Page 7 of 19

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.