USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4840
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post19 May 2012, 08:35

I've seen A-10 stuff getting too close, so it goes both ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZP2tEbH4

It comes down to SA and the ability to put your munition where you want it to go... and the F-35 wins on both points.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post19 May 2012, 10:04

checksixx wrote:
river_otter wrote:But as explained, adding a cannon to it internally takes away the extra fuel tank it needs to meet range KPP. That renders it all-around less capable than the A, and for far more money. With a podded gun it keeps its fuel tank, so at least its range remains comparable to the A. Just for far more money.


You do realize the A model has a fuel tank under the gun, right??


You do realize it's a smaller fuel tank than the one in the C, right?? Because there's not this huge empty space in the C filled with air, just waiting for someone to put a gun in it, right??

In any case, justify why the podded gun of the existing F-35C needs to be moved inside.
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3596
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 May 2012, 11:13

The future battlespace,may not be as benign to low-and-slow CAS as what characterized the Afghan campaign. A precision guided missile or bomb will consistently be more accurate than a similar,weapon or cannon aimed manually. The A-10s will remain useful for low-intensity/COIN conflicts but the Armed,Services can't plan their force,structure based on the lowest common,denominator when it comes to the threat environment.
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
- Christopher Hitchens
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3596
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 May 2012, 11:14

The future battlespace,may not be as benign to low-and-slow CAS as what characterized the Afghan campaign. A precision guided missile or bomb will consistently be more accurate than a similar,weapon or cannon aimed manually. The A-10s will remain useful for low-intensity/COIN conflicts but the Armed,Services can't plan their force,structure based on the lowest common,denominator when it comes to the threat environment.
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
- Christopher Hitchens
Offline

HaveVoid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 02:50
  • Location: USA

Unread post19 May 2012, 16:10

southernphantom wrote:Since when has Congress done anything prudent regarding major defense programs?? Yet another nail in the coffin for civilian control of military procurement, in my opinion.


I think you'll find that Congress has very rarely forced anything on the DOD as of late, excepting the continued C-17A's that the USAF did not want. If you want to throw out civilian control of military procurement, you are invalidating a portion of our constitution- that road can lead nowhere good. What do we honestly think would be different if Congress didn't control military budgets? The F-22 wouldn't be in production in that scenario, the F-35 likely wouldn't be any further along either.


The truth is, the F-35 program has benefited greatly from the approach it has taken compared to running three independent procurement programs. The commonality in terms of systems, engines, software, etc across the three platforms saves considerable sums over developing these critical functionalities separately and independently. One thing that I've never really seen mentioned, but has occurred to me recently is the fact that the F-35 will also, for all intents and purposes, create a standardized platform for supporting our troops on the ground. No longer will a FAC (or whatever they are called these days) have to keep track of different performance, avionics, weapons, and other kill parameters when working with USAF, USN, and USMC assets. That could be huge.

CAS will not look the same going forward as it does now. The future of CAS probably rests in LO UAS's orbiting at extreme altitude serving as airborn "buffets" of various ordnance choices. The guys on the ground can then choose between different "flavors" of guidance, warhead size, and kinetic effects and basically self serve with CAS. If you have a weapons system that is, say, 99% effective, and you remove the pilot, you have now taken out one huge system where mistakes and errors can occur. So long as you don't send your GPS coordinates to the drone, you are probably less likely to suffer from Friendly Fire (assuming your weapon doesn't go stupid).



HV
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4840
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post19 May 2012, 16:51

Actually the Congress forced a lot into the budget that was not asked for. This from the latest budget:

The total price tag is almost $4 billion more than the president’s defense budget request
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

HaveVoid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 02:50
  • Location: USA

Unread post19 May 2012, 17:16

By forced I meant "You want that program, but no, just no. You can deal without fighters/bombers/jammers/helos". They do have a history of providing more tanks, transports, etc than are actually wanted...


I need to be clearer when I type :oops:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2121
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 May 2012, 18:20

If the USAF had it's way, there'd be 381 Raptors though.
Offline

awsome

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post19 May 2012, 21:51

How many A-10s can be procured for the price of one F-35. At some point the US needs to have some aircraft in quantity. BTW isn't there some rumour going around about an A-10 shooting down a Raptor at red flag?
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3596
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 May 2012, 22:15

awsome wrote:How many A-10s can be procured for the price of one F-35. At some point the US needs to have some aircraft in quantity. BTW isn't there some rumour going around about an A-10 shooting down a Raptor at red flag?


The rationale behind the F-35 is to pool the requirements of the Armed,Services and various foreign air arms so,as to produce the aircraft in quantities not otherwise possible if they had gone with their own,separate procurement progrms.
Offline

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post19 May 2012, 22:42

That is correct popcorn. The stupid liberals should seriously just try and imagine if every branch of the military tried to start their own individual fighter procurement program and THEN cry that the JSF was a waste of money.
Offline

HaveVoid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 02:50
  • Location: USA

Unread post19 May 2012, 23:46

wrightwing wrote:If the USAF had it's way, there'd be 381 Raptors though.


Well, I seem to remember the previous SecAF stating that and promptly losing his job shortly thereafter. Strangely enough, the next guy was perfectly "okay" with 183. The USAF's position on the matter has obviously evolved from 750 downwards. Lets hope the same doesn't happen with the F-35.
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post20 May 2012, 07:18

HaveVoid wrote:Well, I seem to remember the previous SecAF stating that and promptly losing his job shortly thereafter. Strangely enough, the next guy was perfectly "okay" with 183. The USAF's position on the matter has obviously evolved from 750 downwards. Lets hope the same doesn't happen with the F-35.


At least part of his justification for cutting the Raptor buy was to spend the money on buy F-35s instead.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11711
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 May 2012, 04:38

Part of the new CAS paradigm:

New systems move air support into digital age By James K. Sanborn May 19, 2012

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... e-051912w/

"Close-air support is almost as old as naval aviation itself. Soon after the first Marine pilots took to the air, they were charged with supporting infantry through reconnaissance, and later by dropping ordnance on enemy positions.

Whether at the battle for Chosin during the Korean War or at the siege of Khe Sahn in Vietnam, Marine close-air support has made the difference between victory and loss, or between retreat and annihilation.

But the age-old mission is undergoing radical changes with development of digital devices that help joint terminal attack controllers communicate with pilots on station and reduce chances for deadly errors. A process that often involved pencils, paper maps, compasses and radios is stepping into the 21st century.

One of the most promising advances is the development of smaller, lighter tools that help JTACs communicate with pilots to get more bombs on target faster and more accurately, according to Maj. Gregory Hoffman, who serves with Aviation Plans and Policies at the Pentagon.

That includes a new laser range finder and a new smartphone-like device that can digitally relay targeting information. Both were recently proven during an early March demonstration at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. Hoffman is still trying to win additional funding for the equipment and supporting communications, but he is confident they will gain acceptance and hopes they will be fielded in the next few years...."

Much MORE at the JUMP!
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11711
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 May 2012, 05:05

And as a side note:

House rejects F-18 in favor of F-35 Friday, May 18, 2012

http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/

"There was an interesting moment yesterday as the National Defense Authorization Act was being voted on. An amendment, introduced by two Congressmen, would have terminated the F-35B program in favor of buying the Marine Corps more F/A 18s.

When the amendment reached the floor, House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-WA) spoke out against the amendment:

He said the F-35B offers more capability than the F/A-18 and that cutting this variant would jeopardize the whole JSF program, for which there are several international partners.

He's indeed correct. The capability the F-35B will offer the USMC is far superior to that offered by the F/A-18. That's not to say the F/A-18 isn't a fine fighter aircraft. But it is an aircraft whose days are numbers. It is already older than most of the pilots flying it.

The short deck take off and vertical landing ability of the F-35B actually increases the Marine Corps and Navy's flexibility by utilizing the Navy's LHD Wasp class ships, something the termination of the F-35B would have essentially killed. Using those decks as platforms for the aircraft give those services an exponential increase in capability.

Yesterday was an important moment in Congress. On a voice vote it rejected those that would substitute a fine but less capable aircraft for one that will vastly increase the capabilities of our future warfighters.

That's a good thing." Looks like a new BLOG.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest