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

[blindpilot]

...
But people are always going to want more gas.

Salute!

Yeah Jess, gas is nice. Lottsa gas is really nice, along with low pounds per hour.

Gums sends...

That's true, everyone always wants more gas. We could carry a couple hundred thousand pounds, but we didn't always fill the tanks to the brim. I see the F-35 sort of like that. I can remember the U-2 guys yelling at us because we could only give them X hrs of comm station time from a short expeditionary field. They insisted the world would end if we didn't give them X plus 30 minutes. In those days you weren't sure whether they weren't being serious. But physics said X hours, and X hours is what they got. They made that work and the world didn't end.

I suspect the F-35 will see some of this.

Israel especially will insist that it be able to go X miles for some contingency. BUT when you ask them how they would do it without the F-35, which only needs 4 aircraft for that mission, they will have to answer. - "Well the mission package would be 4 F15's, 6 F-16s, two tankers, two C-130's with a platoon of special forces to set up the remote airfield, with 2 CSAR Helo's and a C130 Tanker just in case ... and a submarine off shore, " or 17 aircraft and a sub.

My answer is "well then deal with it!" Just because it'd be cool if they could do it with 2 F-35s if they had CFTs doesn't carry water with me as an old tanker. Use 4 F-35s instead of 2, and give them each max internal fuel and a light load. End of problem, and you didn't need 17 aircraft and a sub instead... Just like the U-2's had to suck it up and suffer through have 15 whole minutes of comm blackout, .. maybe ... It beat those missions where they were hung out all alone for hours, until they checked in after the sortie.

Yes everyone always wants more gas, but when you get the package the F-35 has, with up to 20,000 pounds of internal fuel in a single engine fighter, and a 600+ nm combat radius (When you are used to 7,000 lbs and 300nm) .......
.. Well that probably shouldn't be your first complaint. .. I mean really!...

Not enough fuel is not a problem with the F-35. I've carried about 150,000 lbs and was told "not enough fuel" ... yeah well, in that case, try it with zero, and see how that works for you, and see you back at the O-Club, Jack!

MHO anyway,
BP

[KamenRiderBlade]

That's true, everyone always wants more gas. We could carry a couple hundred thousand pounds, but we didn't always fill the tanks to the brim. I see the F-35 sort of like that. I can remember the U-2 guys yelling at us because we could only give them X hrs of comm station time from a short expeditionary field. They insisted the world would end if we didn't give them X plus 30 minutes. In those days you weren't sure whether they weren't being serious. But physics said X hours, and X hours is what they got. They made that work and the world didn't end.

I suspect the F-35 will see some of this.

Israel especially will insist that it be able to go X miles for some contingency. BUT when you ask them how they would do it without the F-35, which only needs 4 aircraft for that mission, they will have to answer. - "Well the mission package would be 4 F15's, 6 F-16s, two tankers, two C-130's with a platoon of special forces to set up the remote airfield, with 2 CSAR Helo's and a C130 Tanker just in case ... and a submarine off shore, " or 17 aircraft and a sub.

My answer is "well then deal with it!" Just because it'd be cool if they could do it with 2 F-35s if they had CFTs doesn't carry water with me as an old tanker. Use 4 F-35s instead of 2, and give them each max internal fuel and a light load. End of problem, and you didn't need 17 aircraft and a sub instead... Just like the U-2's had to suck it up and suffer through have 15 whole minutes of comm blackout, .. maybe ... It beat those missions where they were hung out all alone for hours, until they checked in after the sortie.

Yes everyone always wants more gas, but when you get the package the F-35 has, with up to 20,000 pounds of internal fuel in a single engine fighter, and a 600+ nm combat radius (When you are used to 7,000 lbs and 300nm) .......
.. Well that probably shouldn't be your first complaint. .. I mean really!...

Not enough fuel is not a problem with the F-35. I've carried about 150,000 lbs and was told "not enough fuel" ... yeah well, in that case, try it with zero, and see how that works for you, and see you back at the O-Club, Jack!

MHO anyway,
BP

So they're being whiny babies.

[KamenRiderBlade]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-a- ... 1773923092

So congress wants to legislate the A-10 to prevent it from getting shelved.

Lovely

-_-

[35_aoa]

"Cruise speed" isn't an aviation term?
After max speed, it's probably the most commonly quoted speed for aircraft when statistics are reported in publications. I was presuming it was reported for optimal altitude. Loading state would certainly be an issue -- for most aircraft, I'm guessing it is quoted for a typical internal load, with no external load.

I said it isn't something we use in tactical aviation, i.e reference while flying the aircraft. Load limit, lift limit, max range, max E, and on-speed are the main numbers I care about…..those cover about all realms of flying. Cruise speed is certainly something that glossy brochures use however, as you mentioned…..I just don't know what it actually means. 0.94 mach seems very fast for max range, if that is what they are getting at.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I said it isn't something we use in tactical aviation, i.e reference while flying the aircraft. Load limit, lift limit, max range, max E, and on-speed are the main numbers I care about…..those cover about all realms of flying. Cruise speed is certainly something that glossy brochures use however, as you mentioned…..I just don't know what it actually means. 0.94 mach seems very fast for max range, if that is what they are getting at.

Right. My model (take it for what it is) for the F-35A at 45,000# has the following
Max R is 0.854M @ FL370 for a specific range of .11206nm/lb (4367pph)
Max E at same altitude is 0.842M for 4334PPH
Max Mil for that altitude sits at 0.990M for 10,190PPH (.05570 nm/lb)

[Gums]

Salute!

Just what was or were the points that Blade quoted in that huge "quote"? Musta missed them.

Gums sends...

[KamenRiderBlade]

Salute!

Just what was or were the points that Blade quoted in that huge "quote"? Musta missed them.

Gums sends...

The other quotes that I omitted are in the post right before mines

But I was just trying to summarize the entire post down to a quick easy to understand 1 liner

People are complaining about not having enough gas.

[jetblast16]

'Max Mil for that altitude sits at 0.990M for 10,190PPH (.05570 nm/lb)' Max AB rates below 10,000 feet must be very high for that engine.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

'Max Mil for that altitude sits at 0.990M for 10,190PPH (.05570 nm/lb)' Max AB rates below 10,000 feet must be very high for that engine.

Is this surprising? It makes 90% of the thrust of an F-15A on a single engine.

[35_aoa]

Right. My model (take it for what it is) for the F-35A at 45,000# has the following
Max R is 0.854M @ FL370 for a specific range of .11206nm/lb (4367pph)
Max E at same altitude is 0.842M for 4334PPH
Max Mil for that altitude sits at 0.990M for 10,190PPH (.05570 nm/lb)

Not knowing any actual numbers, that sounds a little more reasonable for a modern fighter aircraft. I was just pointing out that the 0.94 IMN "cruise" number is, in my mind, a little ambiguous. My guess is that is the speed, at a given altitude and configuration, that it can achieve its advertised combat radius (whatever that may be). Just a *guess* though.

[Gums]

Salute!

Without the Dash-One here, we really do not know how this beast compares.

- At 35K you can zip around easily at 0.8 M at 280 - 300 KIAS, so basic rho-vee-squared dynamic pressure is about like 0.5M sea level ( just guessing).

My Voodoo burned about 3000 pounds per motor at best range speed/mach up high - .08 M. The F-102 Deuce and the F-106 did better and cruised best up around 0.9M or more, but same 3000 pound per hour per motor we had in the Voodoo.

- both the Sluf and Viper did lots better than the Century series guys or the Double Ugly. From the Eagle onward we have been getting much better miles per gallon and should be glad. Having internal ord and gobs of gas is very heart-warming to this old attack puke.

Gums opines...

[johnwill]

I've heard it said that the only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

[spazsinbad]

Heheh - OR above your maximum carrier landing weight so you have to dump some fuel.

[KamenRiderBlade]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres- ... 1773949233

Now Congress wants to legislate the A-10 replacement with another A-10 in the design requirements.

All the requirements that HASC (House Armed Services Committee) Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry wants is effectively a A-10 on paper.

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Air Force shall commission an appropriate entity outside the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of the required capabilities or mission platform to replace the A–10 aircraft. This assessment would represent preparatory work to inform an analysis of alternatives.

(B) ELEMENTS.—The assessment required under subparagraph (A) shall include each of the following:

(i) Future needs analysis for the current A–10 aircraft mission set to include troops-in-contact/close air support, air interdiction, strike control and reconnaissance, and combat search and rescue support in both contested and uncontested battle environments. At a minimum, the needs analysis should specifically address the following areas:

(I) The ability to safely and effectively conduct troops-in-contact/danger close missions or missions in close proximity to civilians in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

(II) The ability to effectively target and destroy moving, camouflaged, or dug-in troops, artillery, armor, and armored personnel carriers.

(III) The ability to engage, target, and destroy tanks and armored personnel carriers, including with respect to the carrying capacity of armor-piercing weaponry, including mounted cannons and missiles.

(IV) The ability to remain within visual range of friendly forces and targets to facilitate responsiveness to ground forces and minimize re-attack times.

(V) The ability to safely conduct close air support beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

(VI) The capability to enable the pilot and aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense systems, and lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery organic or attached to enemy ground forces and maneuver units.

(VII) The ability to communicate effectively with ground forces and downed pilots, including in communications jamming or satellite-denied environments.

(VIII) The ability to execute the missions described in subclauses (I), (II), (III), and (IV) in a GPS- or satellite-denied environment with or without sensors.

(IX) The ability to deliver multiple lethal firing passes and sustain long loiter endurance to support friendly forces throughout extended ground engagements.

(X) The ability to operate from unprepared dirt, grass, and narrow road runways and to generate high sortie rates under these austere conditions.

(ii) Identification and assessment of gaps in the ability of existing and programmed mission platforms in providing required capabilities to conduct missions specified in clause (i) in both contested and uncontested battle environments.

(iii) Assessment of operational effectiveness of existing and programmed mission platforms to conduct missions specified in clause (i) in both contested and uncontested battle environments.

(iv) Assessment of probability of likelihood of conducting missions requiring troops-in-contact/close air support operations specified in clause (i) in contested environments as compared to uncontested environments.

(v) Any other matters the independent entity or the Secretary of the Air Force determines to be appropriate.

(2) REPORT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than September 30, 2016, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that includes the assessment required under paragraph (1).

(B) FORM.—The report required under subparagraph (A) may be submitted in classified form, but shall also contain an unclassified executive summary and may contain an unclassified annex.

Somebodies gotta tell Congress that they don't get to choose design requirements.

Get them to pulll their heads out of their ****.

[spazsinbad]

The test for this will be spectacular:

"...(VI) The capability to enable the pilot and aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense systems, and lower calibre [ANOTHER "HOW LOW CAN YOU GO" interesting parameter question] anti-aircraft artillery organic or attached to enemy ground forces and maneuver units....