Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

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

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post14 Aug 2014, 00:05

XanderCrews wrote:
smsgtmac wrote:Like the faux reformer crowd he seems to fancy, Ward is always on about 'excessive complexity' without ever specifically getting to defining how complex is "too complex" and why it is only those who think like they do are the magical arbiters of what constitutes 'too complex'. I've dissected his latest book (bought used) and where it is right he plays Captain (Or Lt Col) Obvious. Where he is wrong he creates a fallacious argumentation equivalent of a theme park. Reading his stuff is like going to a bad game show: All 'wow', no Whoah!


Agree with all points, but I just wanted to add to this above. For the "excessive complexity" crew Its easy to compare an aircraft 1 vs 1 and go over "complexity" But how complex are the F-15s that have to clear the skies for the A-10 and the the F-16CJ/EA-18G that have to jam and provide SEAD for the A-10 in a coordinated manner? Does that change the complexity equation? because the F-35 is going to do the same mission with 1 type of airplane instead of 3 types.

Lets take a look

F-35 Mission: AA/AG/SEAD
types needed:
F-35

A-10 mission: AA/AG/SEAD
Types needed
F-16CJ/EF-18/EA-6
F-15C/F-22
A-10.

Well golly gee whiz there.

Next in the "complexity is relative" category, The most complex part of an airplane is the engines, the A-10 has 2. Not one to save on complexity as Pierre Sprey mentions constantly. These guys need to have a meeting and get the story straight. Where they say complexity is bad, unless its not in which case its necessary to make the aircraft better so its good :doh:


Yeah the irony is, is it more complex to maintain
- 3 airframes, sometimes up to 6 engines
or
- 1 airframe with 1 engine

Hmmm, the answer seems obvious


How much fuel are you spending by sending in
- 3 airframes with 2x engines
or
- 1 airframe with 1x engine


How many more things can go wrong on a mission when you have
- 3 airframes
or
- 1 airframe


Logic would dictate that having less planes, less fuel spent, less parts to go wrong in a mission is superior.
F-35 is the winner here as far as I can tell
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post06 Sep 2014, 00:02

count_to_10 wrote:Different posting of that same article:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=1570
What I am interested in here is the comments, particularly this one:
Gen Hostage & Gen Welsh's argument that fast movers & bombers can provide effective CAS was shown to be wrong yet again by the recent fratricide of 5 Green Berets by a B-1 bomber in a permissive environment. Inexcusable.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tGPT_7jrA

Take a listen to the above comm from a Mud Hen driver handing off a night TIC to an incoming Bone. Not sure how the Bone is our "premier CAS asset"?

BMB at 7/30/2014 1:43 PM

The audio of the video doesn't sound right to me, like someone is putting on a show to praise the A-10, but I'm no expert. Isn't the B-1 more accurate than the A-10, with better situational awareness?

Looks like this was real (or at least a real event):
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... ion-mix-up

The B-1 hit the target precisely; unfortunately, they were given a bad target by a controller because no one realized that the Sniper pod couldn't see IR strobes -- something that would have happened to any aircraft using the pod for targeting and surveillance, including an A-10.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

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

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Sep 2014, 07:35

Akin to B-2 accurately bombing the Chinese Diplomatic facility by mistake.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post06 Sep 2014, 16:09

count_to_10 wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Different posting of that same article:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=1570
What I am interested in here is the comments, particularly this one:
Gen Hostage & Gen Welsh's argument that fast movers & bombers can provide effective CAS was shown to be wrong yet again by the recent fratricide of 5 Green Berets by a B-1 bomber in a permissive environment. Inexcusable.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8tGPT_7jrA

Take a listen to the above comm from a Mud Hen driver handing off a night TIC to an incoming Bone. Not sure how the Bone is our "premier CAS asset"?

BMB at 7/30/2014 1:43 PM

The audio of the video doesn't sound right to me, like someone is putting on a show to praise the A-10, but I'm no expert. Isn't the B-1 more accurate than the A-10, with better situational awareness?

Looks like this was real (or at least a real event):
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... ion-mix-up

The B-1 hit the target precisely; unfortunately, they were given a bad target by a controller because no one realized that the Sniper pod couldn't see IR strobes -- something that would have happened to any aircraft using the pod for targeting and surveillance, including an A-10.

n A

This was so sad to watch...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5401
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Sep 2014, 16:58

count_to_10 wrote:The B-1 hit the target precisely; unfortunately, they were given a bad target by a controller because no one realized that the Sniper pod couldn't see IR strobes -- something that would have happened to any aircraft using the pod for targeting and surveillance, including an A-10.


Google "A-10 fratricide". It's not immune to human error either. :roll:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Sep 2014, 23:52

It just really makes the case for putting more and better sensors at the pilot's disposal to enhance SA to mitigate the risk.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post15 Sep 2014, 18:48

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140915/DEFREG04/309150012/Gaza-War-Leaned-Heavily-F-16-Close-Air-Support
Gaza War Leaned Heavily On F-16 Close-Air Support
Hundreds of the more than 6,000 targets struck from the air during Israel’s 50-day urban war in Gaza were from fighter jets delivering one-ton bombs in record time and in close proximity to friendly ground forces...
Oh, however did they manage without the A-10? :roll:
Offline

rotosequence

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 144
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2013, 03:05

Unread post15 Sep 2014, 21:10

lookieloo wrote:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140915/DEFREG04/309150012/Gaza-War-Leaned-Heavily-F-16-Close-Air-Support
Gaza War Leaned Heavily On F-16 Close-Air Support
Hundreds of the more than 6,000 targets struck from the air during Israel’s 50-day urban war in Gaza were from fighter jets delivering one-ton bombs in record time and in close proximity to friendly ground forces...
Oh, however did they manage without the A-10? :roll:


I imagine that they managed with lower cost-effectiveness than they would if they had A-10s.

Unless you actually need and make use of the increased capabilities of a given airframe, a bomb truck is a bomb truck. Some just happen to be more expensive than others. It's not possible to say what the difference is without access to line item budgets.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post16 Sep 2014, 01:33

lookieloo wrote:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140915/DEFREG04/309150012/Gaza-War-Leaned-Heavily-F-16-Close-Air-Support
Gaza War Leaned Heavily On F-16 Close-Air Support
Hundreds of the more than 6,000 targets struck from the air during Israel’s 50-day urban war in Gaza were from fighter jets delivering one-ton bombs in record time and in close proximity to friendly ground forces...
Oh, however did they manage without the A-10? :roll:

Beat me to it. :)
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

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

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post16 Sep 2014, 10:40

rotosequence wrote:I imagine that they managed with lower cost-effectiveness than they would if they had A-10s.

Unless you actually need and make use of the increased capabilities of a given airframe, a bomb truck is a bomb truck. Some just happen to be more expensive than others. It's not possible to say what the difference is without access to line item budgets.
So many words to simply beg the question: If the A-10 is so awesome/cost-effective, why didn't the Israelis ever bother to buy it?(they pretty much have their pick of any tactical weapon we make) For that matter, why have none of our allies even asked?
Offline

rex1981

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:51

Unread post16 Sep 2014, 19:55

lookieloo wrote:
rotosequence wrote:I imagine that they managed with lower cost-effectiveness than they would if they had A-10s.

Unless you actually need and make use of the increased capabilities of a given airframe, a bomb truck is a bomb truck. Some just happen to be more expensive than others. It's not possible to say what the difference is without access to line item budgets.
So many words to simply beg the question: If the A-10 is so awesome/cost-effective, why didn't the Israelis ever bother to buy it?(they pretty much have their pick of any tactical weapon we make) For that matter, why have none of our allies even asked?

The export of the A-10 was banned by the US gov...because of the DU ammunition---was only lifted in 1985 after production ended...
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post17 Sep 2014, 02:35

rex1981 wrote: The export of the A-10 was banned by the US gov...because of the DU ammunition---was only lifted in 1985 after production ended...

That doesn't sound right. The A-10 doesn't need to use DU ammunition -- it could just as well have been loaded with something more conventional. Or the Israelis could have made there own.
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 post17 Sep 2014, 03:07

General: ‘We Don’t Have a Replacement’ for A-10, U-2
by MIKE HOFFMAN on SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

"The Air Force does not have a suitable replacement for the planned divestiture of the A-10 Warthog aircraft and U-2 spy plane, senior service leaders said Sept. 16 at the Air Force Association Air and Space Conference, National Harbor, Md.
“I don’t want to cut the A-10 and the U-2 – we don’t have a replacement,” said Gen. Michael Hostage III, Commander, Air Force Air Combat Command...."

And there it is.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/09/16/gener ... z3DXD5nSOT
Defense.org
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23290
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Sep 2014, 03:12

And here is the context:
"...“The Air Force leadership is seeking to reshape the force despite decreasing budgets. To mitigate risk we must have the ability to project power. My job is to produce as much combat power as possible. We find ourselves in the difficult position where we are forced to make cuts to legitimate priorities,” Hostage added...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post17 Sep 2014, 03:51

con·text
ˈkänˌtekst/
noun

The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... at-Command

Q. What should we expect to see for ACC in this coming budget?

A. Well, I think we made some very hard choices. The only way you save the amount of money that we are being told we have to cut from the budget is to make entire weapon systems go away.

We talked specifically about the A-10, a weapon system I would dearly love to continue in the inventory because there are tactical problems out there that would be perfectly suited for the A-10. I have other ways to solve that tactical problem. It may not be as elegant as the A-10, but I can still get the job done, but that solution is usable in another level of conflict in which the A-10 is totally useless. It does not make any sense to cut the other program and cut A-10s if I have to give one up for the other. I really save the big bucks when I take an entire [platform] and shut it down because I save the squadrons of those airplanes but I also save the logistics infrastructure, the training infrastructure and all of the overhead.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests