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

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

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post02 May 2016, 03:18

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


Thanks johnwill, that has to be about the best aviation quote I've ever heard. Very funny, and a deadly serious truism. That has to go up there with "Any landing you can walk away from is a good one." Keep em flying kid.
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post02 May 2016, 03:22

Well, given that the HASC neglected to arbitrarily set the range, speed or ceiling, the answer is actually going to give them a helicopter.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post02 May 2016, 03:47

Gums wrote: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...


Salute gums. I know it's off topic, and I'm sure you've been asked this before, but you've flown so many aircraft, what was your favorite to fly? Thanks.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 May 2016, 04:10

cantaz wrote:Well, given that the HASC neglected to arbitrarily set the range, speed or ceiling, the answer is actually going to give them a helicopter.



Buy that man a beer! Lol
Choose Crews
Offline

brucealrighty

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2015, 07:06

Unread post02 May 2016, 04:27

AntonovA40.jpg


Add a link16 and it meets requirements as far as I can see :devil:
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post02 May 2016, 04:55

Salute!

TNX for nice words, Sailor.

- @ SAILOR: Best quote after John Will were our rules when nuggets and flying on the wing. Only things we were allowed to say was:

"2"
"Gear check"
"Lead, you are on fire!"

Secondly, I liked the Viper an awful lot, but I was most comfortable in the Sluf.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post02 May 2016, 05:26

Gums wrote:Salute!

TNX for nice words, Sailor.

- @ SAILOR: Best quote after John Will were our rules when nuggets and flying on the wing. Only things we were allowed to say was:

"2"
"Gear check"
"Lead, you are on fire!"

Secondly, I liked the Viper an awful lot, but I was most comfortable in the Sluf.

Gums sends...


Oh my God, I'm on fire! ah, ah, ah, ah, ah..........................................

You can't help loving the Viper, but I should have known the Sluf was the love of your life. I wonder if the USAF had gone with the A-7D, or what ever it would have been upgraded too, rather then the A-10 do you think the A-7 would be flying today?
Offline

MD

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2004, 11:25

Unread post02 May 2016, 05:41

tincansailor wrote:You can't help loving the Viper, but I should have known the Sluf was the love of your life. I wonder if the USAF had gone with the A-7D, or what ever it would have been upgraded too, rather then the A-10 do you think the A-7 would be flying today?


Was that the proposed A-7F version?
Offline

MD

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2004, 11:25

Unread post02 May 2016, 05:43

spazsinbad wrote: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


Ay yi yi. When are these people going to understand that going low is by exception, not by design? Unless the tactical situation dictates going low for whatever reason(s), then you don't deliberately place yourself in the WEZ of ground fire, especially today with PGMs and targeting pods.
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 521
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post02 May 2016, 05:55

Gums wrote: Best quote after John Will were our rules when nuggets and flying on the wing. Only things we were allowed to say was:

"2"
"Gear check"
"Lead, you are on fire!"

Gums sends...


Must be different in the -1. In NATOPS, it is "2", "You're on fire", and "I'll take the ugly one" :)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3061
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post02 May 2016, 07:13

MD wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: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


Ay yi yi. When are these people going to understand that going low is by exception, not by design? Unless the tactical situation dictates going low for whatever reason(s), then you don't deliberately place yourself in the WEZ of ground fire, especially today with PGMs and targeting pods.


Agreed. The requirement list is also really baffling to me. How about combination of these three:

(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.


So, you are facing an enemy that has means to deny GPS and satellites in general. Then the same enemy has only small arms, machine guns and MANPADS to protect their ground forces and maneuver units? Oh, really? How many countries or other actors are there that can deny satellites or military GPS? Then check out the AD systems those same countries have in significant numbers. Hint to HASC: They don't really use lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery any more. Well, if you consider 25 mm and 30 mm as "lower caliber", then maybe...
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 May 2016, 19:15

MD wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: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


Ay yi yi. When are these people going to understand that going low is by exception, not by design? Unless the tactical situation dictates going low for whatever reason(s), then you don't deliberately place yourself in the WEZ of ground fire, especially today with PGMs and targeting pods.


MD, as someone has flown both ends of the spectrum with the A-10 and F-117 whats your take on this generally speaking?

I mean a lot of people have decided that armor=survivability but as an F-117 guy its almost the complete opposite concept, and historically we have had tactically better survivability with the stealth airplane. What are your thoughts?

Greeting from Freezing New Mexico BTW
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 May 2016, 01:17

I did not know the F-35 was a dainty flower waiting to be plucked (I'm being polite here - so bear with):
McSally Wants To Tie A-10 Retirement To F-35 Flyoff
02 May 2016 Lara Seligman

"...the A-10 can stay in the air even after enemy fire has taken out its most crucial capabilities, while the F-35A cannot survive a direct hit...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83824780/

What was Live Fire Testing for the F-35 (when AA-1 destroyed) all about eh? By Gosh this A-10 is just magic indeed.

Aircraft Survivability Journal PDFs here: https://info.aiaa.org/tac/adsg/SURTC/Ne ... Items.aspx
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 May 2016, 01:39

spazsinbad wrote:I did not know the F-35 was a dainty flower waiting to be plucked (I'm being polite here - so bear with):
McSally Wants To Tie A-10 Retirement To F-35 Flyoff
02 May 2016 Lara Seligman

"...the A-10 can stay in the air even after enemy fire has taken out its most crucial capabilities, while the F-35A cannot survive a direct hit...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83824780/

What was Live Fire Testing for the F-35 (when AA-1 destroyed) all about eh? By Gosh this A-10 is just magic indeed.

Aircraft Survivability Journal PDFs here: https://info.aiaa.org/tac/adsg/SURTC/Ne ... Items.aspx



Lol priceless. I guess those A-10s that got shot down weren't hit in their most crucial capabilities?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 May 2016, 02:09

This forum has a lot of info about LFT&E probably search under JASPO though to find it. Here is a good 'SWP' forum post: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=14199&p=221179&hilit=JASPO#p221179
Survivability of the Next Strike Fighter
Summer 2006 Jeffrey Brewer and Shawn Meadows | Aircraft Survivability

"...To 2040 and Beyond
The simple goal of the JSF Survivability team is to deliver the best aircraft possible within the fiscal and technological
realities that are before us; to provide the warfighter a system that will carry him or her into combat and home afterward; and to do this against any imaginable threat, no matter the environment or the conflict, for the next 30 years or more...."

Source: https://info.aiaa.org/tac/adsg/SURTC/Ne ... Summer.pdf (2Mb)
Attachments
F-35 Multi-Spectral Offensive & Defensive Situational Awareness.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests