AvWeek: Explore other options beyond F-35

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5937
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 Oct 2012, 18:10

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.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post17 Oct 2012, 21:38

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.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

rkap

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 245
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2010, 14:29
  • Location: Australia

Unread post18 Oct 2012, 16:55

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.
Offline

rkap

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 245
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2010, 14:29
  • Location: Australia

Unread post18 Oct 2012, 17:06

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.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post18 Oct 2012, 21:40

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.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post18 Oct 2012, 22:37

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.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post18 Oct 2012, 23:19

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.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post18 Oct 2012, 23:39

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.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post18 Oct 2012, 23:56

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/
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post19 Oct 2012, 00:04

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
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 957
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post19 Oct 2012, 03:32

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...
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3238
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Oct 2012, 13:28

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.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3238
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Oct 2012, 13:30

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."
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post19 Oct 2012, 16:25

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.
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post19 Oct 2012, 18:46

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.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests