F35/A10 Flyoff xontroversy

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

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 649
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post02 Aug 2018, 01:57

Routine delivery from 40Kft? Isn't that the profile in the ME these days in high threat areas? I'd like to see an A-10 doing not below FL390, against the same target types as F-35s. Plus time from wheels up, to killing all targets, to shutdown.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7620
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Aug 2018, 02:47

IIRC the current test included time of flight, target ID, and target prosecution.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

energo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 498
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post02 Aug 2018, 22:07

garrya wrote:
By testing only against highly visible targets, the test completely masks the much more restricted view out of the F-35 cockpit as compared to the A-10—along with masking the surprisingly poor video and infrared image resolution of the F-35 helmet’s display compared to the high definition of the A-10’s instrument panel display when it’s coupled to the plane’s sniper and lightening pods

Ironic, because A-10 canopy looks like this


And the A-7? :shock:

From the pilots involved in the A-10/A-7D flyoff in 1974:

Pilot A:
On cockpit visibility, I have absolutely no preference. It is more
than adequate in both airplanes for the ground support role.

Pilot B:
Cockpit visibility. The A-10 has a slight advantage here primarily
in the rear hemisphere. In the A-7, the seat restricts the pilot's move-
ments somewhat and the bulkhead behind the pilot restricts his visi-
bility to the rear significantly.
The A-10 engines restrict visibility to the rear somewhat, but not
as bad as the bulkhead in the A-7.

Pilot C:
On cockpit visibility, the chart states no preference. I felt both
airplanes offered superior visibility for the pilot, a characteristic which
was enhanced by the pilot's ability to maneuver the airplane.

Pilot D:
With regard to cockpit visibility the A-10 has very good visibility.
It has a good bubble canopy.


A-10/A-7 AIRCRAFT FLYOFF EVALUATION BRIEFING
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/sea ... up&seq=268
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2102
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post03 Aug 2018, 03:09

Salute!

Thanks for the great links, Energo.

My personal involvement in the A-10/A-7D travesty 44 years ago was documented in the other thread. F-35 replacing A-10 thread.

As with that debacle, imagine if the F-35 could not use any sensors and only eyeballs. Oh yeah, just like back then, no real bombs on tgt. The A-7D could drive nails with Mk-82's from slant ranges of more than a coupla miles at 15 or 20 degrees dive. But the propaganda was that the Warthog didn't need a computer. Hell no! If you drop from 1,000 feet and in a 20 degree dive, you can get about what the Sluf got at 4,000 feet and 20 degrees and 400 knots.

And then there was navigation. The Hawg was like the A-1 and A-37. DR and pilotage to get there and back.

The HUD? Hawg had a glorified depressable reticle and no flight path vector since it had no inertial!! No autopilot either, making first deployment to Europe interesting.

Oh well. The rules will determine the "winner", and I'll comment later.

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

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1577
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post03 Aug 2018, 16:15

Gums wrote:S

The HUD? Hawg had a glorified depressable reticle and no flight path vector since it had no inertial!!


Just as an aside, and not meant to detract from Gums' comments... my father worked for GE Control Systems in the '90s in Binghamton, NY. At some point, they got a contract to upgrade the A-10 gunsite. I don't recall the details, and they guy I met in the test lab couldn't answer my questions, but a sh*t ton of math and algorithms went into development of this "new" gunsite / pipper. As best I could tell, the A-10 ended up with a "tracerline" type pipper similar to the Viper at that time. I was told it was a major upgrade to its gunsite. FWIW.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests