AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 02:38
by maus92
This editorial is kind of a big deal:

"Instead, the cost to develop and produce the aircraft has grown to $330.5 billion, far more than the original $177.1 billion estimate (both in 2012 dollars). Projections of operating and support costs for the F-35 have escalated far beyond the estimates of 2001, and fielding is years behind the original schedule. In fact, 11 years in, the exact timings—and capability levels—for initial operation of the three variants are still uncertain.

Before going farther down this cracked and broken path, the Pentagon needs to take a hard look at the consequences. On schedule and affordability, the JSF program is already a failure. In terms of capabilities and the long-term benefits of commonality, the jury is still out. And even if the F-35 delivers on everything it promised, the world has changed since 2001."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 08.xml&p=1

RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 03:00
by Prinz_Eugn
Thanks Bill, glad they didn't bother to credit you.

Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 03:06
by popcorn
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Thanks Bill, glad they didn't bother to credit you.

Yeah, noticed that too.. :D

RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 03:47
by spazsinbad
AvWeek more like PisWeak.

RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 03:49
by hobo
A big deal how?


If that Aurora spy plane had materialized, THAT would have been a big deal.


This is just the same thing for the 100th time. Really, it isn't unreasonable, it just doesn't offer much in the way of a way forward either.

RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 04:20
by stereospace
Before I rant, full disclosure:
1. I have never been a fan of the one-size-fits-all, 3 variant F-35 on the simple design/performance rationale that when you task any machine to perform three disparate things, at best it's performance on any one of those things will always be compromised.
2. It's bad for the defense industry to be reduced to ONE active aircraft manufacturer.
3. It's bad for innovation. Who innovates against themselves?
4. It's reduces (eliminates?) competition.
5. If the one winner/survivor fails to perform, now what?

Thank the US Congress for this mess, they mandated this. Morons.

All that said, we're into this aircraft up to our necks and the services need to recapitalize their fleets. This is the aircraft we have, it is in production, it is well through testing, infrastructure is being built and training has begun. However many we end up buying, we need to procure this aircraft in numbers that make it affordable. In addition, there are partner nations invested in this aircraft who are waiting to recap their fleets as well.

We should take some hard lessons from this fiasco but we need to proceed with production. That's reality.

Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 05:08
by 1st503rdsgt
stereospace wrote:Before I rant, full disclosure:
1. I have never been a fan of the one-size-fits-all, 3 variant F-35 on the simple design/performance rationale that when you task any machine to perform three disparate things, at best it's performance on any one of those things will always be compromised.
2. It's bad for the defense industry to be reduced to ONE active aircraft manufacturer.
3. It's bad for innovation. Who innovates against themselves?
4. It's reduces (eliminates?) competition.
5. If the one winner/survivor fails to perform, now what?

Thank the US Congress for this mess, they mandated this. Morons.

All that said, we're into this aircraft up to our necks and the services need to recapitalize their fleets. This is the aircraft we have, it is in production, it is well through testing, infrastructure is being built and training has begun. However many we end up buying, we need to procure this aircraft in numbers that make it affordable. In addition, there are partner nations invested in this aircraft who are waiting to recap their fleets as well.

We should take some hard lessons from this fiasco but we need to proceed with production. That's reality.


We could have done better; we could have done cheaper; but there's no way we could have done better AND cheaper.

AV week needs to get over itself and stop being such a crybaby. The fancy UCAVs aren't gonna be here until the mid-late 2030s at the earliest (and that's being generous).

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 05:15
by munny
In news that is actually interesting ... and is news, the photo from that page shows some nice developments with the aircraft.

Looks like a more permanent fix for the tail blistering has been implemented.

Image

Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 06:53
by SpudmanWP
stereospace wrote:Before I rant, full disclosure:
1. I have never been a fan of the one-size-fits-all, 3 variant F-35 on the simple design/performance rationale that when you task any machine to perform three disparate things, at best it's performance on any one of those things will always be compromised.
2. It's bad for the defense industry to be reduced to ONE active aircraft manufacturer.
3. It's bad for innovation. Who innovates against themselves?
4. It's reduces (eliminates?) competition.
5. If the one winner/survivor fails to perform, now what?

Thank the US Congress for this mess, they mandated this. Morons.

All that said, we're into this aircraft up to our necks and the services need to recapitalize their fleets. This is the aircraft we have, it is in production, it is well through testing, infrastructure is being built and training has begun. However many we end up buying, we need to procure this aircraft in numbers that make it affordable. In addition, there are partner nations invested in this aircraft who are waiting to recap their fleets as well.

We should take some hard lessons from this fiasco but we need to proceed with production. That's reality.



It's not one size fits all, but one size (with many differences) fits most.

We still have the F-22 for air superiority, the EA-18 for Electronic Attack, etc.

btw, there was & is competitions and Boeing lost the last round. We shall see what happens in the next one or do you think that Boeing should just be handed the next round? What would that say for competition/innovation?

On the innovation against yourself issue, LM has already proved you wrong. They are consistently making announcements about new processes and capabilities that are being driven from the F-35 program. Remember the recent announcement about CNRP being introduced in the F-35 program?

And yes, on the delays and complexity I blame Congress a lot. The F-35 would have still ended up a single engine fighter though and would likely have been heavier than it is today due to not needing SWAT.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 12:47
by Conan
maus92 wrote:This editorial is kind of a big deal:

"Instead, the cost to develop and produce the aircraft has grown to $330.5 billion, far more than the original $177.1 billion estimate (both in 2012 dollars). Projections of operating and support costs for the F-35 have escalated far beyond the estimates of 2001, and fielding is years behind the original schedule. In fact, 11 years in, the exact timings—and capability levels—for initial operation of the three variants are still uncertain.

Before going farther down this cracked and broken path, the Pentagon needs to take a hard look at the consequences. On schedule and affordability, the JSF program is already a failure. In terms of capabilities and the long-term benefits of commonality, the jury is still out. And even if the F-35 delivers on everything it promised, the world has changed since 2001."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 08.xml&p=1


"Kind of a big deal"?

Ah yeah. How is this any different from Sweetman's usual tripe? In every instance he calls for xyz 4 gen aircraft to replace planned numbers of F-35's.

Just like he's doing here.

The only difference here is only one manufacturer he is pimping for (ie: the manufacturer of the Super Hornet and F-15 he wants the F-35 to compete against).

Usually it's two (Boeing and SAAB)...

Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 13:55
by sferrin
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Thanks Bill, glad they didn't bother to credit you.


No doubt he didn't want his name on it. He's getting pounded regarding his bias over on Secret Projects. :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 13:56
by sferrin
1st503rdsgt wrote:AV week needs to get over itself and stop being such a crybaby.


It's pretty much all Bill. The fact that AvWeek allows him to abuse his position in such a way is a disappointment though.

Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 14:35
by maus92
hobo wrote:A big deal how?


Unlike many blogs and forums, Aviation Week is a respected industry publication, read by the influential in industry and government worldwide. Scoffing doesn't change that dynamic.

Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 14:59
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:
hobo wrote:A big deal how?


Unlike many blogs and forums, Aviation Week is a respected industry publication, read by the influential in industry and government worldwide.


Bill is doing his best to change that.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-3

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 15:22
by spazsinbad
Bill BitterSweetman eh.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-3

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 15:24
by battleshipagincourt
I think we can all agree that a 'one size fits all' concept really cannot work. The F-35 for all intents and purposes is a high-end aircraft, meaning that it's equipped for the most technologically advanced of threats. As a result it's significantly overpriced to serve for anything other than for combat in high-threat environments.

It very well may be a cheaper alternative to the F-22, but it certainly cannot replace aircraft like the A-10 or F-16 when it comes to low-threat environments. So in the end, we're still going to be looking for replacements because the F-35 absolutely cannot replace UAV's or other cheaper alternatives for the 'low-end' operations were numbers are much more important than stealth. If a mission requires infiltrating heavily defended airspace, then an F-35 would be the best choice. For CAS and COIN operations, UAV's and A-10's are a much better choice.

While Bill may be suggesting that the F-35 can't even perform the high-end operations, he at least does have a point about the F-35 being too expensive to perform the low-end operations where UAV's and A-10's would be much more important.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 15:39
by wrightwing
battleshipagincourt wrote: It very well may be a cheaper alternative to the F-22, but it certainly cannot replace aircraft like the A-10 or F-16 when it comes to low-threat environments. So in the end, we're still going to be looking for replacements because the F-35 absolutely cannot replace UAV's or other cheaper alternatives for the 'low-end' operations were numbers are much more important than stealth. If a mission requires infiltrating heavily defended airspace, then an F-35 would be the best choice. For CAS and COIN operations, UAV's and A-10's are a much better choice.



The F-35 is certainly more expensive than an A-10, but when you compare the FRP price with that of a new build F-16 Block 50/52+(or at this point Block 60/70), with AESA, comformal tanks, targeting/jamming pods, EFTs, and other avionic/sensor/datalink improvements, then there really is a negligible price difference between the 2 aircraft. Now factor in the performance advantages that the F-35 represents, and it becomes far more obvious which COA is the better value. As for the A-10, it is certainly the preferable aircraft for strafing tanks, and taking AAA fire while loitering down in the weeds. In terms of putting ordinance on target, and situational awareness, there's no comparison though. The F-35 can get to targets further away, or in a shorter length of time than the A-10 can. That's certainly something to factor into the comparison. It can also engage more targets on a single pass, than the A-10 is able to. Additionally, the ISR capabilities of the F-35 gives the ground commanders better situational awareness as well.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 15:42
by sferrin
battleshipagincourt wrote:I think we can all agree that a 'one size fits all' concept really cannot work. The F-35 for all intents and purposes is a high-end aircraft, meaning that it's equipped for the most technologically advanced of threats. As a result it's significantly overpriced to serve for anything other than for combat in high-threat environments.

It very well may be a cheaper alternative to the F-22, but it certainly cannot replace aircraft like the A-10 or F-16 when it comes to low-threat environments. So in the end, we're still going to be looking for replacements because the F-35 absolutely cannot replace UAV's or other cheaper alternatives for the 'low-end' operations were numbers are much more important than stealth. If a mission requires infiltrating heavily defended airspace, then an F-35 would be the best choice. For CAS and COIN operations, UAV's and A-10's are a much better choice.

While Bill may be suggesting that the F-35 can't even perform the high-end operations, he at least does have a point about the F-35 being too expensive to perform the low-end operations where UAV's and A-10's would be much more important.


Funny they said the same thing about the F-15 and F-16, which is how we got the A-10. Thing is we can't afford to have a specialized aircraft for every task. So if your choice is an F-35 or an F-16 the F-35 is the obvious choice as the F-16 simply will not be survivable in many of the environments it could see in the next 40 years.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 16:20
by battleshipagincourt
sferrin wrote:Funny they said the same thing about the F-15 and F-16, which is how we got the A-10. Thing is we can't afford to have a specialized aircraft for every task. So if your choice is an F-35 or an F-16 the F-35 is the obvious choice as the F-16 simply will not be survivable in many of the environments it could see in the next 40 years.


But what if you have the choice between one F-35 or five UAV's? The F-35 simply cannot work because it can't be in five places at once, whereas UAV's have many more options. I would select having five low-end UAV's over a single F-35 for all except for high-threat environments.

So what's your point here?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 16:28
by SpudmanWP
As long as the enemy does not have SAM coverage, or ADA, or even a MANPADS, or is a time sensitive target, or a COMMS jammer, or needs a big bang, or, or, or, .....

This is not an either or situation. We have F-35s AND UAVs.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 18:46
by sferrin
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote:Funny they said the same thing about the F-15 and F-16, which is how we got the A-10. Thing is we can't afford to have a specialized aircraft for every task. So if your choice is an F-35 or an F-16 the F-35 is the obvious choice as the F-16 simply will not be survivable in many of the environments it could see in the next 40 years.


But what if you have the choice between one F-35 or five UAV's? The F-35 simply cannot work because it can't be in five places at once, whereas UAV's have many more options. I would select having five low-end UAV's over a single F-35 for all except for high-threat environments.

So what's your point here?


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

Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 19:31
by hobo
maus92 wrote:
hobo wrote:A big deal how?


Unlike many blogs and forums, Aviation Week is a respected industry publication, read by the influential in industry and government worldwide. Scoffing doesn't change that dynamic.


Please,

First off, Aviation Week is not that influential. If it were, Bill's ranting would have amounted to something by now.

Second off, that editorial didn't offer anything in the way of a realistic way forward. Launch more programs to ensure competition and preserve the industrial base, sign me up. More new airframes to fill out the force structure until the F-35 is ready to take over? Sign me up ten years ago... Who is paying btw?


The F-35 program was brought into existence in the first place because of budgetary limitations. Nobody doubts that in a perfect world a half dozen different specialized aircraft would be better.

In the real world we don't have the money to develop and sustain these hypothetical new designs and on the fastest possible timeline they would only be available sometime in the 2020s. (Depending how much concurrency, reliance on models and simulation, and risk you are willing to accept... )

Buying more 4th generation planes that would be delivered sometime in the 2014-2015 time frame at the soonest doesn't help much either.


Let me know when Bill writes an editorial that says: "I am sorry I spent years saying '5th generation is a marketing term.' " That at least would be interesting.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 19:58
by Prinz_Eugn
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote:Funny they said the same thing about the F-15 and F-16, which is how we got the A-10. Thing is we can't afford to have a specialized aircraft for every task. So if your choice is an F-35 or an F-16 the F-35 is the obvious choice as the F-16 simply will not be survivable in many of the environments it could see in the next 40 years.


But what if you have the choice between one F-35 or five UAV's? The F-35 simply cannot work because it can't be in five places at once, whereas UAV's have many more options. I would select having five low-end UAV's over a single F-35 for all except for high-threat environments.

So what's your point here?


Any drone with capabilities similar to an F-35 will cost as much as an F-35. Present-day drones are cheap because they are slow, tiny, and low-powered, etc not because of some fundamental cost advantage of moving the cockpit to a trailer rather than inside the airframe.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 20:56
by aceshigh
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). The costumers list is growing, as well as nations who show interest, a sign of confidence in LM's ability to overcome problems in the program.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 22:14
by hobo
There is an awful lot to be learned from the mistakes of the F-35 program, but it is way too late to talk about producing more 4th generation jets. We already have F-35s coming off the line at better than 30 per year. The best course of action is what we are already doing. Stretch out the 4th generation planes while working to ramp up the F-35.

I certainly would endorse the idea of launching a new fighter program in the near term if funding were available. In a perfect world honestly two programs might be launched, one at the very low end, essentially a Gripen competitor... and another at the high-end, an F-15/F-22/Strike Eagle replacement.

Of course there is no money for such a thing right now.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 22:36
by madrat
F-35 is F/A-18 class with F-15A comparable energy pushing it along. I don't think Gripen class is necessary, more so a T-38 replacement. I'd rather see them commit to an FB-111 or Tu-22M4 size bomber.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 23:14
by count_to_10
It seems to me that the "mistakes" of the F-35 program are mostly in underestimating the time and cost of developing a 5th gen aircraft.
All of the "three-in-one" issues are basically just in the structure, and that seems limited to the tail hook. Isn't the hold up at this point mostly the avionics (which you would have three times as much trouble with if you were making three totally different planes)?

Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 23:25
by Conan
maus92 wrote:
hobo wrote:A big deal how?


Unlike many blogs and forums, Aviation Week is a respected industry publication, read by the influential in industry and government worldwide. Scoffing doesn't change that dynamic.


It was. Once upon a time...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2012, 23:28
by bigjku
count_to_10 wrote:It seems to me that the "mistakes" of the F-35 program are mostly in underestimating the time and cost of developing a 5th gen aircraft.
All of the "three-in-one" issues are basically just in the structure, and that seems limited to the tail hook. Isn't the hold up at this point mostly the avionics (which you would have three times as much trouble with if you were making three totally different planes)?


I tend to agree with this. There are additional complications from certain aspects of the joint program but it is nothing too awful. This is not turning a light bomber into a fleet interceptor like the F-111 was trying to do. The fighters all have the same basic missions and aircraft like the F-4, F-18 (in different services), F-4, A-7 and others have all shown that it is just not that huge of a deal to do the carrier job and land based job on one basic airframe.

The B is the hardest of the 3 to integrate in my view and probably drove some concessions by the other models to get it done but the fact is that without putting the B in the JSF program there would be no VTOL aircraft built at all.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 00:06
by 1st503rdsgt
aceshigh wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 00:16
by sferrin
1st503rdsgt wrote:
aceshigh wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 01:38
by battleshipagincourt
sferrin wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 01:54
by sferrin
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 01:54
by 1st503rdsgt
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote: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...


Image

Not exactly the highest-threat environment. :roll:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 02:02
by battleshipagincourt
sferrin wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 02:37
by 1st503rdsgt
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 21:45
by wrightwing
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 22:09
by pushoksti
battleshipagincourt wrote: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? :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 22:10
by hb_pencil
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote: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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 01:47
by 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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 02:18
by 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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 02:25
by 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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 03:24
by sferrin
battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 03:55
by stereospace
1st503rdsgt wrote: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! :thumb:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 03:57
by 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.

AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 04:17
by battleshipagincourt
hb_pencil wrote: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.


I see that thinking isn't your strongest attribute.

Obviously any soldier on the ground would want nothing short of a top-tier aircraft supporting them whenever they get in a jam. Unfortunately in reality (somewhere you obviously don't live in) ground forces don't get everything they want when they want it because they're working with limited resources.

Supposing that money is no obstacle, yeah your perfect world scenario of always having hundreds of F-35's readily available whenever they're needed would work. Unfortunately the F-35 is extremely expensive both to procure and operate, especially compared to legacy aircraft, meaning there will be many fewer of them available for use. The idea here is to augment their limited numbers by building a series of specialized aircraft you won't be using for extreme environments. UAV's have many attributes that make them ideal for CAS operations, mainly in being unmanned and having great endurance... the F-35 fails in both.

Your petty little complaints about UAV's not being able to enter hostile airspace heavily defended by SAM's just reeks of hypocrisy. Obviously you're not going to send expensive drones into situations where you'd need F-35 survival features. Likewise you're not going to send expensive F-35's to deal with jobs that would otherwise be better suited to cheap, dedicated CAS aircraft.

Your solution here is to provide ever more expensive platforms in ever decreasing numbers to handle EVERY single air operation? I can assure you that soldiers on the ground would be infinitely more happy to get a UAV or CAS aircraft than nothing at all.

RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 04:42
by delvo
This stuff about low-intensity environments calling for low-intensity aircraft is so far from anything like making sense that it would be bewildering that anybody takes it seriously, if I were convinced that anyone actually does and isn't just being dishonest when bringing it up.

For that idea not to be completely insane would require all potential enemies to simply never become better armed than they are now, even though they already are now better armed than they were before and they're still trying to continue that trend.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 04:42
by pushoksti
battleshipagincourt wrote:UAV's have many attributes that make them ideal for CAS operations, mainly in being unmanned and having great endurance... the F-35 fails in both.


You really are drinking some strong koolaid. :lol: :lol:

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 04:52
by popcorn
Even a third-world AF flying piston-engined fighters would,use a Reaper for target practice.

Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 05:00
by battleshipagincourt
delvo wrote:This stuff about low-intensity environments calling for low-intensity aircraft is so far from anything like making sense that it would be bewildering that anybody takes it seriously, if I were convinced that anyone actually does and isn't just being dishonest when bringing it up.

For that idea not to be completely insane would require all potential enemies to simply never become better armed than they are now, even though they already are now better armed than they were before and they're still trying to continue that trend.


And likewise we're every bit as capable of building more effective drones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger

Try something that has most of the survival features of the F-35 at only one fifth its cost. This isn't insanity. Thinking you can build a super-expensive fighter to perform every task in the USAF because they've got an unlimited budget... THAT is insanity.

Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 05:13
by velocityvector
Try something that has most of the survival features of the F-35 at only one fifth its cost. This isn't insanity. Thinking you can build a super-expensive fighter to perform every task in the USAF because they've got an unlimited budget... THAT is insanity.


Wisdom.

Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 05:51
by 1st503rdsgt
sferrin wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Thanks Bill, glad they didn't bother to credit you.


No doubt he didn't want his name on it. He's getting pounded regarding his bias over on Secret Projects. :lol:


Regarding the ideas in this article for increasing competition, someone over there compared it to "trying to make your girlfriend jealous by making-out with the dog."

Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 05:59
by 1st503rdsgt
velocityvector wrote:
Try something that has most of the survival features of the F-35 at only one fifth its cost. This isn't insanity. Thinking you can build a super-expensive fighter to perform every task in the USAF because they've got an unlimited budget... THAT is insanity.


Wisdom.


Obfuscation.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 06:31
by hb_pencil
battleshipagincourt wrote:
hb_pencil wrote: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.


I see that thinking isn't your strongest attribute.

Obviously any soldier on the ground would want nothing short of a top-tier aircraft supporting them whenever they get in a jam. Unfortunately in reality (somewhere you obviously don't live in) ground forces don't get everything they want when they want it because they're working with limited resources.

Supposing that money is no obstacle, yeah your perfect world scenario of always having hundreds of F-35's readily available whenever they're needed would work. Unfortunately the F-35 is extremely expensive both to procure and operate, especially compared to legacy aircraft, meaning there will be many fewer of them available for use. The idea here is to augment their limited numbers by building a series of specialized aircraft you won't be using for extreme environments. UAV's have many attributes that make them ideal for CAS operations, mainly in being unmanned and having great endurance... the F-35 fails in both.

Your petty little complaints about UAV's not being able to enter hostile airspace heavily defended by SAM's just reeks of hypocrisy. Obviously you're not going to send expensive drones into situations where you'd need F-35 survival features. Likewise you're not going to send expensive F-35's to deal with jobs that would otherwise be better suited to cheap, dedicated CAS aircraft.

Your solution here is to provide ever more expensive platforms in ever decreasing numbers to handle EVERY single air operation? I can assure you that soldiers on the ground would be infinitely more happy to get a UAV or CAS aircraft than nothing at all.


I see reading comprehension is not yours.

Its not even a question of what is "better." Its a question of safety. UCAV CAS is viewed as being dangerous to the troops on the ground, particularly during close contact. Limited situational awareness during troops in contact is a recipe for disaster. You can say whatever you want, it doesn't change the reality. I've spoken to the warfighter in this case at various levels and while there is some room in Type 2 CAS for UAVs there is deep resistance for it to be undertaken by UCAVs.

This isn't about the F-35. I think in low threat environments aircraft like the Super Tucano and Hawker II are completely acceptable substitutes, as is A-10. However in any environment, UCAVs are seen as being too risky to be an acceptable substitute. Maybe in 20 years that might change. However its not the case now nor will it be in the immediate future.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 06:53
by velocityvector
However in any environment, UCAVs are seen as being too risky to be an acceptable substitute.


Assuming this to be true, UCAVs may be perceived thusly because warfighters have zero direct operational experience with modern ones. Troops have never knowingly had contact with them. What is publicly fielded now is primative by comparison and the technology in use predates the war in Kosovo. When the moment is ripe, and it won't be anywhere near 20 years from today, the warfighter is going to kiss his sweet **** and thank God somebody was planning beyond his vision and the stars aligned. F-35 has a role but its purchase numbers need to be radically reduced for U.S. buys in favor of new UCAVs.

See you and raise you one Paul Ryan.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 07:28
by hb_pencil
velocityvector wrote:
However in any environment, UCAVs are seen as being too risky to be an acceptable substitute.


Assuming this to be true, UCAVs may be perceived thusly because warfighters have zero direct operational experience with modern ones. Troops have never knowingly had contact with them. What is publicly fielded now is primative by comparison and the technology in use predates the war in Kosovo. When the moment is ripe, and it won't be anywhere near 20 years from today, the warfighter is going to kiss his sweet **** and thank God somebody was planning beyond his vision and the stars aligned. F-35 has a role but its purchase numbers need to be radically reduced for U.S. buys in favor of new UCAVs.

See you and raise you one Paul Ryan.


That isn't the case however. As I noted in the first response, there have been incidents concerning UCAVs like the April 4th 2011 death of two marines and god knows how many other incidents where poor targeting resulted in collateral damage or the wrong target being hit altogether.

And this is not just the "man on the ground" that has expressed this views. Its a common view, that you can even see in congressional committees. That's not at all diminishing the role that UAVs and UCAVs will play. I've stated that it will be a mix of systems including UAVs, but with the F-35 or another manned platform retaining a central role. That won't change for a very long time.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 14:52
by sferrin
redbird87 wrote:I think we should remember, the last high intensity conflict any (non Israeli) US built fighter participated in, ended in 1945.


Guess you never heard of the Vietnam War or Desert Storm. :roll:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other op

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 16:45
by rkap
sferrin
Guess you never heard of the Vietnam War or Desert Storm


And what would have been the purpose of the F35 in Vietnam. Apart from the 100 or so Mig17's and Mig21's they had I would hardly call it a high intensity War from an aircraft point of view. They would be OK to get on top of an enemies Airforce at the beginning and then as far as I can see there role would be finished.

You would you use them to bomb Hanoi with there small bomb load? Too risky with 1-1.5 million rifles pointing at the sky. They would be more vulnerable than the B52's and F4's of the time to that sort of intense small arms fire.

They may have a limited role in ground support but most of the time would be useless there also. Most times the enemy would be gone by the time they took off [because they can't loiter] and got to the target and fired an expensive stand off weapon at an almost invisible enemy. {Stealthy enemy]. Even if IR signatures were picked up in the jungle there would be no way of knowing who were enemy and who were not. They would have to rely on co-ordinates fed to them by the troops in the middle of the fight. For every 10 missiles launched they might be lucky to get one enemy if the troops were desperate enough to call them in. Accidents happened often in Vietnam even with visual targeting - bombs ended up on the friendly forces instead of the enemy since they were often very close together. In Vietnam with visual sighting troops were reluctant to call for air support as the chances of getting a bomb on top of yourself was too great. It would not be better with an F35 standing off or flying high. Most of the time in Vietnam troops simply patrolled within artillery range if possible as it was more accurate and immediately available if ambushed etc.

Nothing would be any different today in a similar situation. 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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 17:10
by 1st503rdsgt
rkap wrote:And what would have been the purpose of the F35 in Vietnam...


Gave up after that. :roll:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 18:08
by sferrin
1st503rdsgt wrote:
rkap wrote:And what would have been the purpose of the F35 in Vietnam...


Gave up after that. :roll:


Yeah, pretty hilarious. "Aside from hundreds of fighters and thousands of SAMs. . ." :lmao:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 19:13
by wrightwing
megasun wrote: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.


How many A-10/Predators do you imagine are in the inventory?

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 19:28
by wrightwing
battleshipagincourt wrote:
I see that thinking isn't your strongest attribute.


Pot, this is Kettle. Come in.....over.


Supposing that money is no obstacle, yeah your perfect world scenario of always having hundreds of F-35's readily available whenever they're needed would work. Unfortunately the F-35 is extremely expensive both to procure and operate, especially compared to legacy aircraft, meaning there will be many fewer of them available for use.


Can you provide us with some statistics on the sortie rates we can expect, versus what it now available? I'd also like to see some figures where the operating costs are compared, and how that will affect the availability rates.



The idea here is to augment their limited numbers by building a series of specialized aircraft you won't be using for extreme environments. UAV's have many attributes that make them ideal for CAS operations, mainly in being unmanned and having great endurance... the F-35 fails in both.

Your petty little complaints about UAV's not being able to enter hostile airspace heavily defended by SAM's just reeks of hypocrisy. Obviously you're not going to send expensive drones into situations where you'd need F-35 survival features. Likewise you're not going to send expensive F-35's to deal with jobs that would otherwise be better suited to cheap, dedicated CAS aircraft.

Your solution here is to provide ever more expensive platforms in ever decreasing numbers to handle EVERY single air operation? I can assure you that soldiers on the ground would be infinitely more happy to get a UAV or CAS aircraft than nothing at all.


You're very good at creating false dichotomies. We're not faced with choosing whether to buy F-35s, or UAVs. We'll be acquiring both. The A-10 will be in service for 25-30 more years. We can address this issue again, once we have an idea of the threats, that we can expect in that time frame.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 04:35
by redbird87
sferrin wrote:
redbird87 wrote:I think we should remember, the last high intensity conflict any (non Israeli) US built fighter participated in, ended in 1945.


Guess you never heard of the Vietnam War or Desert Storm. :roll:



Buddy, you just whiffed bad. Viet Nam was a Low Intensity Conflict by definition: A low intensity conflict is the use of military forces applied selectively and with restraint to enforce compliance with the policies or objectives of the political body controlling the military force. The term can be used to describe conflicts where at least one or both of the opposing parties operate along such lines.

Did we carpet bomb and totally flatten every major urban population center in North Viet Nam aka Tokyo and Dressden? No, we restrained (unfortunately).

The same applies to Baghdad. This is on the strategic level. On the tactical level, Viet Nam was largely a insurgency / counter insurgency. You could view the 120 hours of Desert Storm as a high intensity conflict on the tactical level, but that is moot in this argument. You could have literally replaced every F-15/16/18/111, and Tornado with P-47s and it would not have altered the final outcome of the conflict. The few Iraqi jets were no threat to our log bases due to the Patriot/Aegis umbrella. The swarm of P-47s would have simply destroyed their small jet force on the ground. They had no counter for AH-64s at night, or A-10s during the day. Again, that hypothetical swarm of P-47s would have been very effective firing up Iraqi ground forces.

Furthermore, no air circumstance in Desert Storm was going to change the fact that Iraqi main gun tank rounds could not penetrate M-1 tank armor. Their BMPs were no match for our Bradleys. Our ground force vs theirs was like a fully armed and armored SEAL team in a firefight against a 3rd grade class armed with .22 pistols. It was THAT one-sided.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 08:19
by velocityvector
there have been incidents concerning UCAVs like the April 4th 2011 death of two marines and god knows how many other incidents where poor targeting resulted in collateral damage or the wrong target being hit altogether.


Manned aircraft have failed this way throughout their history. When a machine mucks up, you can teach every one of them in their category the same lesson and, consistently, they will not repeat the same mistake. This teaching and consistency are impossible to repeat with human pilots. You are re-arguing horse and buggy. I appreciate your nostalgia. I drink your milkshake.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 08:36
by hb_pencil
redbird87 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
redbird87 wrote:I think we should remember, the last high intensity conflict any (non Israeli) US built fighter participated in, ended in 1945.


Guess you never heard of the Vietnam War or Desert Storm. :roll:



Buddy, you just whiffed bad. Viet Nam was a Low Intensity Conflict by definition: A low intensity conflict is the use of military forces applied selectively and with restraint to enforce compliance with the policies or objectives of the political body controlling the military force. The term can be used to describe conflicts where at least one or both of the opposing parties operate along such lines.


That's not a low intensity operation, nor is that a definition I have ever seen. Ultimately, the conduct of all wars are determined by the policies and objectives of a political body. That's the basis of Clauswitz's most famous dictum (war is a policy by other means) and the fundamental core of Samuel Huntington's text the Soldier and the State.

By your logic, I could argue that Korea was a low intensity operation because the United States didn't utilize nuclear weapons or apply its full military might. The United States deployed more troops and military capabilities to Vietnam than they ever did during the Korean conflict.

Certainly the war in South Vietnam was a counterinsurgency. However the US military did not really understand that. It largely fought it using operational and tactical concepts derived from conventional operations (See Krepinevich) And that was only one part of the war. No state deploys 600,000 troops or flies 5,000 strike sorties a month and describes that a "low intensity." They were running one to three major strikes into Vietnam from 1966 to 1968, and dropping more ordinance than in WWII. There operations were over denied territory, and were constantly under threat from SAMs and North Vietnamese Air Defenses. The vietnamese deployed hundreds of SA-2s, ten of thousands of AAA batteries and hundreds of fighters to oppose american raids.

redbird87 wrote:Did we carpet bomb and totally flatten every major urban population center in North Viet Nam aka Tokyo and Dressden? No, we restrained (unfortunately).


Uh, with the exception of Hanoi, the United States basically did. They literally demolished the Vietnamese economic infrastructure to an similar extent to germany, targeting power plants, factories and transportation networks.

redbird87 wrote:The same applies to Baghdad. This is on the strategic level. On the tactical level, Viet Nam was largely a insurgency / counter insurgency. You could view the 120 hours of Desert Storm as a high intensity conflict on the tactical level, but that is moot in this argument. You could have literally replaced every F-15/16/18/111, and Tornado with P-47s and it would not have altered the final outcome of the conflict. The few Iraqi jets were no threat to our log bases due to the Patriot/Aegis umbrella. The swarm of P-47s would have simply destroyed their small jet force on the ground. They had no counter for AH-64s at night, or A-10s during the day. Again, that hypothetical swarm of P-47s would have been very effective firing up Iraqi ground forces.


I'm sorry, that does not even come close to the reality of Vietnam. The United States Air Force lost over 1700 aircraft due to combat during Vietnam (Thompson: to Hanoi and back, 310), the Navy, 520. If losing 2200 aircraft isn't considered "high intensity" then I don't know what will.

The lethality of North Vietnamese Air defences forced the Navy to withdraw the Skyraider from service in 1967, because it was getting chewed up too hard. So no, vietnam was an extremely intense war for the air services, which were the key instrument to forcing the north Vietnamese leadership to capitulate.




redbird87 wrote:Furthermore, no air circumstance in Desert Storm was going to change the fact that Iraqi main gun tank rounds could not penetrate M-1 tank armor. Their BMPs were no match for our Bradleys. Our ground force vs theirs was like a fully armed and armored SEAL team in a firefight against a 3rd grade class armed with .22 pistols. It was THAT one-sided.


It was that one sided because Air power had basically eliminated the Iraqi Army's ability to fight. Without fuel, communications or ammunition, the Iraqi army could not put up a fight. With those goods, they would have been more able to resist US forces and inflict serious casualties.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 08:55
by hb_pencil
velocityvector wrote:
there have been incidents concerning UCAVs like the April 4th 2011 death of two marines and god knows how many other incidents where poor targeting resulted in collateral damage or the wrong target being hit altogether.


Manned aircraft have failed this way throughout their history. When a machine mucks up, you can teach every one of them in their category the same lesson and, consistently, they will not repeat the same mistake.


The evidence from Afghanistan and Pakistan overwhelmingly suggests otherwise, with the hundreds of civilian casualties in Pakistan alone over a decade of combat. At the end of the day UCAVs are piloted and controlled humans, not machines. The situational awareness on UCAVs remains quite limited (and will for some time), which is a significant limitation for CAS work.

velocityvector wrote:This teaching and consistency are impossible to repeat with human pilots. You are re-arguing horse and buggy. I appreciate your nostalgia. I drink your milkshake.


How old are you with that insult, 12?

Actually, don't answer... because frankly I'm done with this argument. I'm sure you know better than pilots, troops, JTACS and the military which actually deals with this on a day to day basis.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 18:21
by redbird87
redbird87 wrote:Furthermore, no air circumstance in Desert Storm was going to change the fact that Iraqi main gun tank rounds could not penetrate M-1 tank armor. Their BMPs were no match for our Bradleys. Our ground force vs theirs was like a fully armed and armored SEAL team in a firefight against a 3rd grade class armed with .22 pistols. It was THAT one-sided.


HB -
It was that one sided because Air power had basically eliminated the Iraqi Army's ability to fight. Without fuel, communications or ammunition, the Iraqi army could not put up a fight. With those goods, they would have been more able to resist US forces and inflict serious casualties.


I won't argue Viet Nam further, but it is not considered a high intensity conflict by the military and those who write doctrine. You do make good points on the number of aircraft lost.

As for desert storm, if we had not launched A SINGLE SORTIE prior to crossing the berm, it would not have altered that fact that the Iraqi regulars and Republican Guard had absolutely no answer for the M-1s, AH-64s, A-10s and even those hypothetical P-47s I mentioned. It may have lasted 300 or 400 hundred hours instead of 100, but the end result still would have been a total route. No pre-invasion air campaign (or lack there of) was going to change the fact that the Iraqi tanks could not penetrate an M-1's armor, could not see and engage at night or in dust storms, and were out ranged by 2000 meters. Their ground forces were defenseless against AH-64s/Cobras, A-10s and would also have been defenseless vs those scores of hypothetical P-47s. If you argue these facts are false, you only prove to us that you know very little about maneuver warfare and the equipment and training level of both sides in this conflict.

Yes there would have been more casualties. I am not saying the air campaign was not very helpful. I am saying this level of opponent (the 4th largest military in the world at that time by some sources) can be defeated, rather easily in this case, without the level of investment the F-35 is consuming.

As for true high intensity conflicts, greater investment in F-22 and Virgina class subs would be more cost effective options to ensure victory. Even the most dominant naval aviator of all time, Admiral Halsey, ranked the submarine higher that carrier air power as the most valuable asset in defeating the Japanese. That is relevant since the Pacific is the most likely theater for such a conflict in the near future.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 18:38
by 1st503rdsgt
redbird87 wrote:...would also have been defenseless vs those scores of hypothetical P-47s.


Looks like bronc is back. :roll:

I bet they could put one hell of an AESA into the nose of a *hypothetical* B-29; and just think of all the AMRAAMs one could get into the internal bays! :lmao:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other op

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 18:47
by quicksilver
Revisionist fantasy.

Ever ponder how all those P-47s or those maneuver forces might have defended themselves against attack from the air, or how that penetration of the berm might have gone in the face of massed indirect fires? Ever wonder how those P-47s would have taken out Iragi command and control, airfields, and the supply network that supported forces in Kuwait?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other op

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 19:07
by count_to_10
Important note: tank armor isn't perfect. Just because and enemy "can't penetrate" your tank's main forward armor doesn't mean they cant kill your tank, it just means that you might survive a few hits.
Also, my understanding is that the Iraqis had a number of AA guns that would have shredded P-47s.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 19:27
by redbird87
quicksilver wrote:Revisionist fantasy.

Ever ponder how all those P-47s or those maneuver forces might have defended themselves against attack from the air, or how that penetration of the berm might have gone in the face of massed indirect fires? Ever wonder how those P-47s would have taken out Iragi command and control, airfields, and the supply network that supported forces in Kuwait?


Of course. The hypothetical, if you go back and read it, is what would happen if we had replaced every single teen series fighter and Tornado with P-47s.

1. It did not include doing away with B-1s, B-2s, B-52s (with cruise missiles), submarine and ship launched cruise missiles. Those assets themselves could have destroyed or severely degraded the meager Iraqi air force on the ground. Patriot, Aegis, and Avenger/Stinger based systems would still have been in place as well.

2. To further complete the destruction of the Iraqi air force, scores of night vision capable P-47s (the ones replacing the teen series fighters) would have ravaged the Iraqi air force on the ground. Yes possibly with significant losses.

3. As for artillery, you seem to forget the massive advantage we had in artillery range, accuracy, and counter battery ability. Furthermore, we owned the night. The AH-64s, and night vision capable A-10 and P-47 would again have ravaged the DAGs and AAGs.

I am not saying replacing all the F-15, F-16, F-18, and Tornados with modernized P-47s would have been near as good as keeping the jets. I am saying, emphatically, it would not have changed who won the conflict. Period. The biggest advantage at the operational level would not have changed. That was our ability to synchronize all the combat power assets available (whatever they were) at critical points like artillery masses or airfields. The Iraqis sucked at this art of war. We excelled at it.

At the tactical level, once ground forces made contact, the technological, training, and will to fight advantages our forces had would still have been the decisive factor. The Iraqi air force just wasn't large enough or lethal enough to dictate another outcome, even with the disadvantage imposed in this hypothetical.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 19:43
by 1st503rdsgt
Substitute "Skyraider" for "P-47" and it's deja vu all over again. :roll:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 19:47
by redbird87
1st503rdsgt wrote:Substitute "Skyraider" for "P-47" and it's deja vu all over again. :roll:


I thought about that, and F-86s as well, but to prove the point, I took it back as far as possible.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 20:03
by 1st503rdsgt
redbird87 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Substitute "Skyraider" for "P-47" and it's deja vu all over again. :roll:


I thought about that, and F-86s as well, but to prove the point, I took it back as far as possible.


Of course you did. :wink:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 21:55
by sferrin
redbird87 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
redbird87 wrote:I think we should remember, the last high intensity conflict any (non Israeli) US built fighter participated in, ended in 1945.


Guess you never heard of the Vietnam War or Desert Storm. :roll:



Buddy, you just whiffed bad. .


Given that the US lost several THOUSAND aircraft in Vietnam might I suggest you might want to look up the meaning of "whiffed".

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore other op

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 22:55
by 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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 23:01
by 1st503rdsgt
Prinz_Eugn wrote: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. :D

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

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 23:24
by 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"

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 04:37
by delvo
Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 05:00
by spazsinbad
Gargle this string: 'ZSU meaning Vietnam War' for some ZSU info.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 15:10
by sewerrat
rkap wrote:
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 16:22
by rkap
1st503rdsgt wrote:Gave up after that. :roll:

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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 16:53
by 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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 17:19
by count_to_10
rkap wrote:
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 17:27
by 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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 17:39
by maus92
delvo wrote:Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...


Russian self propelled radar directed AAA?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 18:00
by maus92
sewerrat wrote:
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.

sewerrat wrote:
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 18:02
by 1st503rdsgt
rkap wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Gave up after that. :roll:

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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 18:14
by SpudmanWP
maus92 wrote: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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 18:19
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:
maus92 wrote: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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 18:44
by sferrin
Some of these posts are almost painful to read.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 21:40
by maus92
Which of course is not unique to the F-35 platform: multiple sensors can be "fused' at different levels in the food chain.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 21:51
by SpudmanWP
And until that happens, this is a unique feature to the F-35.

Besides, we are talking about the A-10 and F-35. It is highly unlikely that the A-10 will ever get an AESA radar, EODAS, a decent ESM, or the computing power to fuse it all together.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 22:17
by maus92
And it is also highly unlikely that the F-35 will ever be less than 10 times the cost of an A-10.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 23:03
by SpudmanWP
THe A-10 was $12 mil in '94 dollars. Throw in inflation and the C upgrades and you are looking at $20 million in 2012 dollars. The latest SAR puts the average BY(FY2012) Unit Cost of the F-35A at a little over $87 mil ($75 mil for the plane & $12 for the engine) .

That is a little less than 5x the cost, well below your 10x

In case you are wondering, the Unit Cost (Full Flyaway, not REC) of the latest F-35A was only $160, $40 mil short of being 10x as expensive as the A-10C.

In other words, the F-35A is already less than 10x the Unit Cost of an A-10C (apples-to-apples).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 23:20
by sferrin
maus92 wrote:And it is also highly unlikely that the F-35 will ever be less than 10 times the cost of an A-10.


The A-10s produciton line is *gone*. And you can be certain that if we built more today they'd cost a HELL of a lot more than $20 million. They'd want composite everything ($$$$), better sensors, better avionics. You'd be *lucky* if it came in at less than $50 million.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 02:48
by redbird87
maus92 wrote:
delvo wrote:Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...


Russian self propelled radar directed AAA?


Yes, I have operated a ASET-IV sim mod of them in training. Great system assuming the aircraft are using a WWII era ordnance suite. Like it's US counterpart, the ground based Vulcan, it's marginally effective at best if the weapons release envelope of the aircraft is outside its effective range fan. Furthermore, based on the level of training of the rest of the Iraqi army and their total inability to coordinate a professional and integrated air defense grid (even prior to getting their C2 taken out) ZSUs would not have mattered much. They are great in a ground support role though.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 03:18
by 1st503rdsgt
redbird87 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
delvo wrote:Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...


Russian self propelled radar directed AAA?


Yes, I have operated a ASET-IV sim mod of them in training. Great system assuming the aircraft are using a WWII era ordnance suite. Like it's US counterpart, the ground based Vulcan, it's marginally effective at best if the weapons release envelope of the aircraft is outside its effective range fan. Furthermore, based on the level of training of the rest of the Iraqi army and their total inability to coordinate a professional and integrated air defense grid (even prior to getting their C2 taken out) ZSUs would not have mattered much. They are great in a ground support role though.


I seem to recall the ZSU working quite well against post-WWII ordnance suites. BTW, I'm guessing the Iraqi Army's inability to coordinate air defenses probably had something to that pre-invasion air-campaign you said was so unnecessary. You know... the one that used all that post-Vietnam hardware that you've also said is unnecessary in other posts.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 03:57
by madrat
ZSU-23-4 was pretty deadly in Grenada and Iraq. Sometimes they come out of nowhere.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 04:12
by redbird87
1st503rdsgt wrote:
redbird87 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
delvo wrote:Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...


Russian self propelled radar directed AAA?


Yes, I have operated a ASET-IV sim mod of them in training. Great system assuming the aircraft are using a WWII era ordnance suite. Like it's US counterpart, the ground based Vulcan, it's marginally effective at best if the weapons release envelope of the aircraft is outside its effective range fan. Furthermore, based on the level of training of the rest of the Iraqi army and their total inability to coordinate a professional and integrated air defense grid (even prior to getting their C2 taken out) ZSUs would not have mattered much. They are great in a ground support role though.


I seem to recall the ZSU working quite well against post-WWII ordnance suites. BTW, I'm guessing the Iraqi Army's inability to coordinate air defenses probably had something to that pre-invasion air-campaign you said was so unnecessary. You know... the one that used all that post-Vietnam hardware that you've also said is unnecessary in other posts.


You are giving way too much credit to the Iraqis. Again, if not a single bomb was dropped pre-invasion, it would not have altered who won that war. Just like, the thousands upon thousands of tonnes that were dropped in Viet Nam did not determine who won there. The same held true with the Russians in Afghanistan. In all three cases, the side with the greater will to prevail, did. The Iraqis had very little will to win in desert storm. Sure the air campaign exacerbated this fact, but it did not create it. They were simple an incompetent force. And no, the Russians and Americans were not "incompetent" in the other two conflicts. But it is true the side with the greater will to win, did. And that fact could not be altered by air power.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 04:40
by 1st503rdsgt
redbird87 wrote:You are giving way too much credit to the Iraqis. Again, if not a single bomb was dropped pre-invasion, it would not have altered who won that war.


Yes, we probably could have still won; nevertheless...

Image

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 07:14
by Prinz_Eugn
redbird87 wrote:You are giving way too much credit to the Iraqis. Again, if not a single bomb was dropped pre-invasion, it would not have altered who won that war. Just like, the thousands upon thousands of tonnes that were dropped in Viet Nam did not determine who won there. The same held true with the Russians in Afghanistan. In all three cases, the side with the greater will to prevail, did. The Iraqis had very little will to win in desert storm. Sure the air campaign exacerbated this fact, but it did not create it. They were simple an incompetent force. And no, the Russians and Americans were not "incompetent" in the other two conflicts. But it is true the side with the greater will to win, did. And that fact could not be altered by air power.


Like we've been saying, we would have won, but it would have been far more costly for the allied ground forces. You're not giving enough credit to either the Iraqis, who were significantly more experienced thanks to that decade-long war with Iran, or to the Coalition air forces that made the complete steamroll on the ground possible.

Oh, and:
http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gul ... 20Campaign
The carefully planned, large-scale SEAD operation, begun during the opening moments of the war, was successful. During the latter part of the war, many sites not destroyed by HARMs or bombs were wary about turning on radars for fear of being attacked. Although some target-acquisition and target-track radars were not destroyed, enemy radar activity decreased as the war progressed; consequently, the number of HARMs fired also declined. The captured commander of an Iraqi armored unit stated a fear of instant retaliation if his radars or radios were turned on. With this disruption of SAM and AAA radars, Coalition forces were able to operate at medium to high altitudes, staying out of the low altitude, highly lethal AAA and infrared (IR) SAM environment. SEAD helped degrade air defense capabilities and command links, stopping the effective flow of information throughout the Iraqi chain of command.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 12:32
by count_to_10
maus92 wrote:Which of course is not unique to the F-35 platform: multiple sensors can be "fused' at different levels in the food chain.

"Can be", but not without spending as much money on research as is being spent on the F-35. Granted, we may see it start to retro-fitted to legacy aircraft, but only after it has been worked out for the F=35, and only if the legacy aircraft have the processing power for it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 04:02
by wrightwing
redbird87 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
delvo wrote:Actually, ZSU doesn't mean anything to me...


Russian self propelled radar directed AAA?


Yes, I have operated a ASET-IV sim mod of them in training. Great system assuming the aircraft are using a WWII era ordnance suite. Like it's US counterpart, the ground based Vulcan, it's marginally effective at best if the weapons release envelope of the aircraft is outside its effective range fan. Furthermore, based on the level of training of the rest of the Iraqi army and their total inability to coordinate a professional and integrated air defense grid (even prior to getting their C2 taken out) ZSUs would not have mattered much. They are great in a ground support role though.


Crapola! The ZSUs have a pretty fearsome reputation against fast movers and slow movers alike.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 05:05
by SpudmanWP
One nice thing about EODOS is that it tracks AAA and tells you where it's headed.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 13:17
by rkap
SpudmanWP Red air still lost more that 6:1etc.

What has that got to do with intercepting F35's with 4+ aircraft. No mention was made of who would win.
There are millions of "what if scenarios" that could happen and "what if's".
The simple point is if late Flankers or any 4+ or 4++ were trying to intercept an F35 or any Stealth aircraft they had a rough position on they would not go up to intercept in a tight formation. They would fly WIDE and if possible approach from different angles. That was the point.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 15:38
by rkap
1st503rdsgt
The rest of your post is the long-winded ramble of a trolling armchair tactician.

"Complicated maneuver" - Your words - the scenario at the time assumed the enemy would know roughly where the F35's were and they were coming.

CAS - I am talking specific situations - Vietnam type - Jungle warfare -often wet and raining. Not my opinion - the opinion of those who served in Vietnam. Me -100 days+ on extended patrols in the field. Generally 20 day+ patrols - 36 day training camp every year. Maybe 10% parade ground work. Most of the units in the 2 Battalions were rated ready for action with a 6 week final training period. All units included many ex full time Soldiers in the Unit who had served in Vietnam etc. All our field instructors had spent time in Vietnam or other Wars[49RQR - "Bush Soldier Regiment"].
Fast jet ground support was generally ineffective in Vietnam - all experts agree and yes many friends served there.
From what I read I am fairly certain the F35 in that sort of terrain and weather will not be able to get reliable IR signatures to use its stand off weapons from a distance. If am wrong hopefully there is an expert in this area on the forum who can enlighten all of us if IR signatures will be distinct and reliable in hilly to mountainous jungle type conditions with rain or if it will have other ways of targeting ground targets accurately and safely for friendly troops. Somehow despite all its sensors etc. I think it will have trouble if conditions are not good.

Even in Afghanistan in more recent times "fast Jets" have not proved effective in strongly defended situations" with mountains around etc. Early in the Afghan War it was a slow AC130 Gunship that saved the day in "Shahi Kot Valley - the Taliban stronghold" when coalition forces almost ended up in trouble similar to Russian forces who lost 600 men when they tried to take the valley. From what I read coalition forces were withing hours of meeting the same fate until the AC130 arrived. The " F15's, Hornets etc. using stand off weapons were not much help at all. There and gone - miss and they could not do another run etc. Especially after a few "Stingers" came up at them when they ventured in close. [The A10 I talk about is not the A10 of 1977. It would need upgrades.]
All this not my opinion - the opinion of those who served in Vietnam and those who were in the Shahi Kot Valley and thought they would die. Are you calling them "armchair tacticians".

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 16:47
by SpudmanWP
rkap wrote:
SpudmanWP Red air still lost more that 6:1etc.

What has that got to do with intercepting F35's with 4+ aircraft. No mention was made of who would win.
There are millions of "what if scenarios" that could happen and "what if's".
The simple point is if late Flankers or any 4+ or 4++ were trying to intercept an F35 or any Stealth aircraft they had a rough position on they would not go up to intercept in a tight formation. They would fly WIDE and if possible approach from different angles. That was the point.

My point was that when experienced pilots ran both Red and Blue using simulators (not computer based sims) then RED did not stand a chance.

Proper tactics and SA is more important than raw performance.

In your scenario F-35s would not likely fly towards a target covered by "anti-stealth" radar and backed up by 4.5+ gen fighters without having a plan to deal with those two issues.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 18:38
by 1st503rdsgt
rkap wrote:...the scenario at the time assumed the enemy would know roughly where the F35's were...


Not good enough; and once again, the rest of your post is still an outdated, armchair ramble. I don't really care if you sometimes played 'army' out in the woods.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 20:18
by wrightwing
rkap wrote:
SpudmanWP Red air still lost more that 6:1etc.

What has that got to do with intercepting F35's with 4+ aircraft. No mention was made of who would win.
There are millions of "what if scenarios" that could happen and "what if's".
The simple point is if late Flankers or any 4+ or 4++ were trying to intercept an F35 or any Stealth aircraft they had a rough position on they would not go up to intercept in a tight formation. They would fly WIDE and if possible approach from different angles. That was the point.


And the F-35s would also utilize formations, that maximized their advantages.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 20:59
by spazsinbad
'wrightwing' said: "And the F-35s would also utilize formations, that maximized their advantages." Just on your point (agree) did you note that MADL was tested successfully recently? See the latest LM Fast Facts [ http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/ ... 5-2012.pdf ]

"On August 1, the first air-to-air MADL exchange between two F-35s was performed between AF-3 and AF-6."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 01:05
by count_to_10
rkap, you are talking about situations were any CAS is basically useless. If the F-35 can't see something at several miles range, no other aircraft is going to see it at close range.

Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 02:32
by velocityvector
count_to_10 wrote:rkap, you are talking about situations were any CAS is basically useless. If the F-35 can't see something at several miles range, no other aircraft is going to see it at close range.

Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting the enemy given dwell-time opportunities. A fast-mover dependent on a single human pilot aboard, even with F-35 surveillance capabilities, may be at a distinct disadvantage in discovering a well-concealed enemy vice other platforms. Now if you can get a flight of F-35 wagon training over a suspected target and sharing information possibly with slower systems involved, well, that could be better. It all depends.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 04:16
by popcorn
In this engagement, 5 pairs of UK-issue Mk-1 eyeballs (3 onthe Lynx and 2 on the Gazelle) were nearly at a loss to locate and neutralize a single Iraqi T-55 that was very happily taking potshots at the former, despite flying low and slow. It's a 5-part series for those interested.

[youtube] http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=gVWprfX7 ... VWprfX7XHM[/youtube]

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 14:50
by wrightwing
The F-35s IR sensors may not detect targets, if the moisture content obscures signatures, but its SAR/GMTI should be able to see them. If one of these obscured weapon systems opens fire, then the EODAS will see that, and then all other F-35s in the area, will know the location.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 15:53
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:The F-35s IR sensors may not detect targets, if the moisture content obscures signatures, but its SAR/GMTI should be able to see them. If one of these obscured weapon systems opens fire, then the EODAS will see that, and then all other F-35s in the area, will know the location.


Hopefully JAGM gets built offering another fire-and-forget option to the F-35's quiver. Brimstone and SPEAR are slated,for the UK jets eventually. It must have seemed like an eternity to the Lynx crew having to hover vulnerably while waiting for their TOW to reach it's target.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 16:30
by maus92
popcorn wrote:In this engagement, 5 pairs of UK-issue Mk-1 eyeballs (3 onthe Lynx and 2 on the Gazelle) were nearly at a loss to locate and neutralize a single Iraqi T-55 that was very happily taking potshots at the former, despite flying low and slow. It's a 5-part series for those interested.

[youtube] http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=gVWprfX7 ... VWprfX7XHM[/youtube]


Maybe if they were flying Longbow Apaches, it would have been a different story. Their FCR share targeting data interflight, and with other nodes.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 20:47
by avon1944
I have often wondered why the design hasn't been frozen and each variant be pursued independently. The F/A 18 program eventually was stopped in the conversion of the F/A-18A-D to the F/A-18E/F. Gawd, even congress got the message to forget the commonality. So now we have the F/A-18A/D that has only 35% commonality with F/A-18E/F! The unit price for F/A-18E/F, is about the same as the current F-35s, or euro-fighters. As long as commonality is enforced on the program will escalate in development and in cost.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 21:08
by maus92
avon1944 wrote:I have often wondered why the design hasn't been frozen and each variant be pursued independently. The F/A 18 program eventually was stopped in the conversion of the F/A-18A-D to the F/A-18E/F. Gawd, even congress got the message to forget the commonality. So now we have the F/A-18A/D that has only 35% commonality with F/A-18E/F! The unit price for F/A-18E/F, is about the same as the current F-35s, or euro-fighters. As long as commonality is enforced on the program will escalate in development and in cost.


Super Hornets are substantially cheaper than twin engine eurofighters, and (much) less than F-35s will be for several more years, possibly more.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 21:33
by SpudmanWP
That's not a fair comparison since F-35 is still in LRIP.

The F-18 (any version) is also much less capable in terms of range, weapons, survivability, and avionics when compared to the F-35.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 22:45
by hb_pencil
rkap wrote:Even in Afghanistan in more recent times "fast Jets" have not proved effective in strongly defended situations" with mountains around etc. Early in the Afghan War it was a slow AC130 Gunship that saved the day in "Shahi Kot Valley - the Taliban stronghold" when coalition forces almost ended up in trouble similar to Russian forces who lost 600 men when they tried to take the valley. From what I read coalition forces were withing hours of meeting the same fate until the AC130 arrived. The " F15's, Hornets etc. using stand off weapons were not much help at all. There and gone - miss and they could not do another run etc. Especially after a few "Stingers" came up at them when they ventured in close. [The A10 I talk about is not the A10 of 1977. It would need upgrades.]
All this not my opinion - the opinion of those who served in Vietnam and those who were in the Shahi Kot Valley and thought they would die. Are you calling them "armchair tacticians".


Frankly, this claim is indefensible in the face of the reality in Afghanistan; you're basing your view off of a highly biased reading of an operation that occurred in 2002, when we have over a decade of experience and development that suggests otherwise. CAS today is far more accurate and effective than in 2002, and provides an invaluable capability. Your view is certainly not shared by of people that I personally interviewed who were on the "front lines" at different levels.

The vast majority of CAS has been carried out by fast jets (F-16) and have been critical and extremely effective at undertaking operations. Advances in precision guided munitions, sensor systems and the organization of CAS has often made it the decisive capability in a battle, even during danger close. That was certainly the case in 2006 during Operation Medusa, where Canadian/American forces engaged the Taliban in the Panjwai valley. Canadian forces were certainly attacking Taliban soldiers in "prepared" and strongly defended positions. During the operation, Air power was a critical determinant in the battle, primarily supplied by aircraft like the F-16 and A-10.

Certainly the AC-130 provides capabilities not available to other aircraft. In particular it is very persistence and carries an extremely heavy armament. However it can only operate in relatively benign environment. Against modern MANPADs like the SA-24, it is vulnerable. Moreover the lethality of modern jets have increased substantially in the past decade. Back in 2002 the USAF was limited in their weapon selection for A2G, especially towards smaller weapons. Now it possesses systems like SDB, which offer similar effects to 1000lbs class weapons, but at a size and weight that allows aircraft to carry a number of the munitions. Moreover the tools available to coordinate CAS are light years ahead of that available in 2002; strikes today are far more accurate and effective than before.

So claiming that Aircraft like the F-35, F/A-18 or F-16 are somehow unable to play a decisive role in CAS is just not accurate.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 22:51
by maus92
Looks like the average LRIP-III Super Hornet (E/F) REC Flyaway was $58.4M in 1999$, which is about $80.7M in 2012$, with a build quantity of 36 (15-E, 21-F.) Full rate production begins after LRIP-III.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 23:10
by hb_pencil
maus92 wrote:Looks like the average LRIP-III Super Hornet (E/F) REC Flyaway was $58.4M in 1999$, which is about $80.7M in 2012$, with a build quantity of 36 (15-E, 21-F.) Full rate production begins after LRIP-III.


Comparisons between the F/A-18E LRIP and F-35 LRIP are not very fair. The key difference was the F/A-18E's relatively flat learning curve, which was a byproduct of its evolutionary development model . McDD decision to reuse a very large portion of the Legacy Hornet's design and components (70% of its avionics for example) meant there was very little learning curve effects. They basically built the F/A-18E using the same supply system, employees and manufacturing line as the F/A-18C. Thus most of the efficiencies were already discovered and the labour costs remained relatively flat. For example the flyaway cost of a F/A-18E/F betweeen 2000 and 2005 after 62 aircraft produced was $62, $65, $59, $62 and $65 (in millions of dollars. USN Budget materials,2002 and 2005). given its position in production and the amount produced (over 150 aircraft), an new production line would have at least seen 30% or more reduction in price during these years.

The F-35 is different because it is a completely new build aircraft: so you see a fairly distinct learning curve occurring and prices will have a more dramatic improvement in price over time. That is why you are seeing a production price that was once 125 million decline to 90 million in recent buys, and will likely reach 65 million by 2020.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 00:21
by maus92
It doesn't seem that any comparison between the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F will be deemed "fair." The fact remains that the F/A-18E/Fs are highly capable, if not the most advanced strike aircraft flying today - that incidentally cost substantially less than their european and domestic competitors.

LM acknowledged that LRIP-4 F-35s will be 7% over target costs. The targets are: -A, $111.6M; -B, $109.4M; -C, $142.9M - not including power plants. These are the most recent figures, at least until LRIP-5 is finalized and data released. It should be noted that LM improved its overages from the previous 11-15% on earlier production lots to 7%.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 401134.xml

Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 00:37
by count_to_10
velocityvector wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:rkap, you are talking about situations were any CAS is basically useless. If the F-35 can't see something at several miles range, no other aircraft is going to see it at close range.

Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting the enemy given dwell-time opportunities. A fast-mover dependent on a single human pilot aboard, even with F-35 surveillance capabilities, may be at a distinct disadvantage in discovering a well-concealed enemy vice other platforms. Now if you can get a flight of F-35 wagon training over a suspected target and sharing information possibly with slower systems involved, well, that could be better. It all depends.

How much extra loiter time is going to help here?
Unless I'm mistaken, the F-35 will be doing most of the searching over it's entire viewing area automatically, giving the pilot possible contacts to review; how are even multiple people using just their eyes supposed to compete with that?

Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 00:57
by sewerrat
count_to_10 wrote:
velocityvector wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:rkap, you are talking about situations were any CAS is basically useless. If the F-35 can't see something at several miles range, no other aircraft is going to see it at close range.

Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting the enemy given dwell-time opportunities. A fast-mover dependent on a single human pilot aboard, even with F-35 surveillance capabilities, may be at a distinct disadvantage in discovering a well-concealed enemy vice other platforms. Now if you can get a flight of F-35 wagon training over a suspected target and sharing information possibly with slower systems involved, well, that could be better. It all depends.

How much extra loiter time is going to help here?
Unless I'm mistaken, the F-35 will be doing most of the searching over it's entire viewing area automatically, giving the pilot possible contacts to review; how are even multiple people using just their eyes supposed to compete with that?


The -35 is also net-centric so its individual capabilities are multiplied by some uncalcuable number. So long as they can keep datalinking secured, and "unjamable" then when this cake is fully cooked, it's going to be worth its weight in platinum. (even if its not loitering, it could pass along data from its "sweep" to other -35s in the rear)

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 02:18
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:Looks like the average LRIP-III Super Hornet (E/F) REC Flyaway was $58.4M in 1999$, which is about $80.7M in 2012$, with a build quantity of 36 (15-E, 21-F.) Full rate production begins after LRIP-III.


LRIP my backside. How many SH MYP lots have been built?

Do you work for NAVAIR or Boeing?? Oops, sorry...one and the same.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 03:57
by munny
quicksilver wrote:
maus92 wrote:Looks like the average LRIP-III Super Hornet (E/F) REC Flyaway was $58.4M in 1999$, which is about $80.7M in 2012$, with a build quantity of 36 (15-E, 21-F.) Full rate production begins after LRIP-III.


LRIP my backside. How many SH MYP lots have been built?

Do you work for NAVAIR or Boeing?? Oops, sorry...one and the same.


From the 1999 Navy procurement doc, URF cost for the Superhornet was $72,567,484 in 1999$ or $100,348,285 in 2012$.

In fact the price he quoted looks like just the Airframe/CFE cost :shock:

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 04:55
by rkap
velocityvector - Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting


You sum up a simple situation very well. Raised by others earlier in the forum. The Mafia as usual resort to personal attacks or go off topic or respond with complicated tactics as if everything can be planned to suit the F35. Not much time for complicated tactics when you unexpectedly encounter enemy and you are in a situation where you could be wiped out within minutes in a real war. All theory. Nobody denies the F35 will be excellent in in some situations but a Swiss Army Knife is no substitute for a good pair of pliers, a good wrench or a good knife at times.
It is obvious a modern A10 type platform equipped with similar IR capabilities and suitable modern defensive systems and a radar etc. that can travel slow and low and loiter with a pilot who can talk to the ground troops and see what they are seeing - an aircraft that can take a few rifle rounds without coming to grief - has a heavy cannon that can use "shock and awe" to keep the enemies heads down - can come around again or loiter has advantages in many situations. It amazes me how the F35 has in some peoples minds become the ultimate Air Superiority fighter, the ultimate attack aircraft, a mini AWAC and now the ultimate CAS machine. And pigs might fly.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 05:05
by 1st503rdsgt
rkap wrote:The Mafia as usual resort to personal attacks or go off topic or respond with complicated tactics...


Says the guy who drones on about other people's Vietnam stories and the 5 years he spent as a reservist some 40 years ago. :lmao:

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 07:10
by archeman
It is obvious a modern A10 type platform equipped with similar IR capabilities and suitable modern defensive systems and a radar etc. that can travel slow and low and loiter with a pilot who can talk to the ground troops and see what they are seeing - an aircraft that can take a few rifle rounds without coming to grief - has a heavy cannon that can use "shock and awe" to keep the enemies heads down - can come around again or loiter has advantages in many situations.


So why isn't the A10 a good candidate for the role that you are describing above? The good air frames are being re-winged right now, better targeting pods will come along in time. So why would we need a different manned slow loiter vulnerable platform? We have one already.
We have A10s AND F-35s AND drones of various capability in the future, what is the beef?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 08:04
by 1st503rdsgt
archeman wrote:So why isn't the A10 a good candidate for the role that you are describing above? The good air frames are being re-winged right now, better targeting pods will come along in time. So why would we need a different manned slow loiter vulnerable platform? We have one already.
We have A10s AND F-35s AND drones of various capability in the future, what is the beef?

The F-35A is supposed to eventually replace the A-10. I have my doubts since replacing the F-16 will be hard enough, but the possibility seems to just hurt some people's feelings.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 14:16
by wrightwing
maus92 wrote:
avon1944 wrote:I have often wondered why the design hasn't been frozen and each variant be pursued independently. The F/A 18 program eventually was stopped in the conversion of the F/A-18A-D to the F/A-18E/F. Gawd, even congress got the message to forget the commonality. So now we have the F/A-18A/D that has only 35% commonality with F/A-18E/F! The unit price for F/A-18E/F, is about the same as the current F-35s, or euro-fighters. As long as commonality is enforced on the program will escalate in development and in cost.


Super Hornets are substantially cheaper than twin engine eurofighters, and (much) less than F-35s will be for several more years, possibly more.


Not after you add the extra sensors, jammers, decoys, EFTs, etc... that they need, to perform their mission(and the extra support aircraft- tankers, Prowlers/Growlers.....).

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 15:33
by maus92
munny wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
maus92 wrote:Looks like the average LRIP-III Super Hornet (E/F) REC Flyaway was $58.4M in 1999$, which is about $80.7M in 2012$, with a build quantity of 36 (15-E, 21-F.) Full rate production begins after LRIP-III.


LRIP my backside. How many SH MYP lots have been built?

Do you work for NAVAIR or Boeing?? Oops, sorry...one and the same.


From the 1999 Navy procurement doc, URF cost for the Superhornet was $72,567,484 in 1999$ or $100,348,285 in 2012$.

In fact the price he quoted looks like just the Airframe/CFE cost :shock:


I went back and looked at some NavAir press releases: LRIP-III was funded in FY 1999, not in FY2000 - the URF number I used incorrectly.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 15:59
by maus92
wrightwing wrote:
maus92 wrote:
avon1944 wrote:I have often wondered why the design hasn't been frozen and each variant be pursued independently. The F/A 18 program eventually was stopped in the conversion of the F/A-18A-D to the F/A-18E/F. Gawd, even congress got the message to forget the commonality. So now we have the F/A-18A/D that has only 35% commonality with F/A-18E/F! The unit price for F/A-18E/F, is about the same as the current F-35s, or euro-fighters. As long as commonality is enforced on the program will escalate in development and in cost.


Super Hornets are substantially cheaper than twin engine eurofighters, and (much) less than F-35s will be for several more years, possibly more.


Not after you add the extra sensors, jammers, decoys, EFTs, etc... that they need, to perform their mission(and the extra support aircraft- tankers, Prowlers/Growlers.....).


Extras, of course, that the F-35 will also need- like jamming pods, external fuel tanks, support aircraft like Prowlers, Growlers, tankers, AWACS....

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 17:23
by SpudmanWP
F-35s will use support assets to a much lower degree than 4th gen assets.

Image

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 18:51
by hb_pencil
rkap wrote:
velocityvector - Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting


You sum up a simple situation very well. Raised by others earlier in the forum. The Mafia as usual resort to personal attacks or go off topic or respond with complicated tactics as if everything can be planned to suit the F35.



What's really ironic about this statement is that you didn't even respond to the 1000 word, reasoned reply that discussed the issues with your claims. You ignored it, then claimed that the "mafia" resport to personal attacks when you were the first one to.

And the claim that we don't bring facts? The only piece of evidence that you brought forward was that in 2002 the AC-130 was required to end a large battle. That's it. I've raised a number of cases since then when "normal" multirole aircraft have been extremely effective at the role you claim they cannot do.

Just today I spoke to a Royal Marine who served in Helmand and Basra during some of the worst of the fighting. He was adamant about the very effective role that fast jets like the Harrier played in their operations, particularly given the very fluid and chaotic battles they faced against the Taliban. They helped identify targets, carried out numerous strikes and self assessed bomb damage. In most operations he saw the air strike basically ended the engagement or was the turning point (taliban fire petered out and they withdrew).

rkap wrote:Not much time for complicated tactics when you unexpectedly encounter enemy and you are in a situation where you could be wiped out within minutes in a real war. All theory.


Nobody denies the F35 will be excellent in in some situations but a Swiss Army Knife is no substitute for a good pair of pliers, a good wrench or a good knife at times.
It is obvious a modern A10 type platform equipped with similar IR capabilities and suitable modern defensive systems and a radar etc. that can travel slow and low and loiter with a pilot who can talk to the ground troops and see what they are seeing - an aircraft that can take a few rifle rounds without coming to grief - has a heavy cannon that can use "shock and awe" to keep the enemies heads down - can come around again or loiter has advantages in many situations.



See the thing is, the F-35 can do alot of that because it has improved sensors. EODS is able to spot a human being at 50km; does the aircraft need to fly at 2000 ft when it can do the same task at 10,000 and avoid being shot down by MANPADS?


rkap wrote: It amazes me how the F35 has in some peoples minds become the ultimate Air Superiority fighter, the ultimate attack aircraft, a mini AWAC and now the ultimate CAS machine. And pigs might fly.


Sure. I can. Its the synthesis of over 25 years of investment in fighter technology, where no other state has put in 25% of the effort. What do you expect would happen?

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 20:56
by wrightwing
rkap wrote:
velocityvector - Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting


You sum up a simple situation very well. Raised by others earlier in the forum. The Mafia as usual resort to personal attacks or go off topic or respond with complicated tactics as if everything can be planned to suit the F35. Not much time for complicated tactics when you unexpectedly encounter enemy and you are in a situation where you could be wiped out within minutes in a real war. All theory.


Which threat, is the F-35 going to unexpectedly run into, in the air? Tactics aren't just used, once a threat is identified. The F-35 flight will be utilizing defensive formations, the entire time that they're anywhere near threat. They won't wait, until somebody spots a Mig 28. :wink:

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 21:03
by wrightwing
maus92 wrote:Extras, of course, that the F-35 will also need- like jamming pods, external fuel tanks, support aircraft like Prowlers, Growlers, tankers, AWACS....


Correction. The F-35 doesn't NEED jamming pods, and due to its longer ranges/reduced signature, can operate without additional support in far more instances.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 23:52
by popcorn
The Package Q mission over Baghdad illustrates how difficult and expensive it could be choreographing a complex air strike involving dozens of legacy assets in hostile airspace. After the raid, it was decided to leave future missions over downtown Baghdad to stealthy Nighthawks.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 02:18
by stereospace
wrightwing wrote:
maus92 wrote:Extras, of course, that the F-35 will also need- like jamming pods, external fuel tanks, support aircraft like Prowlers, Growlers, tankers, AWACS....


Correction. The F-35 doesn't NEED jamming pods, and due to its longer ranges/reduced signature, can operate without additional support in far more instances.


I also was under the impression that one of the F-35's biggest selling points is that it doesn't NEED all those extras to carry out its missions. See diagrams above.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 02:55
by maus92
stereospace wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
maus92 wrote:Extras, of course, that the F-35 will also need- like jamming pods, external fuel tanks, support aircraft like Prowlers, Growlers, tankers, AWACS....


Correction. The F-35 doesn't NEED jamming pods, and due to its longer ranges/reduced signature, can operate without additional support in far more instances.


I also was under the impression that one of the F-35's biggest selling points is that it doesn't NEED all those extras to carry out its missions. See diagrams above.


Fantasy.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 03:13
by SpudmanWP
Only in the mind of the APA and their acolytes.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 04:10
by cola
hb_pencil wrote:EODS is able to spot a human being at 50km;...

Any reference on this particular figure?

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 04:54
by munny
cola wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:EODS is able to spot a human being at 50km;...

Any reference on this particular figure?


I'm sure he meant EOTS. Google BBC deadly eye in the sky and watch the video. There some 50 mile footage where a individual windows of a hotel can be seen.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 09:14
by Prinz_Eugn

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 10:50
by spazsinbad
Something for the endless CAS discussions...

Airpower for Hybrid Warfare Michael W. Isherwood, June 2009

http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/mp3 ... e_0609.pdf (0.6Mb)

"...As this paper maintains, airpower can simultaneously contend with the spectrum of conflict—from simple low-intensity attacks to high-intensity, sophisticated uses of force against a major adversary. Within the hybrid battlespace, for example, an F-35 providing overwatch for a ground convoy could use its advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) radar as an offensive cyber weapon, direct its advanced air-to-ground surveillance radar’s ability to track insurgents moving on foot, or simultaneously detect a cruise missile. These capabilities reflect the relevance of airpower to the new warfare style...."
&
"...Fifth generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 can provide additional, unique capabilities to the hybrid campaign with their nonlethal attributes. These aircraft are more than “stealth” fighters—they can potentially serve as C2, ISR, and electronic attack platforms. US airpower in the early part of the 21st century will be netted—with the F-35 and F-22 serving as a key node. When not needed for lethal firepower, the sensor suite of the F-35 and F-22 can search and track a variety of surface targets while being controlled from ground locations. Information will flow via the multi-function advanced data link (MADL), which will link all stealth assets.

Once the information is received at a C2 node, such as an air operations center (AOC), it will be translated to a traditional Link 16 common data link for distribution with the rest of the force. In addition, the fighter’s AESA radar, together with AESA radars on other large body aircraft such as AWACS or Joint STARS, can map and engage a belligerent’s information networks. Collectively, electronic and cyber-attack may include support aircraft such as the EA-6B, EA-18G, and EC-130H platforms.

In short, the days of strike aircraft being fighter aircraft on station only for a strafing or bombing run are over...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2012, 22:44
by spazsinbad
The usual suspects have a go at AvWeak editorial at beginning of this thread (and please stop the whining drivel about Thompson - thanks).

Super-Weapon: Why Have F-35 Fighter Costs Increased? 15 Oct 2012 by Loren Thompson

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... increased/

"Nearly a decade ago, I was one of several pundits invited to discuss troubled weapon programs with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He was concerned in particular about a new Army helicopter and Air Force fighter. It quickly became apparent that Rumsfeld knew next to nothing about either program. The one thing he did understand was their astronomical price-tags....

...You would never get any of this out of the critical editorials that Aviation Week and other outlets have published about the F-35. That isn’t because journalists and pundits are willfully distorting reality, it’s because they simply don’t understand the numbers. If they did, it would be obvious the Pentagon’s biggest weapon program is in much better shape than most commentators realize. And if we took AvWeek’s advice of searching for alternatives, we would go through the same buyer’s remorse all over again with whatever new program we embraced. It seems our system rewards misguided criticism more than accurate analysis."

ONLY beginning and ending paragraphs here so best read the article at source. TAH.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2012, 02:37
by Prinz_Eugn
Loren is a shill, but that doesn't mean his points aren't valid.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2012, 02:51
by archeman
rkap wrote:
velocityvector - Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting


You sum up a simple situation very well. Raised by others earlier in the forum. The Mafia as usual resort to personal attacks or go off topic or respond with complicated tactics as if everything can be planned to suit the F35. .


Spaz, writewing and HBpencil,

So I guess you guys are in the MAFIA of some sort as described above.
Does that come with free drinks and big hair dames with leopard-print undies and all the rest???
If so, where do the rest of us outsiders sign up?

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2012, 03:04
by spazsinbad
Is there NOT a 'Friends of APA' website or e-mail list? Contribute to ELP comment section - you will be valued. :D (Commented via wristfone.)

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2012, 20:10
by XanderCrews
I think there needs to be some clarification about CAS.

A COIN Aircraft and a CAS aircraft are different things:

A COIN Aircraft can be a Tucano, AC-130, UAV, NVG equipped P-47 (LULZ) or even an A-1 skyraider, UAV or helicopter. Its stands no chance beyond small arms opposition.

A CAS Aircraft is expected to be SHOT AT. A lot. And with more than small arms. If CAS wasn't dangerous, why does an A-10 need armor and redundant systems?

Charging the F-35 with being poor at COIN is not really much of a slight because even an A-10 is overkill in our NVG P-47 COIN scenario.

And speaking of, this idea of taking a 1940's air force (that suffered high casualties at the time, against equivalent 1940's tech) with NVGs against a force thats armed with 1980s/1990's tech, and thinking for one second that the 1940s force would "still win, despite casualties" Has got to be completely delusional. America does not win wars when casualties increase. they stop and pull out, withdraw, exit strategy whatever you want to call it. Could the US win Militarily? Im sure if we threw enough corpses at the situation we could. Would the Public ever let that happen? No. and hell No.

If you think for one second that this NVG P-47 Schwienfurt raid against MiGs and SAMs would end in anything other than disaster, annihilation, and a high body count, you have really got to read a history book or two. The US took thousands of casualties in vastly more superior aircraft against early generations SAMs and AAA in the 1960/70s. It was so bad that after the War people starting asking questions like "Is there a way to make an aircraft invisible to radar?"

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2012, 22:24
by hb_pencil
archeman wrote:
rkap wrote:
velocityvector - Respectfully, that is simplistic. A loitering, relatively stationary, system should enjoy greater probability detecting


You sum up a simple situation very well. Raised by others earlier in the forum. The Mafia as usual resort to personal attacks or go off topic or respond with complicated tactics as if everything can be planned to suit the F35. .


Spaz, writewing and HBpencil,

So I guess you guys are in the MAFIA of some sort as described above.
Does that come with free drinks and big hair dames with leopard-print undies and all the rest???
If so, where do the rest of us outsiders sign up?


All you need to do is save all the UPCs from all the Lockheed Martin Koolaid you drink and send them in. I like the purple one.

The perks are as you describe them, but I think Loren gets his own L-1011 to be shuttled around in that is fitted with a koolaid dispenser.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2012, 22:50
by velocityvector
So the Cuban at the show has a gynormous woodley wilson and Fredo gets a free but terminal boat ride for exposing his brother to the shock of a losing comparison and the dangers presented. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. "You broke my heart." (brotherly death smooch)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2012, 22:59
by HaveVoid
velocityvector wrote:So the Cuban at the show has a gynormous woodley wilson and Fredo gets a free but terminal boat ride for exposing his brother to the shock of a losing comparison and the dangers presented. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. "You broke my heart." (brotherly death smooch)


You totally lost me here :?:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyon

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 00:05
by count_to_10
Godfather reference?

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 00:30
by sferrin
hb_pencil wrote:All you need to do is save all the UPCs from all the Lockheed Martin Koolaid you drink and send them in. I like the purple one.


What do you get for sending in UPCs from all the Bill Sweetman Kool-Aid you drink?

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 00:36
by spazsinbad
Here is another go (as a 'dog returns to its vomit' - famous Oz Parliament saying):

Editorial: U.S. Technology Leadership Tested AWST by Sweetman 15 Oct 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 502357.xml

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 00:55
by velocityvector
count_to_10 wrote:Godfather reference?

Yes. An inartfully attempted one. Admit. Folks were going all "cosa nostra" and I thought it was funny. I may try again, hopefully not :>)

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 02:25
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:All you need to do is save all the UPCs from all the Lockheed Martin Koolaid you drink and send them in. I like the purple one.


What do you get for sending in UPCs from all the Bill Sweetman Kool-Aid you drink?


He lets you pick your flavor (Gripen, Super Hornet, P-47NVG etc.) so you feel special

spazsinbad wrote:Here is another go (as a 'dog returns to its vomit' - famous Oz Parliament saying):

Editorial: U.S. Technology Leadership Tested AWST by Sweetman 15 Oct 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 502357.xml


FTFA:

It wasn't that long ago that the U.S. essentially dominated the defense industry.


Is the F-35 not the largest weapons program in history and dominating the export market? even the Korean competition is between american aircraft.

It is an odd statement from someone who advocates European arms--which is shrinking BTW, because people are still choosing American F-35s over European rivals. I don't think the B-2 was ever built for export, so its not a legit gripe. F-35s, late model apaches, advanced F-16s, F-15s, Abrams, and dozens of other systems are still selling in huge numbers. Its not like the F-22 wasnt sought after either. The US just chose not to export it. The whole premise of that section only works if you ignore the F-35 on the global market, A system he loathes and crusades against. Bill can't whine about the F-35 ruining western air power by equipping nearly every allied air force, then complain that the US doesn't sell enough of them to dominate in exports. It can't be both. The US has the tech lead with the F-22 and F-35 so the title of the article is instantly suspect, Russia and China still have catching up to do, and the amount their aircraft will be exported is still unknown besides the T-50 to india

I'm sorry sometimes I ramble. Let me put it like this:

Bill: The US is losing its Tech/export advantage!

what about the F-35?

Bill: The F-35 is a disaster and we should be buying Upgraded aircraft from the 1970s! Everyone should be buying the Gripen too!!

He can't have it both ways. Only on Bill's planet does the above make sense.

The rest is the same crap that others have been saying since December 26th 1991. :roll: these are the same "soul searching" questions the US Military was asking throughout the 1990s before sept 11th. Now that afghanistan is done, those questions return.

Welcome to the 90s Bill!! :D :D :roll:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 15:37
by maus92
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Loren is a shill, but that doesn't mean his points aren't valid.


I like when he sheds some blame on P&W, and of course the customer. His job is to present his client Lockheed Martin in the best light possible. In Forbes, he can do this and get away with it - because most of its readership are general business people - an audience not expected to know the details of F-35 program.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 17:39
by hb_pencil
sferrin wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:All you need to do is save all the UPCs from all the Lockheed Martin Koolaid you drink and send them in. I like the purple one.


What do you get for sending in UPCs from all the Bill Sweetman Kool-Aid you drink?


Vinegar

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 17:57
by luke_sandoz
I'm starting to feel sorry for Sweetman.

He made up his mind a long time ago and now he can't change his mind despite the facts changing.

He reminds me of Lance Armstrong . . a bed made years ago and now he's being abandoned by anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 18:01
by SpudmanWP
maus92 wrote:because most of its readership are general business people - an audience not expected to know the details of F-35 program.

And also an audience that understand how these programs work and do not have knee-jerk reactions to every APA internet vomit fest. They are also likely to have been subject to these kinds of problems when dealing with the government programs.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 18:01
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
an audience not expected to know the details of F-35 program.


Thats Sweetman's audience, and Loren shouldn't cut into it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 18:10
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:I'm starting to feel sorry for Sweetman.

He made up his mind a long time ago and now he can't change his mind despite the facts changing.

He reminds me of Lance Armstrong . . a bed made years ago and now he's being abandoned by anyone with a modicum of common sense.


I picture him in a bunker surrounded by advisers who shoot worried glances at each other as they are about to explain how the F-35 hit another milestone. Prompting another screaming explosion on the virtues of the upgraded Super Gripen.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2012, 21:38
by 1st503rdsgt
XanderCrews wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:I'm starting to feel sorry for Sweetman.

He made up his mind a long time ago and now he can't change his mind despite the facts changing.

He reminds me of Lance Armstrong . . a bed made years ago and now he's being abandoned by anyone with a modicum of common sense.


I picture him in a bunker surrounded by advisers who shoot worried glances at each other as they are about to explain how the F-35 hit another milestone. Prompting another screaming explosion on the virtues of the upgraded Super Gripen.

Ah, it's time for someone with some video skills to make another "Downfall" spoof titled "Sweetman finds out..." I think the guy is bitter that all those years of chasing Aurora never payed off. The USAF just strung him along, never confirming or denying anything, making him look like a kook professionally.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 16:55
by rkap
archeman
So why isn't the A10 a good candidate etc.

From what I have read the A10 is to be completely gone by 2028 at the latest and replaced by the F35.
The F35 is going to have to do everything. I doubt that drones will eevr be able to do good CAS missions.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 17:06
by rkap
1st503rdsgt
Says the guy who drones on about other people's Vietnam stories and the 5 years he spent as a reservist some 40 years ago.


I admit most wisdom I have gained in life comes from others.
Where do you get your wisdom.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 21:40
by 1st503rdsgt
rkap wrote:
1st503rdsgt
Says the guy who drones on about other people's Vietnam stories and the 5 years he spent as a reservist some 40 years ago.


I admit most wisdom I have gained in life comes from others.
Where do you get your wisdom.

Wisdom isn't your issue here; it's that your willful ignorance of current realities prevents you from putting all that "wisdom" to good use.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 22:37
by archeman
rkap wrote:
archeman
So why isn't the A10 a good candidate etc.

From what I have read the A10 is to be completely gone by 2028 at the latest and replaced by the F35.
The F35 is going to have to do everything. I doubt that drones will eevr be able to do good CAS missions.


Well.....lottsa stuff that is supposed to happen doesn't.
The ol'e 707 were supposed to be getting replaced by now and well....they weren't - they are still flying around stubbornly ignorant of the best laid plans to toss them into history.

It is quite possible the A-10 may be doing the same kind of dumb flying around in 2029 and beyond.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 23:19
by 1st503rdsgt
archeman wrote:It is quite possible the A-10 may be doing the same kind of dumb flying around in 2029 and beyond.

Quite possible indeed, but I think the A-10 is something of a misfit. If it's so useful and cost-effective, why hasn't it been exported? The fact is, it was designed for a mission that no longer exists. Guided weapons now do what that massive cannon (awe inspiring as it is) was meant for, and they can do it from distances and altitudes that make all that armor superfluous.

There are much cheaper options for the COIN mission, and it doesn't stand a chance over the modern/future near-peer battlefield. I'd rather see the 345 or so A-10s still flying replaced with a mix of F-35s and specialized COIN aircraft.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 23:39
by count_to_10
Also keep in mind that the really close part of "CAS" in the future may be performed by the ground troops themselves with non-line-of-sight weapons and small UAV spotters.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2012, 23:56
by maus92
wrightwing wrote:
maus92 wrote:Extras, of course, that the F-35 will also need- like jamming pods, external fuel tanks, support aircraft like Prowlers, Growlers, tankers, AWACS....


Correction. The F-35 doesn't NEED jamming pods, and due to its longer ranges/reduced signature, can operate without additional support in far more instances.


Even the LRS-B, which is being designed to be stealthier than the F-35, is planned to have EA-18Gs flying in support.

"He said the aircraft [LRS-B] would be supported by a "family of systems", which could include US Navy Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles, Boeing ­EA-18G Growlers, Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft, USAF F-22s and F-35s, miniature air-launched decoys, satellites and cyber-warfare assets."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-377597/

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 00:04
by maus92
Sweetman rebuts Thompson in an ARES post:

"Wrongheaded? Really?"

"There’s one important element missing from Thompson’s piece and one that is strangely hard to find. The missing piece is a link to what we actually said, which in many respects is not what Thompson is picking a fight with.

What is hard to find is where Forbes reminds its readers who Thompson works for. It’s there, but in the kind of typeface usually associated with writing Title 10 of the US Code on the back of a postage stamp, and then only if you click in the right place."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... e678980c57

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 03:32
by Prinz_Eugn
maus92 wrote:Sweetman rebuts Thompson in an ARES post:

"Wrongheaded? Really?"

"There’s one important element missing from Thompson’s piece and one that is strangely hard to find. The missing piece is a link to what we actually said, which in many respects is not what Thompson is picking a fight with.

What is hard to find is where Forbes reminds its readers who Thompson works for. It’s there, but in the kind of typeface usually associated with writing Title 10 of the US Code on the back of a postage stamp, and then only if you click in the right place."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... e678980c57


Down for maintenance. I skimmed it earlier, and was all ready to lay down the law in the comments section, but no...

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 13:28
by wrightwing
rkap wrote:
archeman
So why isn't the A10 a good candidate etc.

From what I have read the A10 is to be completely gone by 2028 at the latest and replaced by the F35.
The F35 is going to have to do everything. I doubt that drones will eevr be able to do good CAS missions.


http://defensetech.org/2011/07/22/a-10- ... ntil-2040/

The A-10s will be around longer than 2028. That's why they've been doing the structural/wing/avionics upgrades.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 13:30
by wrightwing
maus92 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
maus92 wrote:Extras, of course, that the F-35 will also need- like jamming pods, external fuel tanks, support aircraft like Prowlers, Growlers, tankers, AWACS....


Correction. The F-35 doesn't NEED jamming pods, and due to its longer ranges/reduced signature, can operate without additional support in far more instances.


Even the LRS-B, which is being designed to be stealthier than the F-35, is planned to have EA-18Gs flying in support.

"He said the aircraft [LRS-B] would be supported by a "family of systems", which could include US Navy Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles, Boeing ­EA-18G Growlers, Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft, USAF F-22s and F-35s, miniature air-launched decoys, satellites and cyber-warfare assets."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-377597/


There's a distinct difference between "could include" and "will require."

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 16:25
by maus92
wrightwing wrote:
maus92 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
maus92 wrote:Extras, of course, that the F-35 will also need- like jamming pods, external fuel tanks, support aircraft like Prowlers, Growlers, tankers, AWACS....


Correction. The F-35 doesn't NEED jamming pods, and due to its longer ranges/reduced signature, can operate without additional support in far more instances.


Even the LRS-B, which is being designed to be stealthier than the F-35, is planned to have EA-18Gs flying in support.

"He said the aircraft [LRS-B] would be supported by a "family of systems", which could include US Navy Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles, Boeing ­EA-18G Growlers, Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft, USAF F-22s and F-35s, miniature air-launched decoys, satellites and cyber-warfare assets."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-377597/


There's a distinct difference between "could include" and "will require."


It depends on the target, and the sensors and defenses surrounding it. Clearly there are instances where stealth alone is not going to be enough, and others where stealth is unnecessary. In the middle is where stealth aircraft can operate autonomously, but I bet that mission planners will want EA/EW support when they can get it. So in practical terms, there will be little savings in support airframes.

He also said the [LRS-B] "would be supported" by other aircraft, and the type of aircraft supporting it "could be" Growlers, etc.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 18:46
by delvo
There's also a difference between direct, immediate "support" as in flying the same mission together with you, and indirect "support" as in being just part of the whole complex multi-layered military system in which all parts have roles to play that are complementary to the rest.

The idea of a long-range stealth bomber needing to be escorted by a shorter-ranged pre-stealth fighter is just plain silly. The bomber's ability to fly farther than the fighter can would go to waste, and even within the narrower zone where they can both fly, the pre-stealth plane would be not only giving itself away but also betraying the stealth plane. (And that's without even considering the fact that you're suggesting that the Air Force would deliberately plan to render itself dependent on the Navy for air operations.)

If they want those jammers on bombing missions, they'll put them in the bomber. It's big. There's room.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 21:30
by popcorn
delvo wrote:
If they want those jammers on bombing missions, they'll put them in the bomber. It's big. There's room.


Perhaps though putting them on a sufficiently long-legged UAV escort has been suggested as a means to make the LRS-B more affordable.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 22:36
by maus92
delvo wrote:There's also a difference between direct, immediate "support" as in flying the same mission together with you, and indirect "support" as in being just part of the whole complex multi-layered military system in which all parts have roles to play that are complementary to the rest.

The idea of a long-range stealth bomber needing to be escorted by a shorter-ranged pre-stealth fighter is just plain silly. The bomber's ability to fly farther than the fighter can would go to waste, and even within the narrower zone where they can both fly, the pre-stealth plane would be not only giving itself away but also betraying the stealth plane. (And that's without even considering the fact that you're suggesting that the Air Force would deliberately plan to render itself dependent on the Navy for air operations.)

If they want those jammers on bombing missions, they'll put them in the bomber. It's big. There's room.


If you want the plane to remain stealthily, then you don't put emitters on the aircraft you want to hide.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 23:37
by archeman
maus92 wrote:
delvo wrote:There's also a difference between direct, immediate "support" as in flying the same mission together with you, and indirect "support" as in being just part of the whole complex multi-layered military system in which all parts have roles to play that are complementary to the rest.

The idea of a long-range stealth bomber needing to be escorted by a shorter-ranged pre-stealth fighter is just plain silly. The bomber's ability to fly farther than the fighter can would go to waste, and even within the narrower zone where they can both fly, the pre-stealth plane would be not only giving itself away but also betraying the stealth plane. (And that's without even considering the fact that you're suggesting that the Air Force would deliberately plan to render itself dependent on the Navy for air operations.)

If they want those jammers on bombing missions, they'll put them in the bomber. It's big. There's room.


If you want the plane to remain stealthily, then you don't put emitters on the aircraft you want to hide.


The MALD also will be playing a role for the penetrating stealth aircraft(bomber) to accomplish the goals your discussing. Now that the jammer version of MALD is underway the bomber/striker can in the future release remote radar/IR targets and remote emitters while remaining as stealthy as possible. An escort emitter or built in emitter would also be handy to have if you absolutely need it. As long as the MALD price remains under control these other expensive solutions (separate escort jammer/emitters) are only required for the first 5-10 days of the war while the air defense network is still fully intact.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 23:57
by SpudmanWP
I would also imagine the Bomber/F-35 using it's on-board ESM to analyze the RF threat and then beaming commands via MADL to the MALD/-J. That way the MALD/J can spend more energy on decoy/jam functions.

This fit's nicely with the F-35's notional Blk5 "Cooperative EW".

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2012, 00:26
by 1st503rdsgt
Does anyone here really have a handle on the capabilities and limitations of modern jammers? I mean... to hear some people talk, they're like magic boxes that make VLO totally unnecessary.

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2012, 03:32
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Sweetman rebuts Thompson in an ARES post:

"Wrongheaded? Really?"

"There’s one important element missing from Thompson’s piece and one that is strangely hard to find. The missing piece is a link to what we actually said, which in many respects is not what Thompson is picking a fight with.

What is hard to find is where Forbes reminds its readers who Thompson works for. It’s there, but in the kind of typeface usually associated with writing Title 10 of the US Code on the back of a postage stamp, and then only if you click in the right place."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... e678980c57


Ave week pays sweetman to write about other writers? :roll:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2012, 03:35
by Prinz_Eugn
1st503rdsgt wrote:Does anyone here really have a handle on the capabilities and limitations of modern jammers? I mean... to hear some people talk, they're like magic boxes that make VLO totally unnecessary.


Anyone who would wouldn't be talking about it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2012, 18:59
by maus92
1st503rdsgt wrote:Does anyone here really have a handle on the capabilities and limitations of modern jammers? I mean... to hear some people talk, they're like magic boxes that make VLO totally unnecessary.


They are "magic boxes." Some Israeli sources predict that counter-stealth systems will be developed and fielded in ~5-10 years, thus reducing the impact of stealthy shaped air vehicles and materials. Electronic attack/warfare equipment and techniques can be fielded faster than entirely new aircraft, so they will become more important as defensive systems are improved.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2012, 21:33
by 1st503rdsgt
maus92 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Does anyone here really have a handle on the capabilities and limitations of modern jammers? I mean... to hear some people talk, they're like magic boxes that make VLO totally unnecessary.

They are "magic boxes." Some Israeli sources predict that counter-stealth systems will be developed and fielded in ~5-10 years, thus reducing the impact of stealthy shaped air vehicles and materials.

Someone should tell that to the Russians and Chinese. Seems a magic box of stealth would be cheaper than their current efforts. How strange... considering that they should be the ones most aware of how useless VLO will be in "~5-10 years."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2012, 23:30
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:They are "magic boxes." Some Israeli sources predict that counter-stealth systems will be developed and fielded in ~5-10 years, thus reducing the impact of stealthy shaped air vehicles and materials. Electronic attack/warfare equipment and techniques can be fielded faster than entirely new aircraft, so they will become more important as defensive systems are improved.

Actually, the Sukhoi targeting FLIR (OLS) system is somewhat effective against a VLO stealth jet. That assumes the VLO F-22 or F-35 doesn't fire an AMRAAM/HARM first using its sensor fused avionics.

The Israelis and everyone else knows that L-Band radar with advanced digital signal processing has a chance of detecting a stealth jet. If XYZ adversary started using such L-Band radar (and including older analog radar) it would be detected by said "magic boxes" and the pilots would engage and destroy.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 00:03
by maus92
neurotech wrote:Actually, the Sukhoi targeting FLIR (OLS) system is somewhat effective against a VLO stealth jet. That assumes the VLO F-22 or F-35 doesn't fire an AMRAAM/HARM first using its sensor fused avionics.


Add the Super Hornet to that "sensor fused" list.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... et-376973/

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 00:44
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Actually, the Sukhoi targeting FLIR (OLS) system is somewhat effective against a VLO stealth jet. That assumes the VLO F-22 or F-35 doesn't fire an AMRAAM/HARM first using its sensor fused avionics.


Add the Super Hornet to that "sensor fused" list.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... et-376973/

I was worried about being actually "on topic" in suggesting the F/A-18E/F could actually be an alternative to a F-35C carrier strike aircraft :D

I wonder if Boeing will do an airframe "low drag" update to the Super Hornet. I also haven't heard any plans to incorporate 360 degree EODAS into the F/A-18E/F platform yet, but the Block III avionics has growth potential for some sort of EODAS.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyon

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 15:26
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Super Hornet International Roadmap: EOTS/DAS-like system, conformal fuel tanks, up to 3xLO/LD(low drag) weapons pods (that can hold 1x2,000# class weapon, 2x500# class weapons, or 4XAIM-120 AMRAAM), new F-35esq cockpit, 26K# thrust class engines. So yes, there are plans to give the "Rhino" not only "EODAS" but a host of other upgrades.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 16:00
by popcorn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Super Hornet International Roadmap: EOTS/DAS-like system, conformal fuel tanks, up to 3xLO/LD(low drag) weapons pods (that can hold 1x2,000# class weapon, 2x500# class weapons, or 4XAIM-120 AMRAAM), new F-35esq cockpit, 26K# thrust class engines. So yes, there are plans to give the "Rhino" not only "EODAS" but a host of other upgrades.


No bucks, no Buck Rogers.. :D

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 16:24
by quicksilver
popcorn wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Super Hornet International Roadmap: EOTS/DAS-like system, conformal fuel tanks, up to 3xLO/LD(low drag) weapons pods (that can hold 1x2,000# class weapon, 2x500# class weapons, or 4XAIM-120 AMRAAM), new F-35esq cockpit, 26K# thrust class engines. So yes, there are plans to give the "Rhino" not only "EODAS" but a host of other upgrades.


No bucks, no Buck Rogers.. :D


Shack.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 18:56
by neptune
[quote="neurotech... in suggesting the F/A-18E/F could actually be an alternative to a F-35C carrier strike aircraft :D
...[/quote]

:2c:

As a commander of a strike group, no one would be in that position if they didn't use "ALL" of the tools available. The E-2D with active aesa radar. link 16, sensor integration and command and control; the EA-18G with active aesa, link 16, and EA/ EW; the F/A-18s with active radars, link 16 and multiple weapons attack capability, the F/A-18E/F with more sophisticated mission systems, active aesa radar, link 16, multiple weapons attack capability and buddy tanking; the F-35s with stealth, passive sensor integration, ISR sensor integration, madl, link 16, BDA and multiple weapons attack capability; and lastly the B-2 with stealth, passive systems, link 16, ?madl? and incredibly long range......(IRAN) :wink:

...to answer your one question, ...Yes, if....the F-35 was not available.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 21:27
by neurotech
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Super Hornet International Roadmap: EOTS/DAS-like system, conformal fuel tanks, up to 3xLO/LD(low drag) weapons pods (that can hold 1x2,000# class weapon, 2x500# class weapons, or 4XAIM-120 AMRAAM), new F-35esq cockpit, 26K# thrust class engines. So yes, there are plans to give the "Rhino" not only "EODAS" but a host of other upgrades.

EOTS is not EODAS. They are two separate systems on the F-35.

Internal EOTS is on the roadmap, but not full EODAS. The cameras used for the F-35 EODAS and Fiber Channel avionics bus are compatible with the F/A-18E/F Block II avionics. What they are planning is improved missile warning system, with 360 detection, and not the enhanced vision DAS that the F-35 has.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2012, 23:54
by sprstdlyscottsmn
popcorn wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Super Hornet International Roadmap: EOTS/DAS-like system, conformal fuel tanks, up to 3xLO/LD(low drag) weapons pods (that can hold 1x2,000# class weapon, 2x500# class weapons, or 4XAIM-120 AMRAAM), new F-35esq cockpit, 26K# thrust class engines. So yes, there are plans to give the "Rhino" not only "EODAS" but a host of other upgrades.


No bucks, no Buck Rogers.. :D


Well, I said their are plans, didn't say they were going to be implemented

neurotech, I also never claimed it was DAS or that it was HMD related. that was the point of saying EOTS/DAS-like and "EODAS", to imply that while it is similar, it is not the same.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2012, 03:22
by popcorn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Well, I said their are plans, didn't say they were going to be implemented

.


Sure, if you define "plans" to mean Boeing marketing plans for enhancements that,are,essentially brochureware at this point in time that re waiting for,possible customer funding (no nibbles so far) or Boeing's own pockets (that will he the day)...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other optio

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2012, 14:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Pretty much, yeah. Without funding, that is all any plan ever is.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2012, 15:44
by rkap
wrightwing
The A-10s will be around longer than 2028. That's why they've been doing the structural/wing/avionics upgrades.


A good find - the last article I read said 2028 extended from 2022. Looks like they are going to stay. Obviously the army has had a win. Upgraded they have a very important role in conflicts not fought in open terrain. They obviously remember even with precision weapons towards the end of Vietnam fast jets were almost useless for ground troop support. That's why they introduced C130 Gunships and used Huey Gunships. The problem is in jungle against a mobile and clever enemy you have to send out foot patrols to find them and if they stumble on large forces need either artillery or an A10 type or a C130 Gunship to help them survive against superior odds until they can be reinforced. Many of the main battles in Vietnam came about that way. Often there were North Vietnamese Regiments in the South making use of the jungle cover to stay hidden. An A10 type aircraft was needed badly then and the lack of it in that war was the main reason it was conceived and built. The fact a similar conflict in similar terrain has not arisen is just luck. There is no way F35's will be able to put 500 stand off weapons into an area exactly where needed in those situations over a period of hours. Somebody above said they will now have there own systems. Yes mounted infantry in vehicles in open terrain. In rough timbered terrain who is going to carry them? Donkeys? The North Vietnamese army showed the world how to fight in those conditions and win. That will be remembered for a long time.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2012, 16:01
by wrightwing
rkap wrote:
wrightwing
The A-10s will be around longer than 2028. That's why they've been doing the structural/wing/avionics upgrades.


A good find - the last article I read said 2028 extended from 2022. Looks like they are going to stay. Obviously the army has had a win. Upgraded they have a very important role in conflicts not fought in open terrain. They obviously remember even with precision weapons towards the end of Vietnam fast jets were almost useless for ground troop support. That's why they introduced C130 Gunships and used Huey Gunships. The problem is in jungle against a mobile and clever enemy you have to send out foot patrols to find them and if they stumble on large forces need either artillery or an A10 type or a C130 Gunship to help them survive against superior odds until they can be reinforced. Many of the main battles in Vietnam came about that way. Often there were North Vietnamese Regiments in the South making use of the jungle cover to stay hidden. An A10 type aircraft was needed badly then and the lack of it in that war was the main reason it was conceived and built. The fact a similar conflict in similar terrain has not arisen is just luck. There is no way F35's will be able to put 500 stand off weapons into an area exactly where needed in those situations over a period of hours. Somebody above said they will now have there own systems. Yes mounted infantry in vehicles in open terrain. In rough timbered terrain who is going to carry them? Donkeys? The North Vietnamese army showed the world how to fight in those conditions and win. That will be remembered for a long time.


You're still failing to account for the ISR capabilities, which A-10s, etc... don't have. If an enemy has an emitter, or weapon system, they're not going to remain hidden long, if they transmit/open fire. Their positions will be triangulated within moments, which is must faster than the Mk 1 eyeball could hope for. A-10s also lack SAR radar, or the NCW capabilities to immediately be aware of what everyone else in the network knows. Furthermore, if you look at our likely threats, the terrain is generally more of the brown, rocky/sandy, mountainous variety, than jungle, but the sensor advantages, that I've alluded to will also help, should we fight in a more tropical environment.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2012, 18:48
by XanderCrews
rkap wrote: fast jets were almost useless for ground troop support.


I know dozens of Vietnam guys that disagree with you, but I know this doesn't fit in with the narrative you are trying to pitch. So keep ignoring it.

To look at a conflict like Vietnam, which went on for over a decade, in multiple phases, and cherry pick certain elements while ignoring many, many other factors, From the strategic decisions, to the political issues and make such a sweeping conclusion that the A-10 was born from Vietnam, takes a very special kind of narrow mindedness.

And wasn't the A-10 built to kill tanks in Europe?

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 02:47
by spazsinbad
Youse'll have to ignore the bumbleheadedheadline and just trash the LexingtonInSitu Response to the BitterSweatman response to the OldLexingtonian whatever and please reference the beginning post at the start of this thread to see what all the kerfuffle of old men is about eh. :D

Aviation Week Luminary Responds to Lexington Criticism of F-35 Editorial
22 Oct 2012 Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. | Early Warning Blog, Lexington Institute

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/40540/

"Bill Sweetman, one of the most respected aerospace journalists in the business, has written a biting response to my Forbes piece about the F-35 fighter posted here on October 15. That isn't surprising, because I roundly attacked an editorial that his magazine, Aviation Week & Space Technology, published October 1 criticizing the Pentagon's biggest weapons program. The gist of what they said was that the F-35 program is faring poorly and that the Pentagon should therefore start searching for alternatives. The gist of what I said was that the program is doing fine, and that most of the projected cost increases blamed on the prime contractor were actually caused by government actions.

Sweetman begins by pointing out that I am a consultant to F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin (a fact he acknowledges is readily available to Forbes readers). However, he neglects to mention that I also advise some of Lockheed Martin's biggest competitors, and that I often take the side of Boeing, Lockheed's biggest rival, on issues like the Air Force's new tanker and the Navy's new patrol aircraft. Even if Lockheed had bought me a ten-acre estate in the Hamptons, it wouldn't change the facts: the F-35 is meeting all of its key performance goals, the cost of building each plane is dropping fast, and much of what critics say about the program is just plain wrong....

...Contrary to what AvWeek believes, competition can't fix whatever ails the F-35 program because most of the fault does not lie with contractors. It lies with a government customer that can't stick with a plan, and instead restructures efforts every year in ways that makes them less efficient. But let's keep our eye on the ball here: the production cost of each Air Force F-35 in the first lot was $200 million, and the government is now eyeing a unit cost of $80 million in the sixth lot. Follow that learning curve and see where it leads you by the time the program reaches full-rate production. It's a pretty reasonable price-tag for a very capable plane."

BEST TO READ ENTIRE article somewhere (the URL above would be a good place) but whatever.... :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 15:30
by rkap
wrightwing
You're still failing to account for the ISR capabilities

Again you go outside the areas I sad the A10 would be good for to areas it was not designed for to start with. As I said in my first post in wet jungle where you have to walk in and can't carry heavy equipment to defend yourself an A10 type aircraft would be good to have for very close in support. An airborne piece of artillery in simple terms. That works both ways in such conditions - the enemy have to walk in also so they will not have sophisticated Anti Aircraft weapons that will emit. Much of Vietnam was like that - not all as "XanderCrews" points out but fast jets close in there too often came down to ground fire. The biggest single means by which aircraft were lost. Ground fire. That's what it was designed for - areas of low Anti Aircraft threat - Jungle conditions etc. and to fight Soviet Tanks in hilly wet boggy conditions in Europe. That role now gone to a big degree.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 16:03
by rkap
XanderCrews
I know dozens of Vietnam guys that disagree with you


I accept that - it will depend in which part of Vietnam they fought. Millions of tons of the Defoliant Agent Orange were not sprayed for no reason. I am Australian and in the Provinces Australia controlled the Jungle and Rubber Plantations were the main problem. That is why they tried to mainly work within artillery range for most of the War - they quickly realized that was the best way to operate if possible. Go in on foot and try to find the enemy and then if you are ambushed or outnumbered rely on your artillery to get you out of trouble. From what I have read many US units used the same tactics in many provinces also.
This whole debate started with me simply saying an upgraded A10 would be the ideal aircraft in such conditions where ground fire is the main threat against aircraft and troops often need immediate very close in support. It amazes me how the "F35 Mafia" try to twist that assertion. They seem to believe the F35 can and will do everything. Impossible - too fragile to take ground fire to start with and too valuable.
Attitudes never change of course - it was the US Army that decided something like the A10 was needed - the Airforce was not interested - not there type of aircraft - the US Army pushed ahead and was going to operate it themselves - the US Airforce decided it might be wise if they went along with it so they could get control.
At least the Airforce never got a chance to destroy its simple rugged concept designed along the lines of what the Army wanted in a CAS aircraft not what the Airforce wanted.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 16:03
by XanderCrews
rkap wrote:"XanderCrews" points out but fast jets close in there too often came down to ground fire. The biggest single means by which aircraft were lost. Ground fire. That's what it was designed for - areas of low Anti Aircraft threat - Jungle conditions etc. and to fight Soviet Tanks in hilly wet boggy conditions in Europe. That role now gone to a big degree.


Havnt we been fighting insurgencies sent Vietnam? How many fixed wing aircraft have been lost to ground fire since 2001?

Seeing as that role is gone to a big degree, aren't there other aircraft that can operate in areas of low anti aircraft threat?

Why is my name in quotation marks? do you not believe my name?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 19:12
by Prinz_Eugn
rkap wrote:
XanderCrews
I know dozens of Vietnam guys that disagree with you


I accept that - it will depend in which part of Vietnam they fought. Millions of tons of the Defoliant Agent Orange were not sprayed for no reason. I am Australian and in the Provinces Australia controlled the Jungle and Rubber Plantations were the main problem. That is why they tried to mainly work within artillery range for most of the War - they quickly realized that was the best way to operate if possible. Go in on foot and try to find the enemy and then if you are ambushed or outnumbered rely on your artillery to get you out of trouble. From what I have read many US units used the same tactics in many provinces also.
This whole debate started with me simply saying an upgraded A10 would be the ideal aircraft in such conditions where ground fire is the main threat against aircraft and troops often need immediate very close in support. It amazes me how the "F35 Mafia" try to twist that assertion. They seem to believe the F35 can and will do everything. Impossible - too fragile to take ground fire to start with and too valuable.
Attitudes never change of course - it was the US Army that decided something like the A10 was needed - the Airforce was not interested - not there type of aircraft - the US Army pushed ahead and was going to operate it themselves - the US Airforce decided it might be wise if they went along with it so they could get control.
At least the Airforce never got a chance to destroy its simple rugged concept designed along the lines of what the Army wanted in a CAS aircraft not what the Airforce wanted.


I believe the issue was that is sure sounded like you were skeptical that fast jets could do CAS at all.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 23:34
by XanderCrews
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
rkap wrote:
XanderCrews
I know dozens of Vietnam guys that disagree with you


I accept that - it will depend in which part of Vietnam they fought. Millions of tons of the Defoliant Agent Orange were not sprayed for no reason. I am Australian and in the Provinces Australia controlled the Jungle and Rubber Plantations were the main problem. That is why they tried to mainly work within artillery range for most of the War - they quickly realized that was the best way to operate if possible. Go in on foot and try to find the enemy and then if you are ambushed or outnumbered rely on your artillery to get you out of trouble. From what I have read many US units used the same tactics in many provinces also.
This whole debate started with me simply saying an upgraded A10 would be the ideal aircraft in such conditions where ground fire is the main threat against aircraft and troops often need immediate very close in support. It amazes me how the "F35 Mafia" try to twist that assertion. They seem to believe the F35 can and will do everything. Impossible - too fragile to take ground fire to start with and too valuable.
Attitudes never change of course - it was the US Army that decided something like the A10 was needed - the Airforce was not interested - not there type of aircraft - the US Army pushed ahead and was going to operate it themselves - the US Airforce decided it might be wise if they went along with it so they could get control.
At least the Airforce never got a chance to destroy its simple rugged concept designed along the lines of what the Army wanted in a CAS aircraft not what the Airforce wanted.


I believe the issue was that is sure sounded like you were skeptical that fast jets could do CAS at all.


Indeed. I have read stories that F-104s in Vietnam were highly regarded by troops because they could arrive very quickly. a surprise to hear, but true. The other part of it is that Shoulder fired missiles are more prevalent now, so resistance to ground fire (in those few instances when aircraft are even permitted to go that low in hostile areas these days) won't be nearly as important since it is missiles that are more feared now by a large margin.

Secondly, the US doesn't use Vietnam tactics. Theyre old. Sorry but if Vietnam II broke out today we would be fighting it differently. If you think that sounds preposterous all you need to do is look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see 21st century style anti guerrilla tactics from the air. Its not the same. even the most basic GPS changes the equation compared to vietnam in how the US operates and fights.

Keeping A-10s around for the sole purpose of fighting another Vietnam with outdated tactics, makes as much sense as keeping P-47s around to fight a future enemy that may have FW-190s.

We invested a small fortune to avoid getting low enough to take serious hits from ground fire, why throw that away? The solution was never to get better at getting low, it was to do more damage from higher up. GPS bombs, LGBs, LMavs, Targeting pods, etc. Even A-10s have gotten away from being low unless its absolutely necessary.

Its easy to be hard, but its hard to be smart. We got smart, rather than armoring our aircraft like tanks and trying to stay low.

Even you say the A-10 is outdated for its original purpose. You also menti0n that an "upgraded" A-10 is the way to go. Upgraded how? With whiz bang 21st century electronics that will keep it further away from the danger on battlefields you propose is its niche? or upgraded as in up armored? could you explain?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyon

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 23:46
by haavarla
I'm sorry, but all the world air drones would not have changed the outcome, it would only have dragged the outcome further down the line. The key word is Dense jungel and difficult terrain with lots of unfavorable weather.

You want to find the enemy, tough job indeed. They was often, under ground hiding or used the terrain to hide.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 00:03
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:I'm sorry, but all the world air drones would not have changed the outcome, it would only have dragged the outcome further down the line. The key word is Dense jungel and difficult terrain with lots of unfavorable weather.


I didn't say it would change the outcome. I said we would fight it differently due to the advancements in technology. Thats not a crazy assertion.

And even if what you say there is the truth and there is no winning, we can do just as lousy without the A-10 as with it. If the best thing we can say about the A-10 is "if you had them back in vietnam you would still lose" then frankly I can do without it. "this thing would have rocked 40 years ago in a war you would lose anyway" is not a ringing endorsement. If the only thing the A-10 has on a 21st century fighter is a bigger gun and armor, it can go join the battleships in terms of obsolescence.

Is Billy Sweetieman going to retort Loren? Or will Bill conveniently ignore this and carry on as usual? Either way I'm gettin my popcorn ready.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other optio

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 00:36
by spazsinbad
I like the way Loren is a serial spruiker for Boeing and others and not just LM. :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other optio

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 01:32
by popcorn
The A-10 is a specialized aircraft and despite enhancements, remains confined to a narrow niche in an age where technology has made "multi-role" the mantra.. "horses and bayonets" comes to mind for some reason.. still useful to some degree but not figuring as much in the grand scheme of things as originally envisioned.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 01:43
by count_to_10
haavarla wrote:I'm sorry, but all the world air drones would not have changed the outcome, it would only have dragged the outcome further down the line. The key word is Dense jungel and difficult terrain with lots of unfavorable weather.

You want to find the enemy, tough job indeed. They was often, under ground hiding or used the terrain to hide.

Meh. Vietnam was one-sided, with the North losing badly at every turn, terrain or not. Domestic politics forced the end result.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 02:11
by XanderCrews
I just think the A-10 is too big to play with the little guys (COIN) and to little to play with Big Boys (Large scale warfare against contested air) There is some very fine middle where the A-10 is ideal, but that same middle can be done by other air frames just as well, that can still play in the major leagues.

If there is some future role for the A-10 in that very limited niche? and if so what is an acceptable number of A-10s? Seeing as the A-10 is oh so invincible, would we need more than 40-50?

As this thread is about injecting competition against the F-35, is it telling that discussion of the A-10 being put back in to production is not happening? instead competing designs are other multi-role aircraft? Even if the F-35 is cancelled, will more A-10s be on the horizon? or more unarmored medium altitude multi role machines? (Maybe the Gripen/Super Bug/Eurofighter or some other F414 equipped aircraft?)

Put another way, is the A-10 working on borrowed time or is it the future? I know its not the future, Thats why we are placing it in scenarios from decades long past.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options b

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 04:26
by archeman
count_to_10 wrote:
haavarla wrote:I'm sorry, but all the world air drones would not have changed the outcome, it would only have dragged the outcome further down the line. The key word is Dense jungel and difficult terrain with lots of unfavorable weather.

You want to find the enemy, tough job indeed. They was often, under ground hiding or used the terrain to hide.

Meh. Vietnam was one-sided, with the North losing badly at every turn, terrain or not. Domestic politics forced the end result.


Close 1stSgt but missing another big part of the picture: 1) The absolute apathy of the South Vietnam people who didn't understand or care what communism or capitalism meant, it was a master/slave nation for so many thousands of years that they couldn't move past it. 2) Incompetence and uncontrolled graft of the South Vietnam government participants, who used the thin and weak structure of government to steal as much as they could for a long as they could from the very top to the lowest level.

Most are agreed here that the aircraft type didn't decide the issue and probably won't ultimately alter the final story in another conflict with similar core issues in the future (can you say a---stan??). No triple canopy forests in that area and yet the enemy walks right into the capitol with explosives and blasts the place apart with great regularity. Drones, COIN and full size Bombers can barely make a dent in it. The people being defended must be the key participants to halt an insurgency, not aircraft.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other optio

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 14:16
by haavarla
Drones are the future here, no doubt. And it will cost a lot less to operate.
But let us not overhype it.
Unmanned Drones do have several severe drawbacks over manned Jets, and it will continue this way for quite some time.. most likely past my lifetime.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other o

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 15:15
by southernphantom
haavarla wrote:Drones are the future here, no doubt. And it will cost a lot less to operate.
But let us not overhype it.
Unmanned Drones do have several severe drawbacks over manned Jets, and it will continue this way for quite some time.. most likely past my lifetime.


Agreed. We should always have a man in the loop, preferably in direct or semi-direct control. I could see a two-seat F-35 derivative acting as a Fast-FAC for X-47-type platforms, loitering over the target area and choosing targets. The UCAVs could be operated from a handful of 'hub' bases (Nellis, Creech, Holloman) while the ANG takes on the primary mission from a shrinking and expensive active-duty force.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore oth

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 19:24
by madrat
I'd push for more God's eye-view targeting, namely in high geosynchronous orbit, and work towards that platform as a way to target bogies. You could conceivably track targets from takeoff/launch to recovery. Think about what you could do with 50 pound packages dropped from LEO. Even a tungsten tip would literally bore through a hundred feet of earth by the time it impacts with the KE converted during descent. A modest launch station holding one hundred such projectiles would be a game changer while overhead. Now figure that you orbit a half dozen in an orbit around the globe, and that means having at minimum fresh launch platforms overhead on an hourly basis over quite a huge swath of the planet. Your terrorists have little time to run. Your enemy ships and planes are targets round the clock.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other o

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 19:50
by neptune
[quote="southernphantom.. We should always have a man in the loop, preferably in direct or semi-direct control. ....[/quote]

Walk before running. :wink:

With the drone flying in the wingman station, feet and inches should be the norm, not miles. Think of the drone as a bomb (weapons) truck. The F-35 combo with a X-47 type drone (stealthy) with a large capacity for internal storage, you can have a F-35 combo with 20 missles or bombs, as your pleasure. I'm sure they could share with a JTAC as preferred, If the drone runs out of ordinance it can autonomously RTD to reload/ refuel, before flying back to wingman station for any F-35; Man (F-35 pilot or JTAC) in the loop "only" for weapons release, no bandwidth issues. No need for a "video gamer, barkalounger" pilot. :lol:

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 00:03
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:This editorial is kind of a big deal


That was hilarious!!!

What does Bill have against the F-35 again? What launched this Crusade ?

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 01:28
by 1st503rdsgt
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:This editorial is kind of a big deal

That was hilarious!!!
What does Bill have against the F-35 again? What launched this Crusade ?

He's just bitter that the USAF never took any of his old-granny-ideas (like buying the Gripen back in the 1990s) seriously. He also spent years trying to prove the existence of Aurora, and the USAF has never obliged him with a public reveal (probably because there's no such thing).

I don't know where he's from, but his accent sounds rather British; so I've always been a little confused as to why he cares so much about what the US does (probably all those F-35 orders he wishes would go to Eurocanards). I would consider him every bit the shill for European interests that Loren Thompson is for LM and other American companies.

He seems to be a good writer, but he's not a very good journalist as any reporter knows that there is an unofficial system of privileges and punishments when dealing with policy makers. Criticising the management of the JSF program was warranted. Violently criticizing the plane itself as fundamentally flawed wasn't, and now the people who actually build and fly the things won't give him the time of day, making him a complete outsider and even more embittered.

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 01:35
by spazsinbad
Just to be clear: I think Loren admits to other interests and not just LM - OMG even BOING! '...I would consider him [BS] every bit the shill for European interests that Loren Thompson is for LM...." See Loren rebuttal of last BS rebuttal where Loren states facts. See Loren article on previous page of this thread (with a confusing title I must admit).

"...Sweetman begins by pointing out that I am a consultant to F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin (a fact he acknowledges is readily available to Forbes readers). However, he neglects to mention that I also advise some of Lockheed Martin's biggest competitors, and that I often take the side of Boeing, Lockheed's biggest rival, on issues like the Air Force's new tanker and the Navy's new patrol aircraft. Even if Lockheed had bought me a ten-acre estate in the Hamptons, it wouldn't change the facts: the F-35 is meeting all of its key performance goals, the cost of building each plane is dropping fast, and much of what critics say about the program is just plain wrong...."

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 01:56
by geogen
That last one might be a bit critical of Bill, imho at least. To the contrary, it's been fairly accurate reporting to date for any journalist or blogger to have been focusing on the inherent flaws of the Program (eg, the dubious and flawed business model) thus far, as well as highlighting the similar critical assessments made by say, the GAO as far back as 2005. It's not so much being zealously anti-F-35, but rather, being more so critical of the pre-conceived Program expectations and unsustainable business model requirements.

Reporters have won recognition and promotions in the past on being on the accurate side and lead of such whistle blowing and/or critical reporting later proving to be fairly correct.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 02:01
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Just to be clear: I think Loren admits to other interests and not just LM - OMG even BOING!

Ok, then. Modified post to reflect.

Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 02:01
by neptune
[quote="1st503rdsgt..He seems to be a good writer, but he's not a very good journalist ...[/quote]

Beware the fanatics! :( BS has lost his way in objective reporting about the F-35 program. AW has some good reporters but Bill as an editor has vastly limited the equality that is required to be a legitimate source for useful information. Reading the article, it is incredibly unreasonable in advocating walking away from billions of dollars in investments and technical achievements to investigate lesser alternatives.

His only hope is to convince some lonely heart, pining for their fond old airplane that is not the "tip of the spear" in any air force of tomorrow (as in the day after today, not 20 years from now). The teens have performed well beyond anyone’s imagination in their early inception but, they are getting long in the tooth and will be replaced by newer technologies and a/c. That is the F-35s job, which is the nature of the industry.

BS has let himself become irrelevant, regarding the F-35 program and has been replaced by equally knowledgeable reporters who can assess the programs achievements and accurately predict where and how that ability will support our national strategies of the near future.

We, at this website share an interest in delving into and discerning the unique developments of this program and are as ill tolerant of "fan boys" as the "groundless critics", bring us the facts and only the facts. Thanks for your opinion and now I will use your facts to form my own.

Shrill Bill has lost his ability to communicate. Thanks for the use of the soapbox! :roll:

RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 02:06
by Prinz_Eugn
Pretty sure he's British, saw him interviewed on PBS Newshour once. I'm not sure why he can't wrap his head around the F-35. Part of the problem is that he somehow fails to put the program's problems in any real historical context (learned an interesting fact today that the F-18A/B completely flunked an acceleration requirement, for example). He also is completely oblivious to the fact that politics rules and what looks like LM and the JPO incompetely dealing with cost and schedules by announcing everything is okay all the time is completely normal given our government-contractor culture.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 02:24
by 1st503rdsgt
geogen wrote:That last one might be a bit critical of Bill, imho at least. To the contrary, it's been fairly accurate reporting to date for any journalist or blogger to have been focusing on the inherent flaws of the Program (eg, the dubious and flawed business model) thus far, as well as highlighting the similar critical assessments made by say, the GAO as far back as 2005. It's not so much being zealously anti-F-35, but rather, being more so critical of the pre-conceived Program expectations and unsustainable business model requirements.

Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for him. He went after the plane itself, which is why he's been cut off by the sources one would need most to back up criticisms of program management (the engineers and pilots actually working within the program). That's a bad situation all around; Sweetman doesn't get any relevant information to report, and the program becomes more insular and less accountable.

geogen wrote:Reporters have won recognition and promotions in the past on being on the accurate side and lead of such whistle blowing and/or critical reporting later proving to be fairly correct.

None of which has happened for him. Aurora didn't materialize, and the F-35 program keeps improving despite his rants (though it isn't out of the woods yet).

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 17:00
by geogen
I think you're confusing bragging rights and fringe benefits of being a reporter with company contacts and interviews, with being able to report critically on a Program (in this case, a fighter jet).

A good reporter can still be able to make wise analysis and assessments based on news releases and govt reports, just as well as any good reporter could with direct company contacts.

And as for going after the jet itself critically, one can recall that GAO has been doing that and continues to do that vis-a-vis reporting.

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 18:18
by hobo
Bill has gone way way beyond simply reporting on flaws in the JSF program. He has become an active cheerleader for essentially anything but the F-35 and has on more than a few occasions resorted to APA-like fact twisting to promote his agenda.

Frankly he doesn't seem to understand modern air warfare, or doesn't seem to want to understand. He has argued for years that "5th generation" is a marketing term... even as one design after another has emerged he continues to play dumb about the differences between 5th generation designs and late 4th generation designs.

Why? Who knows, maybe he thinks he knows better than every country designing a new fighter today. Maybe he just doesn't understand what the new designs offer. Maybe he will refuse to understand until Europe produces a 5th generation design that he can then cheer-lead. In the end it doesn't matter.

He might as well be arguing for more battleships in the 1940s.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-3

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 18:34
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:I think you're confusing bragging rights and fringe benefits of being a reporter with company contacts and interviews, with being able to report critically on a Program (in this case, a fighter jet).

A good reporter can still be able to make wise analysis and assessments based on news releases and govt reports, just as well as any good reporter could with direct company contacts.


I heartily disagree with that. There is nothing that can replace having good contacts with a subject matter and the insight it brings. Using secondary sources like reports and news releases basically forces the researcher to introduce their own bias and assign motives to individual action. Even if you have indepth knowledge of what happened in prior projects, its difficult to extrapolate from that experience and apply it to a new situation with only a superficial understanding of a topic. Absolutely there are some common trends which can give a broad understanding. However you can't just blithely assume things without actual hard evidence. Otherwise you get things like the Aurora.

geogen wrote:And as for going after the jet itself critically, one can recall that GAO has been doing that and continues to do that vis-a-vis reporting.


I think that's a very flawed comparison. This reflects to me the difference between journalists and dedicated policy analysts. The GAO's raison d'etre is to improve the function of government, by offering expert analysis on a program. It identifies issues through extremely detailed first person interviews and possible paths to fix them. That's why at the end of the document you'll see the DoD respond to its main points.

AW is a media organization; its main aim is to sell copy by providing a product which its readership want and expect. AW generally attempts to offer low-bias reporting, but Sweetman's work has skirted the edge of that. I think the episode two years ago when Sweetman was pulled off of the F-35 file by the editor is illustrative of his position vis-a-vis the AW's tone. He certainly has expertise in the field, but his biases against the program are very clear. This affects the content he produces.

Moreover there are differences in the skillsets. The GAO employs policy, organizational and industrial analysts; people who possess extremely specialized expertise and work together on a team. Journalists don't. They often work together or with one or two others to put together a piece. Thus the ability for individual bias becomes magnified. In a way they need insight into a program to make up for their limitations... otherwise you're just making what amounts to assertions based on incomplete information.

To the best of my knowledge, AW's only suggestion for the program is to terminate it completely. That to me reflects the shallowness of their analytical capability. There is almost no systematic analysis about the actual costs, the cost of cancellation, what the alternatives are, timelines and the different force structure. To me making statements like that, basically on the contestable evidence of "it cost lots" is bad journalism and even worse policy making.

Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 19:17
by sferrin
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Pretty sure he's British, saw him interviewed on PBS Newshour once. I'm not sure why he can't wrap his head around the F-35. Part of the problem is that he somehow fails to put the program's problems in any real historical context (learned an interesting fact today that the F-18A/B completely flunked an acceleration requirement, for example). He also is completely oblivious to the fact that politics rules and what looks like LM and the JPO incompetely dealing with cost and schedules by announcing everything is okay all the time is completely normal given our government-contractor culture.


He's European and is on record stating he fears the success of the F-35 would mean the end of Eurpoean fighter developement so the source of his bias is pretty clear. (Whether euro fighter developement would 'cease I tend to doubt.)

RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 19:34
by XanderCrews
From what I have read he seems to always fancy himself the smartest man in the room, and seems to have a very low opinion of those uniform who promote the F-35. Namely the USMC.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-3

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 22:56
by 1st503rdsgt
geogen wrote:A good reporter can still be able to make wise analysis and assessments based on news releases and govt reports

What you just described here is nothing more than blogging, something any 2-bit fanboy can do from his mom's basement.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 06:27
by spazsinbad
Seein' as how the SupaDupaHornet is mentioned a lot - perhaps appropriate to enter this data here...

Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition ANAO Audit Report No.6 2012–13

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Au ... 0OCRed.pdf (4.7Mb)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options beyond

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 06:44
by geogen
Good reply Hb_pencil. All good points, but one could only disagree too with your implied view that only those who are critical of the Program have a bias. Journalists who have intimate ties with company reps and who report favorably of the Program along the lines of company/govt views can just as easily report from a biased stand point. In short, most all journalism arguably contains bias, whether a report be critical or favorable. However, it's no mystery that a company may cut off ties with a reporter who is critical of what is interpreted and concluded as inherent and fundamental flaws with the Program and extend fringe benefits and continual access to sit down interviews with those who may remain favorable.

And with respect to your downplaying of official reports and news releases, those are actually more telling of bottom line ongoings of a concern than a sit down interview accessing (PUBLIC) positions of the company of progress and future expectations/goals, etc. Note also that company or govt officials would NOT disclose to even friendly reporters confidential or classified internal assessments which could come out in later reports.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 16:46
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Good reply Hb_pencil. All good points, but one could only disagree too with your implied view that only those who are critical of the Program have a bias.



Sweetman does have a bias though. Thats the problem, he is well past responsible, even handed reporting.

Please don't confuse "All journalists" with Bill Sweetman. its very clear he has an ax to grind. He no longer deserves the "just a reporter trying to be critical" with maybe a shade of bias credibility.

He is on a mission, and he is willing to destroy himself and his publication. He is completely biased and compromised. Thats obvious, I was just curious as to why.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 17:12
by 1st503rdsgt
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:Good reply Hb_pencil. All good points, but one could only disagree too with your implied view that only those who are critical of the Program have a bias.

Sweetman does have a bias though. Thats the problem, he is well past responsible, even handed reporting.

Please don't confuse "All journalists" with Bill Sweetman. its very clear he has an ax to grind. He no longer deserves the "just a reporter trying to be critical" with maybe a shade of bias credibility.

He is on a mission, and he is willing to destroy himself and his publication. He is completely biased and compromised. Thats obvious, I was just curious as to why.

I've been thinking about doing a historiographical study on his work to find out. His obsessive pursuit of the F-35 probably won't end well for him.

Image

All work and no play makes Bill a dull boy. Happy Halloween! :twisted:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 17:42
by geogen
To F414, please understand that given the F-35s Program to date, there is simply no possible way any reporter can manage a reputation of just appearing 'slightly critical with only a shade of bias' for 5 years and counting (due to the Program's continuing flaws) and not be perceived by fans as not having an ax to grind. It's the Program destroying the credibility, not the reporter. Self-inflicted from inception via JSF's/F-35s unsustainable and flawed business model. Very unfortunately.

Beyond that, yes I would concur that the reporter in question is let's say, 'leading the charge' in highlighting on the serious concerns, warnings and flaws inherent with the Program, as for example have been identified in part by the likes of GAO for the past 6-7 years.

That's his prerogative as a reporter if he so wishes to make that a specialized platform. Other reporters will differ.

Let's just not go over board with the issue though and rather, let's let history play itself out and give credit where credit is due to one reporter or another in the end with decisively calling it the way he or she called it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other op

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 18:07
by 1st503rdsgt
geogen wrote:To F414, please understand that given the F-35s Program to date, there is simply no possible way any reporter can manage a reputation of just appearing 'slightly critical with only a shade of bias' for 5 years and counting (due to the Program's continuing flaws) and not be perceived by fans as not having an ax to grind.

I've never been a "fan" of the F-35 program; but over the past 3 years, Sweetman has gone from informed critic to complete joke. His more recent harangues have more in common the childish YouTube rants of a European fanboy than with the serious critiques one finds elsewhere.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other option

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 18:08
by hobo
Beyond that, yes I would concur that the reporter in question is let's say, 'leading the charge' in exposing and highlighting the critical flaws inherent with the Program as identified by the likes of GAO, eg.


Once again, BS is not simply highlighting anything. He is obsessed with bashing the F-35 and promoting its competitors. He has an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. He reports bad news, which he then tries to spin to make it sound worse, all while actively seeking ways to portray any F-35 competitor in a positive light.

There have been problems with the F-35 as a program, clearly... but that is not the same thing as the sort of juvenile attacks he takes part in.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 18:17
by geogen
Let's just let history play itself out on this one, in deciding what if any ultimate joke exists... i.e., either the Program as flawed business model from inception deserving to have been replaced, or a reporter/blogger/advocate/activist erroneously calling it that way.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 18:30
by 1st503rdsgt
geogen wrote:Let's just let history play itself out on this one, in deciding what if any ultimate joke exists... i.e., either the Program as flawed business model from inception deserving to have been replaced, or a reporter/blogger/advocate/activist erroneously calling it that way.

One could hardly disagree with you on the flawed business model up to this point; but that's not really where Bill directs most of his vitriol now, is it?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other op

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 18:42
by sferrin
:: Post removed by moderator. Personal attacks are not tolerated. ::

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore othe

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 19:15
by Prinz_Eugn
The problems with the F-35 are absolutely standard as far as huge defense programs are concerned. It's absolutely biased to compare the F-35 to much less technically ambitious programs like the Eurocanards, and ignorant to not put the F-35 in the context of historical US programs, which have almost without fail been later and more expensive than anticipated (as have most foreign programs).

GAO has likewise been critical of all of those programs in their time, to the point that the GAO reports from the 70's sound a lot like the ones now... so a critical GAO is less of a knock on the F-35 than acknowledgement that the F-35 is in fact a DoD project.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 19:37
by 1st503rdsgt
Prinz_Eugn wrote:The problems with the F-35 are absolutely standard as far as huge defense programs are concerned. It's absolutely biased to compare the F-35 to much less technically ambitious programs like the Eurocanards

Are you kidding? The Eurofighter program makes JSF look like a paradigm for efficient project management. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGNiyUmrvvE

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 20:20
by spazsinbad
One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready and this is for '1st503rdsgt' :D

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 22:25
by quicksilver
geogen wrote:Let's just let history play itself out on this one, in deciding what if any ultimate joke exists... i.e., either the Program as flawed business model from inception deserving to have been replaced, or a reporter/blogger/advocate/activist erroneously calling it that way.


The vast majority don't understand the original acquisition model, nor when it went astray -- i.e. when they tubed the weight estimates 8-9 years ago. The restructure that followed didn't move the production start proportionally, and thus the program that resulted was not the one that was planned.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2012, 22:32
by sferrin
1st503rdsgt wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:The problems with the F-35 are absolutely standard as far as huge defense programs are concerned. It's absolutely biased to compare the F-35 to much less technically ambitious programs like the Eurocanards

Are you kidding? The Eurofighter program makes JSF look like a paradigm for efficient project management. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGNiyUmrvvE



Given that there was nothing really groundbreaking at all about the Eurofighter it'd be strange if it were anything but smooth. It's like people trotting out the Super Hornet when talking about smooth programs. They completely neglect the fact that it's just another 4th gen and a single variant at that.

edit: Oh dear. Wow. Imagine if they'd tried something difficult. :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other options be

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 01:24
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:one could only disagree too with your implied view that only those who are critical of the Program have a bias.


I never have, nor would I ever suggest that. Actually I clearly stated that the GAO is very critical of the program (as part of their mandate), and yet they are able to deliver factual and insightful analysis. And its quite a bit different than than what some journalists are doing.

geogen wrote:And with respect to your downplaying of official reports and news releases, those are actually more telling of bottom line ongoings of a concern than a sit down interview accessing (PUBLIC) positions of the company of progress and future expectations/goals, etc. Note also that company or govt officials would NOT disclose to even friendly reporters confidential or classified internal assessments which could come out in later reports.



Frankly, that's not true at all, particularly in my experience of writing a number of works in an official capacity. Most of the "official reports" you cite, like the GAO, CBO and RAND, could not occur without the interviews they obtain with the program staff, because those are outside looking in reports.

The true official reports, like the SAR, are only a snapshot at any one time. Without the contextual information of interviews you're extremely limited at understanding the underlying dynamics. That was my experience several years ago; I really did not understand a lot of these issues until I started discussing them with the people involved in it. Interviews with key participants has given me a new sense of the program's dynamics and the challenges they face. Most individuals I've met are cognizant of the problems and will offer some interesting insight about how it might be fixed.

You can claim what you want. However for any effective policy analysis or journalism to occur, first hand interviews are probably one of the most effective means of getting information on what is going on in a program.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 03:44
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Let's just let history play itself out on this one, in deciding what if any ultimate joke exists... i.e., either the Program as flawed business model from inception deserving to have been replaced, or a reporter/blogger/advocate/activist erroneously calling it that way.


I would have to disagree with you there on some very simple principles:

If the F-35 fails (again looking less likely everyday) It does not justify lies, half truths, careful editing, and biased spin.

Imagine a news reporter accusing an election candidate of a serious crime like federal tax evasion, when the truth was actually an unpaid parking ticket, and advocating the candidates opponent by editing or covering up his violation of other laws.

Then imagine some apologist (thats you) deciding if that reporter was "correct in his bias" (lies justified) based on the election results. Can you see how that is dangerous not only to the truth but the profession of journalism altogether? We decide who was telling the story accurately by how things ended? If my candidate wins we elected a tax dodger and if your candidate wins we elected a saint? when none of that ever happened in the first place? And then the reporters reason is "well I always liked the other guy, and hes in charge now, so alls well that ends well"

Its no secret that the F-35 has had problems. But that doesn't mean you get to lie. The tricks to inflate the bad and bury the good with a stated bias, do no service to either side, nor to the people who may simply be holding judgement until they learn more. If its as bad as Bill says, why does he need to spin it anyway?

we don't have to wait to see "how the F-35 turns out" to see that Bill Sweetman has been untruthful. I don't need to see how it ends to know he is not being accurate RIGHT NOW. If the F-35 fails for some reason sweetman never stated, then he is justified in inflating the things he claimed that were untruthful and had nothing to do with its demise? Is that accuracy?

Allow me to write a tombstone for myself

XanderCrews

1981-2065

Died shortly after being the first man to walk on the moon.

Well, thats not true. But I did die, so I guess it must be what really happened. gotta wait til the end to find out though. If I live past 2065, I must have been the first man on the moon.

Secondly, In order to be accurate and intelligent criticism, it must be intelligent and accurate. It must be weighed against historical and factual context. For example are the F-35s problems truly unique in modern aircraft procurement? If they are different how so? If not, why not? If he is in such command of the facts, than accurate predictions about production numbers vs projected production numbers should be easily tallied and shortfalls in accurately estimated numbers instead we get "Loren says..." If Bill were a sports fan he would size up both teams, and predict that one side will lose and the other will win, but not which team, and he dare not guess by how much. Bold. Lets see how it plays out, though.

Saying "lets see how it plays out" really cant fit anyway because the F-35 may never be decisive one way or another. If production is curtailed but the F-35 turns out to be excellent in service, is Bill right because production was cut short, and yet wrong because the F-35 is a winning aircraft? And if that is so, then couldn't production being cut short be considered an error (like the F-22) ?? in which case Bill was wrong in all cases? Bill basically shoots in every direction and hopes he hits something. Or more accurately hits everything but none of it is of any value. ("Killing" a rock, isn't hunting) He no longer seems to be able to identify true game from trees and pebbles. Hopefully he has saved up all of his paychecks before Aviation Week realizes he wasted all their ammo, and broke their shotgun.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Expl

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 11:47
by 1st503rdsgt
f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 16:28
by sferrin
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.


The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 16:48
by 1st503rdsgt
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.


The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.


The only thing I notice about Ares is that it's dead as hell over there, mostly an echo chamber for AVweek staff.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 16:59
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.


The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.


So is Bill just playing a role?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 17:48
by 1st503rdsgt
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.

The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.

So is Bill just playing a role?

Perhaps. The F-35's troubles made for a lot of good print, and Sweetman staked his reputation on it's abject failure in terms of development costs AND performance. Matter-of-fact reporting on the current situation would leave his less-informed readership confused, so he has to keep reaching harder and harder to maintain the impression that the program is still on the verge of collapse.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 19:10
by neptune
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.


The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.


So is Bill just playing a role?


Sh! You'll ruin his hard earned image!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 19:21
by neptune
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.


The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.


So is Bill just playing a role?


Sh! You'll ruin his hard earned image!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 19:25
by XanderCrews
1st503rdsgt wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.

The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.

So is Bill just playing a role?

Perhaps. The F-35's troubles made for a lot of good print, and Sweetman staked his reputation on it's abject failure in terms of development costs AND performance. Matter-of-fact reporting on the current situation would leave his less-informed readership confused, so he has to keep reaching harder and harder to maintain the impression that the program is still on the verge of collapse.


Thats the other part of it. One of the most bizarre aspects of Sweetman is constantly painting the F-35 program as one that is just a moment away from the end. Thats where I feel he lies-- painting the picture that a bloody nose means fatal brain hemmorage! He doesn't report problems and setbacks as things that can or can't be fixed, he reports them all as unfixable and signs of the inevitable end which frankly makes him look like he can't tell large problems from small, thus doesn't know what he is talking about. If I want insight from a panicked spaz I can hit up a 2 bit blog as you say, aviation week is supposed to be better right? "respected by business and industry" and all

constant cries of wolf over the years are not helping him.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 19:38
by Prinz_Eugn
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:f414, Bill Sweetman doesn't lie about the F-35 program; he just takes every opportunity to editorialize on it whether the news is good or bad. He may not like it, but he still has to stick close enough to the facts in order to avoid being sued for libels.


The most telling sign of bias is if you follow the Ares blog/ AvWeek you'll notice a pattern. If there's something that can be portrayed as negative it'll always be written by BS. If it's something positive it'll be written by someone else. Watch, you'll see what I mean.


So is Bill just playing a role?


No, more like AVweek is trying to counterbalance Bill with more standard reporting. I assume the don't really want to fire him, probably because it would be bad publicity to fire a "legend" or they'd lose internet rep among the poorly informed interweb crowd.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 20:12
by 1st503rdsgt
XanderCrews wrote:One of the most bizarre aspects of Sweetman is constantly painting the F-35 program as one that is just a moment away from the end. Thats where I feel he lies-- painting the picture that a bloody nose means fatal brain hemmorage! He doesn't report problems and setbacks as things that can or can't be fixed, he reports them all as unfixable and signs of the inevitable end which frankly makes him look like he can't tell large problems from small, thus doesn't know what he is talking about. If I want insight from a panicked spaz I can hit up a 2 bit blog as you say, aviation week is supposed to be better right? "respected by business and industry" and all

constant cries of wolf over the years are not helping him.

Well, the F-35 is far from being out of the woods. Then again, I'm just old enough to remember doom and gloom surrounding the C-17 program back in the day. Turns out the USAF ended up buying more than they wanted when the cold war was still on. One wonders what Sweetman's opinion was on that project (I have vague memories of AVweek not liking it). Of course, there wasn't much of an internet back then to remember one's mistakes. He certainly didn't have to deal with much ridicule when Aurora failed to materialize. Should the F-35 work out, the blogosphere might not be so forgiving.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 20:17
by 1st503rdsgt
Prinz_Eugn wrote:No, more like AVweek is trying to counterbalance Bill with more standard reporting. I assume the don't really want to fire him, probably because it would be bad publicity to fire a "legend" or they'd lose internet rep among the poorly informed interweb crowd.

Better to have him inside the tent pi$$ing out than on the outside pi$$ing in... for now. Maybe they'll go ahead and fire his a$$ after IOC.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2012, 22:49
by XanderCrews
Prinz_Eugn wrote:No, more like AVweek is trying to counterbalance Bill with more standard reporting. I assume the don't really want to fire him, probably because it would be bad publicity to fire a "legend" or they'd lose internet rep among the poorly informed interweb crowd.


They keep paying Bill to expand the demographic they are afraid of losing, that only exists because they have hired Bill to continue misleading it.

Quite the self-licking ice cream cone there.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2012, 05:36
by gtx
XanderCrews wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: If I want insight from a panicked spaz I can hit up a 2 bit blog


Like ELP perhaps? :lol:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWe

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2012, 05:43
by velocityvector
<damn>

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWe

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2012, 07:23
by spazsinbad
[For the 'sgt' it was 'XanderCrews'] "If I want insight from a panicked spaz..."? I ain't no hollerback gril. :D [For the 'sgt' I won't explain the joke.]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2012, 14:13
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:"If I want insight from a panicked spaz..."? I ain't no hollerback gril. :D

Well, that wasn't me (someone keeps screwing up their quotes), but they probably weren't talking about you anyways.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other optio

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 16:08
by rkap
1st503rdsgt
Someone should tell that to the Russians and Chinese. Seems a magic box of stealth would be cheaper than their current efforts. How strange... considering that they should be the ones most aware of how useless VLO will be in "~5-10 years."


Not sure about the Chinese - all we have is a few pictures? The Pak Fa though is adopting that exact approach - only limited emphasis on stealth. From what they say and what we read they have the technology but have deliberately not gone down that path. There has to be a reason? Instead they have decided to improve it in all conventional areas over there 4++ SU35.

Improvements such as a new big powerful ASEA radar with 5 antennas - improved IR detection front and rear - L-Band [or C/D Band as some say] Radar on the leading edges - better range and endurance - 20,000m ceiling - better agility - keep there 3D thrust vectoring - super-cruise - big payload.
No trade-offs for stealth overall.
On the countermeasure side and electronics and computer software etc. we will just have to wait but they obviously are putting in the best they have or can buy. Other experts say the L-Band can be used in this area as well.

On missiles the Head of there Missile development stated only about 4 months ago - "we have more or less finished developing improved medium range and short range missiles for the Pak Fa and air to ground missiles but are still continuing work on a 2 stage missile. We have given up on a Meteor equivalent as too expensive to produce. They don't say much about this 2 stage missile and never have except to say they are still working on it. Other experts say its purpose obviously is to overcome the problem of missile performance dropping off in the terminal stages. Designed to be launched and guided "possibly by Microwave guidance" to an approximate location picked up by the L-Band or ?Radar close to the target on the first stage and then have the final stage using its own seeker take over for the final terminal stage. In effect combine a medium range guided missile with a short range self seeking missile.

One thing for sure is they are not putting L-Band or whatever they are on the Pak Fa for nothing and they are not spending money on developing a 2 stage missile for nothing. The Israelis could be correct about the 5-10 year limit. Against an enemy though there is no doubt VLO will still have advantages for a long time but against better equipped enemies the advantages it now has will are gradually disappearing. There never ever has been a technology that could not be effectively countered and the Russians are probably the best equipped to do that.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other o

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 16:25
by 1st503rdsgt
rkap wrote:
1st503rdsgt
Someone should tell that to the Russians and Chinese. Seems a magic box of stealth would be cheaper than their current efforts. How strange... considering that they should be the ones most aware of how useless VLO will be in "~5-10 years."


Not sure about the Chinese - all we have is a few pictures? The Pak Fa though is adopting that exact approach - only limited emphasis on stealth. From what they say and what we read they have the technology but have deliberately not gone down that path. There has to be a reason? Instead they have decided to improve it in all conventional areas over there 4++ SU35.
Improvements such as a new big powerful ASEA radar with 5 antennas - improved IR detection front and rear - L-Band [or C/D Band as some say] Radar on the leading edges - better range and endurance - 20,000m ceiling - better agility - keep there 3D thrust vectoring - super-cruise - big payload.
No trade-offs for stealth overall.
On the countermeasure side and electronics and computer software etc. we will just have to wait but they obviously are putting in the best they have or can buy. Other experts say the L-Band can be used in this area as well.
On missiles the Head of there Missile development stated only about 4 months ago - "we have more or less finished developing improved medium range and short range missiles for the Pak Fa and air to ground missiles but are still continuing work on a 2 stage missile. We have given up on a Meteor equivalent as too expensive to produce. They don't say much about this 2 stage missile and never have except to say they are still working on it. Other experts say its purpose obviously is to overcome the problem of missile performance dropping off in the terminal stages. Designed to be launched and guided "possibly by Microwave guidance" to an approximate location picked up by the L-Band or ?Radar close to the target on the first stage and then have the final stage using its own seeker take over for the final terminal stage. In effect combine a medium range guided missile with a short range self seeking missile. One thing for sure is they are not putting L-Band or whatever they are on the Pak Fa for nothing and they are not spending money on developing a 2 stage missile for nothing. The Israelis could be correct about the 5-10 year limit. Against an enemy though there is no doubt VLO will still have advantages for a long time but against better equipped enemies the advantages it now has will are gradually disappearing. There never ever has been a technology that could not be effectively countered and the Russians are probably the best equipped to do that.

Old APA fan-fic. :roll: I'm too hung over to deal with trolls right now.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore oth

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 17:03
by lamoey
The Spanker, AKA PAK-FA, may even come with the new rubber band. It is supposed to be flexible in all directions. In a stretch it may even be wrapped all around the Spanker.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek: Explore other o

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2012, 22:05
by XanderCrews
rkap wrote:
1st503rdsgt
Someone should tell that to the Russians and Chinese. Seems a magic box of stealth would be cheaper than their current efforts. How strange... considering that they should be the ones most aware of how useless VLO will be in "~5-10 years."


Not sure about the Chinese - all we have is a few pictures? The Pak Fa though is adopting that exact approach - only limited emphasis on stealth. From what they say and what we read they have the technology but have deliberately not gone down that path. There has to be a reason? Instead they have decided to improve it in all conventional areas over there 4++ SU35.
Improvements such as a new big powerful ASEA radar with 5 antennas - improved IR detection front and rear - L-Band [or C/D Band as some say] Radar on the leading edges - better range and endurance - 20,000m ceiling - better agility - keep there 3D thrust vectoring - super-cruise - big payload.
No trade-offs for stealth overall.
On the countermeasure side and electronics and computer software etc. we will just have to wait but they obviously are putting in the best they have or can buy. Other experts say the L-Band can be used in this area as well.
On missiles the Head of there Missile development stated only about 4 months ago - "we have more or less finished developing improved medium range and short range missiles for the Pak Fa and air to ground missiles but are still continuing work on a 2 stage missile. We have given up on a Meteor equivalent as too expensive to produce. They don't say much about this 2 stage missile and never have except to say they are still working on it. Other experts say its purpose obviously is to overcome the problem of missile performance dropping off in the terminal stages. Designed to be launched and guided "possibly by Microwave guidance" to an approximate location picked up by the L-Band or ?Radar close to the target on the first stage and then have the final stage using its own seeker take over for the final terminal stage. In effect combine a medium range guided missile with a short range self seeking missile. One thing for sure is they are not putting L-Band or whatever they are on the Pak Fa for nothing and they are not spending money on developing a 2 stage missile for nothing. The Israelis could be correct about the 5-10 year limit. Against an enemy though there is no doubt VLO will still have advantages for a long time but against better equipped enemies the advantages it now has will are gradually disappearing. There never ever has been a technology that could not be effectively countered and the Russians are probably the best equipped to do that.


You must work on the PAK-FA Program! What else can you tell us?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 00:25
by sewerrat
1st503rdsgt wrote:Well, the F-35 is far from being out of the woods. Then again, I'm just old enough to remember doom and gloom surrounding the C-17 program back in the day. Turns out the USAF ended up buying more than they wanted when the cold war was still on. One wonders what Sweetman's opinion was on that project (I have vague memories of AVweek not liking it). Of course, there wasn't much of an internet back then to remember one's mistakes. He certainly didn't have to deal with much ridicule when Aurora failed to materialize. Should the F-35 work out, the blogosphere might not be so forgiving.


Yeah, I remember the C-17 days. Then around 1989 the F-117 was torn to shreds after it bombed Panama, and the bombs fell exactly where they were targeted. The F-15 was also criticized being it ever saw duty - now everyone thinks its the greatest thing since spam. Its the circle of life... there will always be more armchair quarterbacks than real QBs. The internet has just magnified that effect by about 3 billion people. Sweetman needs to make $$$... like everyone else in the "media" its by sensationalized overblown stories.

The -35 will be the saving grace of the USAF after the cancellation of the F-22. And with its gee whiz electronics, it'll worth its weight in platinum.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 00:34
by popcorn
In the game of aerial hide-and-seek, surely the PAK-FA pilot must be aware that he is switching on a gigantic "hey guys..,here I am" sign every time he switches on all those radars?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: AvWeek:

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2012, 00:58
by count_to_10
sewerrat wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Well, the F-35 is far from being out of the woods. Then again, I'm just old enough to remember doom and gloom surrounding the C-17 program back in the day. Turns out the USAF ended up buying more than they wanted when the cold war was still on. One wonders what Sweetman's opinion was on that project (I have vague memories of AVweek not liking it). Of course, there wasn't much of an internet back then to remember one's mistakes. He certainly didn't have to deal with much ridicule when Aurora failed to materialize. Should the F-35 work out, the blogosphere might not be so forgiving.


Yeah, I remember the C-17 days. Then around 1989 the F-117 was torn to shreds after it bombed Panama, and the bombs fell exactly where they were targeted. The F-15 was also criticized being it ever saw duty - now everyone thinks its the greatest thing since spam. Its the circle of life... there will always be more armchair quarterbacks than real QBs. The internet has just magnified that effect by about 3 billion people. Sweetman needs to make $$$... like everyone else in the "media" its by sensationalized overblown stories.

The -35 will be the saving grace of the USAF after the cancellation of the F-22. And with its gee whiz electronics, it'll worth its weight in platinum.

Unless I've done my math wrong, that would come out to something like $700 million.