Forum: Off-topic

broncazonk wrote:

LMAggie wrote:

The jet age did not make the skyraider obsolete, the Apache did. If you need rockets and lead...get a chopper..

Yeah...except that's nonsense. An Apache can't loiter over the battlefield for 10 freakin' hours while carrying twice the bomb load of a B-17, plus rockets and four 20mm cannon. By the way, the F-35 can't do that either...

Bronc

Let's see before we even get into combat, we would have to restart the AD-1 production line(more money) because getting old AD1s would be too expensive as airframe lifetime would be an issue and airframe fatigue. We need to upgrade the avionics for the AD-1, so it can meet the Army and Marine's requirements to have the full virtual battlefield picture. (more money). We have to upgrade the AD-1 so we can put in modern weaponry. If not we have to start the old production line for the old weapons the AD-1 would've used. (EVEN MORE MONEY). See where I am going here? For what jets can easily do, we are going to waste more money trying to put an outdated aircraft into a modern era. Don't even get me started with conventional warfare, it's clearly inferior in every way to the F-35 in conventional warfare.

F-16.net Sponsor

101 Skyraiders were lost in combat in the Korean war, 226 were lost in Vietnam. Only 5 of those losses were to SAMs, the rest to trash fire, so good luck in Afghanistan with a bullet magnet like that.
(BTW, how many fast jet losses have their been in Afghanistan that were due to trash fire...? I'm thinking off-hand that it's zero.)

Why would we need the A-1 Skyraider when we have the A-10 Warthog. I'm just baffled by this.

I can't believe you guys actually replied to this village idiot aka Broncka-idiot!

broncazonk wrote:

LMAggie wrote:

The jet age did not make the skyraider obsolete, the Apache did. If you need rockets and lead...get a chopper..

Yeah...except that's nonsense. An Apache can't loiter over the battlefield for 10 freakin' hours while carrying twice the bomb load of a B-17, plus rockets and four 20mm cannon. By the way, the F-35 can't do that either...

Bronc

The only nonsense here is that you think a Skyraider would even make it to the battlefield to matter.

The Skyraider was an awesome plane, and it did it's job wonderfully for years, though it shined later while flying SAR. The A-10 is today COIN, which can also take a whopping and keep on flying. I thought there was some talk of an AT-6 Texan II in the future?

broncazonk wrote:

stereospace wrote:

It's seems to me that a few years back there was lots of talk about buying COIN aircraft, after all, why do we need a Super Hornet or even an F-16 to put a bomb or two on a mud compound?

You bet. The guys on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan have been begging for a COIN aircraft and would be tickled pink to have the A1-D. Given the realities of the world, and the future world, an F-35 can't do nothing an A1-D can't do better.

Bronc

How's that A-1D going to fare against a Flanker, or an S-300/400? The fact of the matter is that the A-1D can't operate in a non-permissive environment. It can't self escort. It can't perform ISR/EA missions. It can't perform DCA/OCA missions. It can't carry most of the weapons that the F-35(or any late model jet) can. We'd be better of buying more A-10s, than any A-1s.

broncazonk wrote:

LMAggie wrote:

The jet age did not make the skyraider obsolete, the Apache did. If you need rockets and lead...get a chopper..

Yeah...except that's nonsense. An Apache can't loiter over the battlefield for 10 freakin' hours while carrying twice the bomb load of a B-17, plus rockets and four 20mm cannon. By the way, the F-35 can't do that either...

Bronc

An A-1 can't do that either, against an enemy with sophisticated weapons. Even a foe with Stingers(or similar MANPADS), could make an A-1 pilot's day pretty miserable, much less against a foe with anything more capable. The A-1 has no ability to operate in airspace where, there are enemy fighters.

Nowadays a fighter needs to be more advanced then the Skyraider was.
For accurate bombing, at least the Skyraider needs Lantirn pods,
or a more advanced one.
As well as can carry a ECM pod and or carry two sidewinders for self defence.
Plus flares and etc.

Afghanistan is not a example for any other war.
Still even there, helicopters and aircraft have been shot and -/or damaged by just
rifle fire or whatever.

wrightwing wrote:

How's that A-1D going to fare against a Flanker, or an S-300/400?

How's that Apache or Blackhawk or C-5 or C-130 or A-10 going to fare against those? Badly? Well then, clearly there's no place for any of those aircraft. Rolling Eyes

m wrote:

Nowadays a fighter needs to be more advanced then the Skyraider was.
For accurate bombing, at least the Skyraider needs Lantirn pods,
or a more advanced one.
As well as can carry a ECM pod and or carry two sidewinders for self defence.
Plus flares and etc.

I kinda thought that's where this discussion was headed. Not that anyone would actually build A1 Skyraiders again, but that a fuel sipping, low-medium speed, heavily armored (like an A-10) and heavily armed aircraft has a place in a conflict like this. Suppose you can get something like this $10-15 million each? That means I can put five to seven of these up for each F-35, not to battle Flankers, to loiter around and put fire on insurgents.

There is most definitely a sharp contrast between a sophisticated air defense network from a first-world military power and insurgent warfare/close air support. For the former mission, the F-35 is exactly the kind of thing you would use... nothing short of high-performance fighters will suffice.

As for the kind of warfare the US was facing in Iraq and Afghanistan, cheaper and more rugged CAS-specialized aircraft like the A-10 and AC-130 gunships are far more valuable. Even Pierre Sprey, who always seems to support the F-16, admits that it's a terrible choice to fulfill the A-10's role. The same argument can be made against the F-35, which is less rugged, less flexible in CAS, and with an unacceptably high stall speed.

Some proclaim the F-35's sensors make all the difference, but those could just as well be mounted on a UCAV for about the same effect. Plus you don't put a pilot's life in danger, a UCAV can loiter, and don't require the same level of training as you would need for a manned attack aircraft. Most losses of combat aircraft nowadays are from malfunctions that happen during training exercises, so switching the UAV's means pilots can train in simulators... so you don't lose as many drones in times of peace.

The ideal Close in Air Support weapon for the future is in UCAV's, although the A-10 and AC-130 will still have a place in the future.

Have no figures about predators and others
But from 34 Sperwers the Dutch lost 11, two in Afghanistan.
That’s 33% within 12 years.
In that case, in roughly 30 years all of them would have been lost

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I'm a ground pounder, and I would be humiliated to be covered by this aircraft in a modern war...

Boy that's hard to believe. I never felt humiliated when something that was damn sure going to save my life showed up overhead. Even if it was painted pink sporting fairy wings I was in love with it.

stereospace wrote:

Not that anyone would actually build A1 Skyraiders again, but that a fuel sipping, low-medium speed, heavily armored (like an A-10) and heavily armed aircraft has a place in a conflict like this. Suppose you can get something like this $10-15 million each? That means I can put five to seven of these up for each F-35, not to battle Flankers, to loiter around and put fire on insurgents.

Yep. That's the point. We need a modern all-weather version of the A1-D / A-10. And you wouldn't get 5 to 7 of them, more like 10 for the cost of each F-35.

The A1-D thought experiment: Still slaying them six-months down the road. Here's another clue. What is the F-35 supposed to do exactly? What is its core / fundamental mission?

Bronc

broncazonk wrote:

Yep. That's the point. We need a modern all-weather version of the A1-D / A-10. And you wouldn't get 5 to 7 of them, more like 10 for the cost of each F-35.

I wouldn't expect it to go that high, but certainly you could afford many more such aircraft than if you went with F-35's. However manned aircraft break this apart, as each pilot represents about $9 million in training on top of the aircraft cost. Unmanned CAS are the way to go, at least much more than even the A-10.

And while most CAS aircraft are not supposed to hold their own against modern air defenses, that's not their intended function. When used for that role, most are equally or more capable than an F-35. So if choosing an aircraft with a more specialized capability allows you to afford more of them, then it only makes sense to buy more of them and fewer F-35's.

broncazonk wrote:

The A1-D thought experiment: Still slaying them six-months down the road. Here's another clue. What is the F-35 supposed to do exactly? What is its core / fundamental mission?

Its fundamental mission is to be a 'multi-role fighter for the next century.' Its intended purpose is to replace the F-16, AV-8, and F-18 and all their mission capabilities. In terms of all the high-end technological capabilities, it performs at least as well as all these fighters. In terms of the CAS capabilities... its sophisticated design is a far cry from the rugged and simple nature that CAS aircraft are intended for.

Forum: Off-topic

Why the A1-D is better than the F-35...