AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

[sferrin]

Aviation Week has gone off the deep end in regard to their bias and negativity against the F-35, and i don't think they are being listened to by those who matter in this game (people in government).

A damn shame too. Had AVweek and many others not been pulled over the edge by the shrillness of Bill et al, those "people who matter" might have been more willing to listen to outside criticism and alternatives. As it was, Bill made it into a personal issue for individuals with their careers and reputations invested in the F-35. This needless confrontationalism has only reinforced the determination of those with a stake in the program to have the F-35 or nothing else.

It'd help if he wasn't so obviously biased. The US has five or six different AESAs in service but just the news that the Gripen will get one in the future at some time and it's, "ZOMG best fighter EVAH". Yeah, sure Bill.

[battleshipagincourt]

Yeah, your five Predators are going to be real useful in a combat zone populated with air defenses. That's my point.

That's why you WOULDN'T use Reapers for high-threat environments on those rare occasions. For everything else, UAV's prove better than the F-35 in just about every way. Five UCAV's are at least five times more effective than one F-35 for low-threat environments, making them far more valuable than one high-end fighter.

That sorta destroys your point.

[sferrin]

Yeah, your five Predators are going to be real useful in a combat zone populated with air defenses. That's my point.

That's why you WOULDN'T use Reapers for high-threat environments on those rare occasions. For everything else, UAV's prove better than the F-35 in just about every way. Five UCAV's are at least five times more effective than one F-35 for low-threat environments, making them far more valuable than one high-end fighter.

That sorta destroys your point.

Uhm, no. Not one single US military service agrees with you. You should stop getting your information from video games. Just because the news like to show UAVs (because they think they're special) in anything but shooting at camels and cavemen they're going to be on the ground.

[1st503rdsgt]

Yeah, your five Predators are going to be real useful in a combat zone populated with air defenses. That's my point.

That's why you WOULDN'T use Reapers for high-threat environments...

Not exactly the highest-threat environment.

[battleshipagincourt]

Uhm, no. Not one single US military service agrees with you. You should stop getting your information from video games. Just because the news like to show UAVs (because they think they're special) in anything but shooting at camels and cavemen they're going to be on the ground.

Lying won't get you anywhere. Any soldier on the ground would be infinitely happy to get support from a low-end UCAV or A-10 quickly than waiting in line for the next available F-35 to come to their aid. If you were a soldier, which you clearly aren't, you'd know better.

You really should get your center on REALITY... not video games.

[1st503rdsgt]

Uhm, no. Not one single US military service agrees with you. You should stop getting your information from video games. Just because the news like to show UAVs (because they think they're special) in anything but shooting at camels and cavemen they're going to be on the ground.

Lying won't get you anywhere. Any soldier on the ground would be infinitely happy to get support from a low-end UCAV or A-10 quickly than waiting in line for the next available F-35 to come to their aid. If you were a soldier, which you clearly aren't, you'd know better.

You really should get your center on REALITY... not video games.

Uh... soldier here. Drones are rather clunky to work with, air-defenses or no. A-10s are great, but wouldn't be so much if they had any sort of IADN to deal with. I'd prefer whatever's most likely to get through in a worst-case scenario.

That said, I really wish that the USAF would consider maintaining a small fleet of manned, fixed-wing, high-endurance CAS aircraft (like the AT-6 Texan II) for dealing with lower intensity situations. For such a purpose, I don't really think the A-10 is optimal, as it was still designed with near-peer conflict in mind.

[wrightwing]

Uhm, no. Not one single US military service agrees with you. You should stop getting your information from video games. Just because the news like to show UAVs (because they think they're special) in anything but shooting at camels and cavemen they're going to be on the ground.

Lying won't get you anywhere. Any soldier on the ground would be infinitely happy to get support from a low-end UCAV or A-10 quickly than waiting in line for the next available F-35 to come to their aid. If you were a soldier, which you clearly aren't, you'd know better.

You really should get your center on REALITY... not video games.

You're operating from the assumption, that the UAV/A-10 is already on station, while the F-35 has to fly from some distant location. If you don't already have any of the 3 on station, then the F-35 can get there the fastest, and with the most situational awareness. It can engage multiple targets on one pass, which the UAV/A-10 cannot.

[pushoksti]

Any soldier on the ground would be infinitely happy to get support from a low-end UCAV or A-10 quickly than waiting in line for the next available F-35 to come to their aid.

So the F-35 has a wait time while the other CAS aircraft do not?

[hb_pencil]

Uhm, no. Not one single US military service agrees with you. You should stop getting your information from video games. Just because the news like to show UAVs (because they think they're special) in anything but shooting at camels and cavemen they're going to be on the ground.

Lying won't get you anywhere. Any soldier on the ground would be infinitely happy to get support from a low-end UCAV or A-10 quickly than waiting in line for the next available F-35 to come to their aid. If you were a soldier, which you clearly aren't, you'd know better.

You really should get your center on REALITY... not video games.

Wow... just wow.

Actually its pretty clear that "front end" soldiers on the ground that I've spoken to (in a professional capacity) that they DO NOT want UCAVs undertaking Type 1 or Type 2 CAS under anything but the most exceptional of circumstances. That's a sentiment that runs right up the command chain. The risks surrounding limited situational awareness are viewed as high enough that they fear a major increase in blue on blue casualties. There are already several examples where this has occurred, such as the April 6th 2011 death of two Marine troopers from a Predator strike.

So no, you're just dead wrong about this.

[count_to_10]

So, here is a question: what is CAS more about, airlifting ordinance to the battlefield or targeting enemy targets from the air? Is the issue that the ground forces don't have the firepower on hand, or that they can't target the enemy from where they are?
In the one case, you need a bomb truck, while in the other you need as sensor platform.

[megasun]

Well, I can see that F-35 does have a longer waiting time, as it is more expensive thus fewer...
Besides price, drones also have better endurance, and can patrol much longer.

It's for sure that they cannot replace each other in many scenarios, they are not really alternatives for one another, but they're still "other options". The services don't have as many options as they had in gen 4 any more, but it's glad they still have some. The predator/reaper are successful weapons, and the Air Force is purchasing more, Navy purchases more Super Hornets than initially planned, and they're purchasing less F-35 than planned, that's what's going on.

I feel competition is important and is what is lacked here. There used to be competition in the JSF program, but after Boeing was out, that's when bad news started. I hope to see the UCLASS drone and LRS-B join the competition, although indirect. And it's still very possible, that they won't do any better, they may as well be expensive and delayed, but at least from that the services can tell Lochheed is doing a good job.

[spazsinbad]

'megasun' says: "...Navy purchases more Super Hornets than initially planned, and they're purchasing less F-35 than planned, that's what's going on...." Any evidence for your assertion: "...[USN] purchasing less F-35 than planned..." Thanks.

[sferrin]

Uhm, no. Not one single US military service agrees with you. You should stop getting your information from video games. Just because the news like to show UAVs (because they think they're special) in anything but shooting at camels and cavemen they're going to be on the ground.

Lying won't get you anywhere. Any soldier on the ground would be infinitely happy to get support from a low-end UCAV or A-10 quickly than waiting in line for the next available F-35 to come to their aid. If you were a soldier, which you clearly aren't, you'd know better.

You really should get your center on REALITY... not video games.

I think their minds would be more focused on the enemy airstrikes kicking their asses since Predators sure as hell won't hack it. Now, back to your video games.

[stereospace]

I really wish that the USAF would consider maintaining a small fleet of manned, fixed-wing, high-endurance CAS aircraft (like the AT-6 Texan II) for dealing with lower intensity situations.

Agreed. But that make too much sense. Or maybe it's an idea so crazy it just might work!

[redbird87]

Another soldier here. I've been supported (directly) by two different strike aircraft in combat. A-10 and British Harriers. UAVs are great I'm sure, but I can tell you there is a lot of value in being able to communicate with pilots who are on station, either directly or indirectly though an AC. The A-10s were AWESOME when you needed help. Long loiter, the ability to visually find targets, and ridiculous firepower.

As far as replacing the F-16, as others have asserted, the F-35 covers the high end conflict very well. The low-mid intensity CAS function - not so well I fear. I see a lot of folks downplaying the importance of simple CAS on these forums. I think we should remember, the last high intensity conflict any (non Israeli) US built fighter participated in, ended in 1945. With this fact in mind, it is clear we would have been better off buying more F-22 to handle the high intensity possibility, as well as SEAD missions in situations such as Iran, coupled with a much less expensive Gripen or F-5 size/cost aircraft to handle the dirty work in the wars we actually tend to fight. Even in a high intensity war, a swarm of such aircraft, piloted by the best in the world, supported by the F-22s and Growlers and our superior AWACS and tanking capability, would be quite formidable. Quantity has a quality all it's own. We sure are a long way from being able to put significant numbers of F-35s into a fight. At this pace, it will be the mid 2020s.