Forum: Off-topic

I'm not arguing there isn't a case to be made or a place for the F-35 in the US armed forces. I would argue, however, that a case can be made for a lethal, inexpensive, long endurance Spad force for COIN. That's all. I'd be interested in seeing the results of putting a squadron of these into theater - would they turn out to be useful and cost effective or not?

F-16.net Sponsor

stereospace wrote:

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

The choice given had been A-1 vs. F-35, so your examples aren't pertinent.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

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.

The US military has to operate planes that work well against top tier forces, as well as in Afghanistan/Iraq. The F-35 may be less rugged than an A-10, but it's less likely to get hit(A- due to difficulty in detection B- greater range from point defenses). The F-16 didn't replace the A-10 either. Both planes have their role, and the A-10 will be in service till ~2030, so it's disingenuous to even compare the 2 planes. As for unacceptable stall speeds- please tell us how you arrived at that conclusion, or the fact that it's less flexible.

Quote:

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.

You couldn't put the F-35's sensors on a UAV, unless you're talking about something like X-45/47 in size, and then you're losing your A2A capabilities, which the F-35 has.

Quote:

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.

The F-35 is a multirole strike aircraft first and foremost. CAS is but one of its potential mission sets. It has to replace large numbers of F-16s, F-18s, as well as AV-8Bs. It will be a force multiplier for A-10s and AC-130s.

wrightwing wrote:

The choice given had been A-1 vs. F-35, so your examples aren't pertinent.

Well then what was your point? We were talking about CAS against insurgents, not air defense penetration or doing air battle with Sukhois. That's why we build F-22's. But do we really need the worlds most sophisticated multi-role fighter to put bombs and missiles and bullets on on people with AK's and RPGs?

The F-35 can do anything better than most aircraft of today, ad that's a fact.

Do you want 10 aircraft foe CAS plus 1 for recon plus 2 for SEAD plus 2 for CAP, whow much will it cost? Because you CAN'T go in a hot zone without air cover, or without Wild Weasel.
If it's that kind of conflict in witch the enemy didn't have lots of weapons, like Iraq and Afghanistan, then you need only a plane that can fly in an hot and high environment with 2-4 PGM and a Lighting pod, plus gun for strafing, period.
You don't need speed, you don't need agility, you don't need even an ecm suit, or chaff-flare dispenser. You don't need even RWR.
But, if the bad guys on the ground come up with something a little worse than a modern MANPADS, the you are dead.
And so here it comed the UCAV. Light, cheap and expendables.

The mighty Thunderbolts will be used at least until 2025, if not longer, and that says a lot on itìs usefullnes. It's vital for the troops on the ground. It's the right plane because it already exist, and because it can deal with threats greater than what it can find in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

To create from nothing, built and mantain 10 planes you will need lots of money, plus at least 15 pilots to fly them. And you need to pay them. You will need to train them. You will need to rescue them in the event of a crash. You will need to shelther them and their planes, and the ground crew for that 10 planes, and the fuel for that 10 planes, and the weapons, and the logistical and and and ...
And all that tings has a huge cost. It's called "logistical footprint", and can't never be underestimated. It's the little thing that has made the harrier's dispersed airfield theory wrong.

If you have an aircraft that can do everything, it will be cheaper than having three dedicated aircraft, because you will need three different logistical chain, plus 3 pilots, plus their replacement, plus the fuel and the specific weapons for three aircraft.

But here it comes the final reason: What if the enemy comes up whit a manpads? A simple manpads ( or a lucky shot form the ground ). You can't fly over enemy any more with that kind of light-cheap CAS only plane. Plus you have lost a man.
And, if you want to give your man on the ground some protection, you will need to use more expensive, hig performance fighters, distracting them from their role.

So, it's cheaper and safer to have a single plane that can do everything instead differnt planes that can only do a specific job.
By the way, having a plane all the time flying over your head it's expensive, having a single plane or two flying in your area and ready to arrive on call in 5 minutes it's a lot less expensive. And since a CAS dedicated aircraft has to be slow, it can't protect a big area.

And we haven't yet started to talk about situation awareness, comunication with troops on the ground and trasmission of data and images from the sky ...

[Link pending approval] : The eagle it's better than the skyrider, because it can shoot down other eagles and land completely without a wing! Razz

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.

Bronc

You do realize that the avionics alone, would be ~$20 million or more, with targeting and jamming pods, radar, modern communications systems, datalinks. You wouldn't even get 5 for the price of an F-35A, much less 10.

stereospace wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

The choice given had been A-1 vs. F-35, so your examples aren't pertinent.

Well then what was your point? We were talking about CAS against insurgents, not air defense penetration or doing air battle with Sukhois. That's why we build F-22's. But do we really need the worlds most sophisticated multi-role fighter to put bombs and missiles and bullets on on people with AK's and RPGs?

Because not every enemy will fight us with AKs and RPGs. The F-35 isn't replacing the A-10. It's replacing F-16s and F-18s. You might want to reread the original post before asking my point. The assertion was that the A-1 was a better choice than F-35, which is a ridiculous notion to say the least.

Why is the F-35 even in this? If you want to compare something to the Skyraider, compare it to current aircraft doing CAS in permissive environments, like the A-10 or (God forbid we should admit there is such a thing) Predators and Reapers.

diegoepoimaria makes many good points.

However, all I'm saying is $80-100 million F-35 type aircraft have a very nasty habit of never being around when you really need them. Never ever. For some reason, the high speed, low drag equipment is always in very short supply when the enemy is in close contact. On the other hand, the Spad was always Johnny on the Spot.

Being hung out to dry while you are waiting your turn for air support is a very unpleasant experience. Seems to me the F-35 is a very expensive toy that's never going to be around when you need it. The air bosses ain't gonna want to put a bunch of hours on the airframe just to save the lives of a bunch of grunts who are always getting themselves in a jam.

Bronc

Didn't see this from Wrightwing, "The F-35 is a multirole strike aircraft first and foremost. CAS is but one of its potential mission sets."

I hope that turns out to be true. However, in the 1991 Gulf War and in the Balkans, the F-16 wasn't allowed to fly below 10,000 feet due to its vulnerability to triple-A, not to mention its inability to loiter over the battlefield. Its ability to protect ground troops was seriously limited by these factors and one can envison the F-35 being utilized in the same fashion.

Yep, but during the Balkan the same concerned for the Apache.
The Apache was to vulberable to operate overthere.
So a skyraider could also certainly not operate during the Balkan.

A Apache flying over Uruzugan and suddenly needed in Helmand
You still need a jet supporting groundtroops in such a desperate situation,
the Apache is too slow and could have probably not enough fuel.
This happens more then ones in Afghanistan.

wrightwing wrote:

The US military has to operate planes that work well against top tier forces, as well as in Afghanistan/Iraq. The F-35 may be less rugged than an A-10, but it's less likely to get hit(A- due to difficulty in detection B- greater range from point defenses).

So you're confirming that it's not going to do well in the CAS role. If you're admitting that the F-35 survives by avoiding getting hit, then it's useless. An A-10 is designed to get down and dirty, actively putting itself in a position where it can more easily be hit... as is the role of a CAS.

Certainly as hell the F-35 is more survivable than the A-10 in pretty much every way, but it's usefulness is a different matter if it's cruising high above its target and unable to eliminate the threat.

wrightwing wrote:

As for unacceptable stall speeds- please tell us how you arrived at that conclusion, or the fact that it's less flexible.

High stall speeds? You're asking what that has to do with CAS?

wrightwing wrote:

You couldn't put the F-35's sensors on a UAV, unless you're talking about something like X-45/47 in size, and then you're losing your A2A capabilities, which the F-35 has.

Are you making a point, or did you just eat a lot of spray paint when you were a kid?

[quote="wrightwing"]
You couldn't put the F-35's sensors on a UAV, unless you're talking about something like X-45/47 in size, and then you're losing your A2A capabilities, which the F-35 has.

Quote:

The F-35 is a multirole strike aircraft first and foremost. CAS is but one of its potential mission sets. It has to replace large numbers of F-16s, F-18s, as well as AV-8Bs. It will be a force multiplier for A-10s and AC-130s.

Really? From your perspective, anything that's not to the F-35's level of capabilities is useless and should be disposed of. So once your 'perfect' air force of all F-35's is built, this advantage evaporates completely.

If only we had some sort of guided weapon so aircraft wouldn't have to fly low- imagine if the ground troops could just send the enemy's position to an aircraft, and the aircraft could drop a bomb that would guide itself to the target. Wouldn't that be something!

Last edited by flighthawk on Jul 12, 2011 - 10:39 PM; edited 2 times in total

broncazonk wrote:

On the other hand, the Spad was always Johnny on the Spot.

Yes in 1965 maybe....where you still live

You seem to have this vision of a bunch of bullet proof A-1s flying low in circles loitering next to the fight - they were ripped to shreds in Nam....

The A-1 will never be there - because the loitering one would have been shot down by a Taliban kid with a rifle, and the replacement would be ETA 4 hours!!!

broncazonk wrote:

I hope that turns out to be true. However, in the 1991 Gulf War and in the Balkans, the F-16 wasn't allowed to fly below 10,000 feet due to its vulnerability to triple-A, not to mention its inability to loiter over the battlefield.

WTF - Can you provide some actual information on F-16s and US jets including the A-10 in 1991 and the reality - perhaps you might learn something about it.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

An A-10 is designed to get down and dirty, actively putting itself in a position where it can more easily be hit... as is the role of a CAS.

Certainly as hell the F-35 is more survivable than the A-10 in pretty much every way, but it's usefulness is a different matter if it's cruising high above its target and unable to eliminate the threat.

Ask any ground based FACs in the Middle East if the B-1s etc are coming in at 200ft to deliver their pinpoint PGMs.

In fact the B-1 and B-52 have far superior loitering time and weapons loadout than anything - and can and ARE providing CAS from any altitude.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

If only we had some sort of guided weapon so aircraft wouldn't have to fly low- imagine if the ground troops could just send the enemy's position to an aircraft, and the aircraft could drop a bomb that would guide itself to the target. Wouldn't that be something!

Do you think such thing will ever and could ever be invented? Laughing

Forum: Off-topic

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