AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

[Prinz_Eugn]

Redbird, do the letters ZSU mean anything to you? Because it does not bode well for the venerable P-47. Neither does the fact that Iraq would have had much more deadly air defenses with the lack of SEAD by the fast-movers equipped with the little things, like RWRs and HARMs.

The ground campaign in the Gulf War would have been much more evenly matched without the complete destruction of logistics, command and control, and basic morale by the air campaign that was carried out largely by tactical aircraft. This is pretty well documented: http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gul ... 20Campaign

So yes, we would have won, but it would have been much more deadly for our ground forces.

---

As for Vietnam, the air defense situation over North Vietnam was anything but "low intensity," which is actually what we're talking about in the context of the F-35, not some fuzzy definition of limited vs "real" war.

----

The basic conclusion I've drawn is that drones that can loiter forever are nice for some things, but you simply need fast, survivable aircraft for missions and there isn't really a way around that. Presenting the problem of future force structure as a choice between the two is well, stupid. Really, really stupid.

EDIT: added link.

[1st503rdsgt]

Redbird, do the letters ZSU mean anything to you? Because it does not bode well for the venerable P-47.

No, because his P-47s would be made out of composites and have modern jamming equipment.

Dude, it's bronc. You can nerd-argue with this guy all day and he'd still going to say it'll work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SlWegS2sS0

[Prinz_Eugn]

Oh yeah, Broncazonk or whatever. Good times...

I swear redbird must have read "The Army History of How the Army Won Desert Storm All by Itself, with Army Stuff and Only That"

[delvo]

Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...

[spazsinbad]

Gargle this string: 'ZSU meaning Vietnam War' for some ZSU info.

[sewerrat]

sferrin
Guess you never heard of the Vietnam War or Desert Storm

Worse if the troops had to rely on the F35. I am certain most would say - give us an A10 - good in a desert and also reasonably good in jungle type conditions. At least they are tough enough for the pilot to fly slow and low and get a good look where exactly the missile or bombs are required. The F35 can't do that.

Huh? What? You're comparing the A-10 driver's 2 eyeballs to the sensor suite on a -35? Are you even remotely a "technical" person? With a 360 degree field of view from sensors, and supercomputer++ processing power, a human being piloting an airplane will never approach the -35s see-all capability. All it takes to fool a human being is for someone to hide under some brush, or to hide a SAM under some form of camouflage. A -35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away (go to youtube) and pinpoint where it was launched. An A-10, or a modernized Skyraider will never do that. Do you know how much weight, space, and power consumption all those sensors require? And you're going to put it into a 2000hp prop? Along with weapons? Along with fuel? Two words: flying target. Look at the Predator's sensor suite, weapons load, and fuel capacity even WITHOUT a pilot.

[rkap]

Gave up after that.

This reply to the other bloke below you post also.

I think it was him who said months ago if SU35's came up to intercept the F35 they would pick them up first and turn to face them so they could not see them. Does he think enemies are stupid. If they were sending up SU35's to intercept F35's they would fly WIDE and HIGH and vector in from all directions to pick up its high IR signature and its less stealthy aspects - enemies have a brain.

Yes you had to give up. The North Vietnamese were tough courageous and dedicated opponents but in no way did they have an advanced Airforce. It took an advanced Airforce to get on top of there infant Airforce at considerable cost. Go to this link - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... a-nvaf.htm - as good as any.

The F35 in the type of War it was would be next to useless even if it was available then. The A10 was built for that type of conflict. Also North Vietnam had very few SAMS overall. They had to pay for them - the USSR were not going to give many to them. North Vietnam claims they took more aircraft out with massed rifle fire than anything. Yes 1million or so all around Hanoi etc. told when and where to fire in mass. One 7.62mm in an engine can be enough etc. Also on air support. I am Australian - our troops were always reluctant to call in aircraft unless desperate. Never if they were withing artillery range. I spent 5 years in our Reserve at the time and probably would have been sent there myself if it had continued. We were never trained to work with Air Support. All the Veteran instructors said - "we avoid using it - not much good in jungle conditions." We preferred to operate within Artillery range and so did most US units with a brain. It is there instantly and after a few ranging shots within seconds be brought in to 50m and less if you are desperate. You know none of it will drop on you. We saw the demonstrations at up to 15km range and worked with artillery in training. The F35 would be only just airborne by the time you had a mass bombardment accurately pounding the enemy in front of you.
The question is how would you use the F35 for ground support in those conditions.
A tough A10 with a big cannon and good equipped with defenses against shoulder launched SAMS is an entirely different matter.
Learn a few lessons from the past.

[rkap]

sewerrat
Huh? What? You're comparing the A-10 driver's 2 eyeballs to the sensor suite on a -35?

You mean to tell me the F35 is going to be able to pick up an IR signature through thick jungle and distinguish reliably exactly which signatures are enemy and which are friendly etc. from 20,000 feet and probably at least 10km away. Both combatants on the ground only 50-100m apart if that. Amazing. We will not need soldiers anymore.

[count_to_10]

sewerrat
Huh? What? You're comparing the A-10 driver's 2 eyeballs to the sensor suite on a -35?

You mean to tell me the F35 is going to be able to pick up an IR signature through thick jungle and distinguish reliably exactly which signatures are enemy and which are friendly etc. from 20,000 feet and probably at least 10km away. Both combatants on the ground only 50-100m apart if that.

Better than the pilot of the A-10 with his naked eye during the few seconds he is overhead, yes.

[SpudmanWP]

@rkap: Yes they do have a brain, as did the pilots that have flown both red & blue in manned international simulations that involved "Advanced Red Air".

Red air still lost more that 6:1.

Blue has brains too. (btw, would & could are interchangeable)

A. How did the Red air know when/where/how the F-35s were coming?
....1. If Red has VHF/L-band/etc then those installations will be the target of early & repeated standoff strikes.
....2. CAP F-35s will be employed
....3. MALD/MALD-J will be employed

B. How would the F-35s react
....1. Strike F-35s could pass S35 locations to forward CAP F-35s
....2. F-35s would fly in dispersed patterns allowing for better triangulation of EW sources.
....3. Decoy strike could pull Red in the wrong direction.

[maus92]

Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...

Russian self propelled radar directed AAA?

[maus92]

Huh? What? You're comparing the A-10 driver's 2 eyeballs to the sensor suite on a -35?

An A-10C with the precision engagement upgrade package is not your daddy's A-10.

A -35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away (go to youtube) and pinpoint where it was launched.

The F-35 DAS can detect a missile launch/in flight from hundreds of miles distant, but it cannot necessarily "pinpoint" or derive a weapons quality solution of the launcher from those ranges. At best it can track it, and provide azimuth and elevation of the missile.

[1st503rdsgt]

Gave up after that.

This reply to the other bloke below you post also.

I think it was him who said months ago if SU35's came up to intercept the F35 they would pick them up first and turn to face them so they could not see them. Does he think enemies are stupid. If they were sending up SU35's to intercept F35's they would fly WIDE and HIGH and vector in from all directions to pick up its high IR signature and its less stealthy aspects - enemies have a brain.

How's that complicated maneuver supposed to work without precise tracking of the F-35s hundreds of miles in advance?

The rest of your post is the long-winded ramble of a trolling armchair tactician. Wow, you spent 5 years on the parade ground back in the 1970s, heard some war stories, and now you think you know more about CAS than anyone else. I spent 4 years (04-08 ) as an active duty infantryman, saw CAS and artillery support in REAL action, and I still wouldn't claim that makes me a definitive authority on F-35 tactics.

[SpudmanWP]

An A-10C with the precision engagement upgrade package is not your daddy's A-10.

The only thing that that the A-10 & F-35 share (sensor wise) is a FLIR.

The F-35 also has:
1. EODAS: Sees in every direction, at all times, especially good at night
2. AESA radar with SAR: Allows for GTMI and foliage penetration
3. HMD: Much better at night ops than the NVGs of the A-10
4. ESM: Not only used to track SAM, AAA, fighters & etc but also ground troom electronics use (radios, etc)
5. MADL: Allows the F-35 to automatically share information without the fear of giving it's position away

The F-35 DAS can detect a missile launch/in flight from hundreds of miles distant, but it cannot necessarily "pinpoint" or derive a weapons quality solution of the launcher from those ranges. At best it can track it, and provide azimuth and elevation of the missile.

The closer the the launch point (the F-35 also detects & tracks AAA), the more accurate the F-35 can pinpoint the launch point. Multiple F-35s can compare tracks to more accurately triangulate the launch point and airborne threat.

[count_to_10]

An A-10C with the precision engagement upgrade package is not your daddy's A-10.

The only thing that that the A-10 & F-35 share (sensor wise) is a FLIR.

The F-35 also has:
1. EODAS: Sees in every direction, at all times, especially good at night
2. AESA radar with SAR: Allows for GTMI and foliage penetration
3. HMD: Much better at night ops than the NVGs of the A-10
4. ESM: Not only used to track SAM, AAA, fighters & etc but also ground troom electronics use (radios, etc)
5. MADL: Allows the F-35 to automatically share information without the fear of giving it's position away

The F-35 DAS can detect a missile launch/in flight from hundreds of miles distant, but it cannot necessarily "pinpoint" or derive a weapons quality solution of the launcher from those ranges. At best it can track it, and provide azimuth and elevation of the missile.

The closer the the launch point (the F-35 also detects & tracks AAA), the more accurate the F-35 can pinpoint the launch point. Multiple F-35s can compare tracks to more accurately triangulate the launch point and airborne threat.

Which of course is the real advance in the F-35: the fusion of sensors and platforms to maximize the usefulness of the information each sensor gathers.