum: Off-topic

Why the A1-D is better than the F-35...