F-35: What The Pilots Say(airspacemag.com)
airspacemag.com
F-35: What The Pilots Say
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/
361 comments
What makes this article look like a PR piece, more than the smiles, is the appearance of a firm directive to talk about situational awareness etc. instead of flight performance and the clear defensive intent of some sections (e.g. the airshow demo).
There seem to be a large blind spot in these pilot accounts, some elephant in the room, but not being an expert I'm unable to pinpoint what it is.
There seem to be a large blind spot in these pilot accounts, some elephant in the room, but not being an expert I'm unable to pinpoint what it is.
> There seem to be a large blind spot in these pilot accounts, some elephant in the room, but not being an expert I'm unable to pinpoint what it is.
I'm not an expert either. But I suspect it might be one of the following:
1. the F-22 has a higher thrust to weight ration than the F-35, meaning the F-22 is more manouvrable.
2. the F-22 has a lower wing loading than the F-35, again making the F-22 more manouvrable.
3. the stealth on the F-35, while good against the radars of 20 years ago, might be a lot less effective against the radars of the future, for example long-wavelength radars with lots of ground-based sensors all tied together with sensor fusion. This is a big deal since the F-35 is expected to stay in service until 2070 and I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are looking at ways to counter it.
I'm not an expert either. But I suspect it might be one of the following:
1. the F-22 has a higher thrust to weight ration than the F-35, meaning the F-22 is more manouvrable.
2. the F-22 has a lower wing loading than the F-35, again making the F-22 more manouvrable.
3. the stealth on the F-35, while good against the radars of 20 years ago, might be a lot less effective against the radars of the future, for example long-wavelength radars with lots of ground-based sensors all tied together with sensor fusion. This is a big deal since the F-35 is expected to stay in service until 2070 and I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are looking at ways to counter it.
There's no free lunch in radar. Long wavelength radars can give a general indication of an aircraft's location but aren't precise enough for targeting. They're also more subject to interference. And the antennas are larger, which makes them more vulnerable.
The F-22 is out of production and there's no practical way to build more. So regardless of its comparative merits it's not an alternative.
The F-22 is out of production and there's no practical way to build more. So regardless of its comparative merits it's not an alternative.
> The F-22 is out of production and there's no practical way to build more.
Lockheed Martin have all the manufacturing equipment in storage and have been trying to sell the Pentagon and others on the idea of restarting the production line to build more F22s with upgraded avionics/electronics taken from the F35. To offset the cost of restarting production they propose allowing Japan to buy them too since Japan has been keen on buying them for a long time.
Lockheed Martin have all the manufacturing equipment in storage and have been trying to sell the Pentagon and others on the idea of restarting the production line to build more F22s with upgraded avionics/electronics taken from the F35. To offset the cost of restarting production they propose allowing Japan to buy them too since Japan has been keen on buying them for a long time.
Actually the tooling is owned and possessed by the USGov, not LM. And restarting the production line isn't as simple as flipping a switch. You'd need all the components made by subcontractors (that are out of business). And you'd also need to find assembly workers familiar with the processes involved in fabricating the airframes etc. Plus the technology is OLD. The avionics are old, 1980/1990 designed systems. So you'd naturally want to upgrade it to the latest standards, which would cost more money and extend the time required to deliver a plane to the AF.
What you're saying about long wave is true for monostatic radar where you're using the angle of the beam to localize the target. In the multistatic case, you don't need to do this, it can be all timing based. This wasn't possible in the past because we didn't have the ability to easily synchronize clocks to high precision and the computers and communication technology to easily fuse the results. We do now though.
That's more of a theoretical possibility than something that can be used operationally today.
It's a bit more than a theoretical possibility. 5G requires cooperative MIMO. If you can do cooperative MIMO, you can build the type of radar I'm describing. I don't have insider knowledge, but this is something that has been openly talked about for over twenty years. I'd be shocked if someone doesn't have at least a working test system.
As far as points 1 and 2, the F-22 was designed to shoot down other planes. The F-35 was designed for a large variety of roles.
As far as point 3, that's a tough one. Nobody truly knows what detection technology will be like in 20 years. You may be right and the tech is obsolete quickly.
That the F-35bis a compromise designed for several sorts of missions it itself a criticism: it might not succeed at any.
(and let me be clear; I’m a pacifist... putting all the money spent on weapons into increasing interdependence is a much more effective strategy. You don’t want to level your debtors/creditors.
(and let me be clear; I’m a pacifist... putting all the money spent on weapons into increasing interdependence is a much more effective strategy. You don’t want to level your debtors/creditors.
> and let me be clear; I’m a pacifist... putting all the money spent on weapons into increasing interdependence is a much more effective strategy. You don’t want to level your debtors/creditors
Lots of people want to level their creditors. Economic interdependence didn't prevent the World Wars--to some degree, it exacerbated them because some countries (e.g. Germany and Japan) had strategic reasons to secure their supply of natural resources.
Lots of people want to level their creditors. Economic interdependence didn't prevent the World Wars--to some degree, it exacerbated them because some countries (e.g. Germany and Japan) had strategic reasons to secure their supply of natural resources.
Some clever/lucky Serbian back in the Kosovan conflict days realised that even then-old low frequency radar was able to pinpoint the F117s making nightly passes over their country, helping bring one down.
Given that was nearly twenty years ago and we've since had massive advances in passive and synthetic aperture radar otherwise, I've long wondered about the worth of the massive extra cost stealth brings to Fifth Generation warplanes.
Given the Russians don't appear to be in a great rush to make all their wares stealthy, one wonders whether they've preëmpted its limited use in future?
Given that was nearly twenty years ago and we've since had massive advances in passive and synthetic aperture radar otherwise, I've long wondered about the worth of the massive extra cost stealth brings to Fifth Generation warplanes.
Given the Russians don't appear to be in a great rush to make all their wares stealthy, one wonders whether they've preëmpted its limited use in future?
The Russians aren't in a great rush to acquire anything new because they're simply short of cash. People seem to forget that Russia's GDP is about the same size as Italy. After they pay for their strategic nuclear forces there's not much room in the budget for anything else.
The F117 was 70's tech. It looked like a weird polyhedron because we didn't have good enough computers to do the math on how the shape of a plane reflects radar. And it was only shot down because the bomb bay doors weren't stealthy.
I though stealth as a concept was near obsolete due to cheap passive radar becoming feasible for about everyone? I didnt know they still built planes for this concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
You can use passive radar for surveillance radars, but is it any good for tracking and guidance radars? If your radar stations can see F-35s, but your interceptors and SAM batteries can't fire at it, the stealth is still useful.
Stealth is relative; as long as your detection distance is greater than the adversary's, you're good. Also, passive is great, but I'd expect in a war situation all large transmitters would get disabled first.
All cellphone towers?
You don't have to worry about most small cell towers, since they are usually directional (pointed towards the ground to maximize signal coverage) and relatively low power. In the countryside with tall towers that cover tens of kilometers... well... it's kind of hard to miss those with a missile.
You can always mount the transmitters in trucks and keep moving. If you can pinpoint the source and fuse the input of, say, dozens of small sensors deployed all over the place, you can pinpoint the plane well enough.
Not well enough to do reliably do missile tracking, just enough to get an idea that yes, there is an object out there in the atmosphere. "Dumb" methods like TDOA / FDOA have quite bad limitations on resolution.
Multistatic passive radar is quite hard to do at high performance. Radio astronomy observatories have been doing it for decades; it's expensive, requires high grade equipment to synchronize time and frequency, and reliable, real-time high-bandwidth data links.
Multistatic passive radar is quite hard to do at high performance. Radio astronomy observatories have been doing it for decades; it's expensive, requires high grade equipment to synchronize time and frequency, and reliable, real-time high-bandwidth data links.
That's getting awfully ahead of things. Showing that it's sometimes possible to detect aircraft like this is a long, long way from demonstrating that it's even theoretically possible to replace all existing air defense and targeting/interception radars with it under all circumstance, much less actually trying to do it.
You don't have to guess at #1 and #2. One of the pilots came right out and said it: "The F-35 is as maneuverable as any other airplane, except perhaps the F-22."
On the subject of stealth, I've always wondered if stealth aircraft could not actually be detected fairly easily.
True, stealth aircraft have an extremely small radar cross-section. But I'm guessing they also have very specific and recognizable radar signatures, with the proper signal treatment, despite high noise ratios, their signatures could be isolated. And they could also be easily identified down to the variant of aircraft.
This is a pure guess, not substantiated by anything, and I'm far from an expert or even an enthusiast in the field.
True, stealth aircraft have an extremely small radar cross-section. But I'm guessing they also have very specific and recognizable radar signatures, with the proper signal treatment, despite high noise ratios, their signatures could be isolated. And they could also be easily identified down to the variant of aircraft.
This is a pure guess, not substantiated by anything, and I'm far from an expert or even an enthusiast in the field.
I think it's less "you will NEVER see me on Radar" but more "Radar detection range reduced from 100 miles to 40 miles", meaning you have more gaps in your coverage than you expected, and also they can get a lock on you before you get a lock on them.
I noted the "we don't need to make the three versions identical" comment.
Yeah, you kinda do, if you want to keep the price of an individual airframe down.
Yeah, you kinda do, if you want to keep the price of an individual airframe down.
The word smile was mentioned once in the article.
And the F35 was always going to be shared with allies for cost and geopolitical reasons so not sure how that can be considered a negative.
The US structured the F35 program to specifically avoid the F22 failures.
And the F35 was always going to be shared with allies for cost and geopolitical reasons so not sure how that can be considered a negative.
The US structured the F35 program to specifically avoid the F22 failures.
I guess they will structure the F48 program to avoid the failures of the F35 program.
It would be pretty bizarre to refuse on principal to learn from experience. The F35 is expected to be in use through the 2060s. Part of the engineering challenge is designing around the fact that human pilots are expected to be phased out mid-lifecycle for these airframes.
Not just that human pilots would be phased out.
But that the F-35 is planned on being a command and control centre for a fleet of drones flying alongside it.
In that context weapons capabilities and dogfighting aren't important but its key strengths in stealth and sensor unification definitely are.
But that the F-35 is planned on being a command and control centre for a fleet of drones flying alongside it.
In that context weapons capabilities and dogfighting aren't important but its key strengths in stealth and sensor unification definitely are.
Isn't this being sort for beta-phase at the moment because currently the f35 doing the targeting doesn't have to be the one launching the weaponry?
Wouldn't the sensors and fusion system be entirely swapped out in that case, too?
The whole thing makes a lot more sense knowing just that.
I have read countless of pieces bashing the F-35 without ever mentioning strategic details like that...
I suppose propaganda and political articles tend to put a spin on everything after all...
I suppose propaganda and political articles tend to put a spin on everything after all...
Sharing with allies for cost and geopolitical reasons is good for the contractors designing and building th plane.
You spread around the tax dollars spent on jobs between many different US states and counties, and voila, immunity from politicians. Kick that up to a nation scale, and you really have something good going.
Taking advantage of people’s interest in only their immediate future and their immediate surroundings, and people’s willingness to ignore long term and worldwide costs is a path to success and a downside of “democracy”.
You spread around the tax dollars spent on jobs between many different US states and counties, and voila, immunity from politicians. Kick that up to a nation scale, and you really have something good going.
Taking advantage of people’s interest in only their immediate future and their immediate surroundings, and people’s willingness to ignore long term and worldwide costs is a path to success and a downside of “democracy”.
A strategy to advance the geopolitical stability of America and its Allies is about the opposite of taking a short-term view.
There are far better ways to advance geopolitical stability than a boondoggle of an aircraft project, especially when the military is already so far ahead of everyone else. However, this specifically results in lots of long term high paying defense contractor jobs in many congressional districts. We could have beefed up education, research, space exploration, energy efficiency improvements, mass transit, etc.
Agreed on the skepticism. However you can't just say that a combat aircraft is better than an other. It highly depends on the kind of mission considered (Air defense, Close air support, Ground strike, etc...), and on the underlying warfare infrastructure (refueling tankers, AWACS, jamming vectors, etc...).
As to export of the F35 vs. F22 : the F35 program was designed from the ground up as an international "cooperation program", so as not to say a "sharing costs" program, so it would be exported.
As to export of the F35 vs. F22 : the F35 program was designed from the ground up as an international "cooperation program", so as not to say a "sharing costs" program, so it would be exported.
Your argument basically boils down to- we need specialized aircrafts depending on the mission. However, the F35 was exactly created to circumvent this- to have a aircraft that can fullfill any aircraft mission and excell in it. It was supossed to be the swiss-pocket knife of airplanes.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wnjvb9/the-us-air...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wnjvb9/the-us-air...
A swiss knife does a lot of things, but doesn't excel at any of them when compared to specialized tools that do one specific thing.
The knife is pretty good and keeps its edge, but you can get a knife that's larger and locks. The can opener works great, but it's miles behind an electric can opener. The corkscrew never failed me, but it's not as comfortable as a two-step lever corkscrew. And so on.
Anyway, I think the analogy still holds. Any system that's built for multiple purposes will lose out to another, more specialized system built for a single purpose. Of course, this more specific system cannot perform all the other tasks.
The knife is pretty good and keeps its edge, but you can get a knife that's larger and locks. The can opener works great, but it's miles behind an electric can opener. The corkscrew never failed me, but it's not as comfortable as a two-step lever corkscrew. And so on.
Anyway, I think the analogy still holds. Any system that's built for multiple purposes will lose out to another, more specialized system built for a single purpose. Of course, this more specific system cannot perform all the other tasks.
Cost is supposed to make up for the difference.
> It was supossed to be the swiss-pocket knife of airplanes.
This is the main reason this program was massively over budget and didn't meet expectations.
By trying to create one airframe for three very different sets of requirements, they significantly compromised the performance of all three variants. In particularly, the STOVL requirement for the USMC meant that the Air Force and Navy would end up with an airframe with worse aerodynamic performance and worse radar cross section than if it didn't have to accommodate the lift fan for the F-35B.
The whole idea of the JSF was to save money by featuring 80% parts commonality between the versions. Instead, it only has 25% parts commonality. This resulted in much, much higher cost than anticipated.
With further development and time to work on tactics, the F-35 will probably be fine on the battlefield. But the military could've ended up with far more capable platforms had they heeded the lessons of past procurement failures like the F-111, rather than doubling down on them.
This is the main reason this program was massively over budget and didn't meet expectations.
By trying to create one airframe for three very different sets of requirements, they significantly compromised the performance of all three variants. In particularly, the STOVL requirement for the USMC meant that the Air Force and Navy would end up with an airframe with worse aerodynamic performance and worse radar cross section than if it didn't have to accommodate the lift fan for the F-35B.
The whole idea of the JSF was to save money by featuring 80% parts commonality between the versions. Instead, it only has 25% parts commonality. This resulted in much, much higher cost than anticipated.
With further development and time to work on tactics, the F-35 will probably be fine on the battlefield. But the military could've ended up with far more capable platforms had they heeded the lessons of past procurement failures like the F-111, rather than doubling down on them.
I'm not saying you have to have specialized aircraft (although, as it has been said, a "swiss knife" tends to to it all but less effectively).
I'm saying you can't easily compare two combat aircraft. You have to be very specific when doing so.
I'm saying you can't easily compare two combat aircraft. You have to be very specific when doing so.
> However you can't just say that a combat aircraft is better than an other. It highly depends on the kind of mission considered (Air defense, Close air support, Ground strike, etc...), and on the underlying warfare infrastructure (refueling tankers, AWACS, jamming vectors, etc...).
So maybe they should've published a spreadsheet instead, or an interactive, explorable chart. There are ways for effectively communicating multidimensional spaces of trade-offs, and I'm saddened that those ways are almost never used.
So maybe they should've published a spreadsheet instead, or an interactive, explorable chart. There are ways for effectively communicating multidimensional spaces of trade-offs, and I'm saddened that those ways are almost never used.
This won't happen for a combat aircraft, because most of the true detailed performance is kept secret (for obvious strategic -and commercial- reasons).
Full data - sure. But to the extent of information you can publish, comparisons could be done in a way that are not misleading. Otherwise, why publish?
> This seems like a PR piece
No kidding... it comes across more like a late night Ronco ad rather than real opinions.
No kidding... it comes across more like a late night Ronco ad rather than real opinions.
The U.S. allies don't need much convincing, F-35s sell like hot cakes despite the recent degradation of American foreign policy. With Russia still unable to produce an S-400 missile modification capable to intercept it, this warplane is largely unchallenged in the skies.
Don't fool yourself into thinking US allies are unilaterally wanting the F35. There's heavy lobbying and strategic pressure underneath.
If on only one example, in the recent Belgian Tender (which led to adoption of the F35) appeared a wholly new operational requirement for the Air Force to do stealth-requiring missions, such as SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) [1]. Up to then, the Belgian Air force was not trained nor expected to do such aggressive undertakings. It seems this requirement came from NATO.
[1] https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeron...
PS : Apologies for my source being in french, there might be some english versions of the story somewhere. The guy reporting the story is Stavros Kelepouris.
If on only one example, in the recent Belgian Tender (which led to adoption of the F35) appeared a wholly new operational requirement for the Air Force to do stealth-requiring missions, such as SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) [1]. Up to then, the Belgian Air force was not trained nor expected to do such aggressive undertakings. It seems this requirement came from NATO.
[1] https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeron...
PS : Apologies for my source being in french, there might be some english versions of the story somewhere. The guy reporting the story is Stavros Kelepouris.
Here in Norway the sentiment been largely positive, including feedback from the pilots. Perhaps it helps we border Russia.
And face it the NATO was formed to confront a nuclear armed superpower, don't act surprised as if you just learned this today.
And face it the NATO was formed to confront a nuclear armed superpower, don't act surprised as if you just learned this today.
Don't understand the issue with this mandate coming from NATO.
The Belgian military policy has never been an aggressive one (modest-sized country and army), yet SEAD missions are.
NATO is some sort of US military policy deployed in european countries, and can serve (as in this case) US commercial interests.
The Belgian military policy has never been an aggressive one (modest-sized country and army)
Ask Ukraine and Georgia about what can happen to non-aggressive, modest countries with modest armies.
NATO is some sort of US military policy deployed
in european countries, and can serve (as in this
case) US commercial interests.
But the solution to that is MORE engagement, responsibility, and contribution by European NATO allies, not less.
The greater Europe's role in NATO, the smaller the US's role can be...
NATO is definitely serving Western European interest. NATO is probably the major reason there has not been a land war against NATO members since WW2.
Since the 1950s the Belgian military policy has been that it will do whatever is required of it as a NATO member.
Since the 1950s the Belgian military policy has been that it will do whatever is required of it as a NATO member.
This. I don't get this complaining about "NATO made us do it". NATO is a voluntary alliance, and they all signed up for a reason - defense against Russian aggression. That defense doesn't look like America does everything to keep the Russians away while everyone else sits on their butts. Everyone who wants that protection needs to step up and do their part.
Doing their part does include purchasing modern aircraft that are capable of participating in missions in support of an overall strategy of air superiority.
Doing their part does include purchasing modern aircraft that are capable of participating in missions in support of an overall strategy of air superiority.
Not to mention, so far most of the NATO missions are about participating and helping in US wars on MiddleEast. And it is not only about military budget. But also the budget to deal with immigration issues after MiddleEast conflicts.
I don’t think it is fair to blame NATO. They did their best so far and they deserve the support.
I don’t think it is fair to blame NATO. They did their best so far and they deserve the support.
Well, while I can agree with this, it doesn't deny the fact that the US can use NATO for its defense industry interests. And they will. Which I mean, is okay, that's life and geopolitics.
I'm not saying it's the primary purpose of it. But I think one should not be overly naive towards NATO.
I'm not saying it's the primary purpose of it. But I think one should not be overly naive towards NATO.
Though to be totally honest, Belgium could withdraw from NATO and still benefit from it, since any enemy would have to go through multiple NATO member states to even reach Belgium. France pulled this stunt once.
If the point of NATO is to get money flowing into the U.S. from Europe, it's failing horribly.
EDIT - I mean via direct military purchases. Obviously the stability protected by NATO enables tremendous trade between Europe and the U.S.
EDIT - I mean via direct military purchases. Obviously the stability protected by NATO enables tremendous trade between Europe and the U.S.
This is actually an interesting calculation. I'm not sure how I'd do it. We'd have to figure out what percentage of US defense funding goes toward NATO or NATO members specifically.
Or, NATO is trying to defend Eastern Europe from the encroaching Russian front.
source?
The cost per unit has actually come down below modern variants of older generation fighters. Boeing has been trying to get the air force to buy some new F-15Xs over the next few years, this has been controversial to say the least because they would cost more per plane than F-35s while being unable to operate in contested airspace. An ex Boeing CEO as secretary of defense has not eased the controversy to say the least.
You can load one of those puppies up with 22 air to air missiles, have a forward F-35 pass along target information, and light them up from the F-15. One team. F-15 is a missile truck that can go Mach 2.2.
Ask because it goes Mach 2.2 it is probably the only fighter vehicle that can launch a hypersonic glide weapon, at least from what the early generation is likely to look like.
Ask because it goes Mach 2.2 it is probably the only fighter vehicle that can launch a hypersonic glide weapon, at least from what the early generation is likely to look like.
It is a bit disengenuous to imply that an F-15 is a "missile truck" that can go mach 2+.
There is no way it will be going anywhere near mach 2 with double rails carrying AIM-120s, let alone 20 of the missiles in total.
There is no way it will be going anywhere near mach 2 with double rails carrying AIM-120s, let alone 20 of the missiles in total.
In an engagement with an S-400, bits of it will probably end up going at mach 2+.
Not unless you have EA-18Gs and EC-130s raising the noise floor along with lots of disposable drones cluttering the fire control RADAR. And more missile truck F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s carrying AGM-88s to supress/destroy the RADARs and MALDs to add more clutter and become seductive targets.
So the F-35 becomes like a really really fast AWACS on the front lines? I... don't hate that.
Yes, The F-35 is more like a EA-35.
>F-15 is a missile truck that can go Mach 2.2.
High speed missile truck sounds awfully lot like multi track drifting!
High speed missile truck sounds awfully lot like multi track drifting!
Eh, view those cost comparisons with a grain of salt. Something F-35 proponents have been fond of is quoting the flyaway cost of the F-35, against the total procurement cost of legacy aircraft. They'll exclude all the testing, tooling, and r&d costs from the F-35, then exclude the procurement and support costs to finagle a unit cost number.
Meanwhile, the quoted cost for something like a Super Hornet includes support/maintenance and some one-time costs.
As for the F-15X order, that is to supply an Air National Guard squadron, which is currently using old F-15C/D's. They were not slated to switch to F-35's, so the idea was to just supplement with F-15X's in the meantime. IIRC none of the ANG squadrons are switching to the F-35 in the near future.
Meanwhile, the quoted cost for something like a Super Hornet includes support/maintenance and some one-time costs.
As for the F-15X order, that is to supply an Air National Guard squadron, which is currently using old F-15C/D's. They were not slated to switch to F-35's, so the idea was to just supplement with F-15X's in the meantime. IIRC none of the ANG squadrons are switching to the F-35 in the near future.
>they would cost more per plane than F-35s
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26305/f-15x-will-come-...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26305/f-15x-will-come-...
"Maybe what's more important, is that the F-15X is being designed specifically to slot directly into the USAF's deeply established F-15 infrastructure, even down to seamless pilot conversion. Our sources say it will only take one or two flights per F-15C pilot to convert to the F-15X for the air superiority mission, saving millions on retraining aircrews, not to mention ground crews, that are already intimately familiar with the Eagle. "
Sounds familiar!
Sounds familiar!
It's pretty standard. That's why there are so many letter revisions of military equipment, from small arms to aircraft. It's pretty standard in software design, too, for that matter.
Just because the 737 MAX has a problem doesn't mean the underlying philosophy that directed the design was a poor one. The philosophy is basically, "keep what works, fix what doesn't." It's basic iterative design.
Just because the 737 MAX has a problem doesn't mean the underlying philosophy that directed the design was a poor one. The philosophy is basically, "keep what works, fix what doesn't." It's basic iterative design.
Yes, the new F-15 MAX
Let's hope it's MCAS ships and can read from two AOA sensors
Canopy glass goes edge to edge!
Isn't that what they are saying about the 737 max?
1- Can you link a 2018/2019 source for "F-35 cost < F-15 cost" in particular? Most of the "cost" estimates I've seen for F-35s leave out the engine (another ~$20M last I checked).
2. Given advancements in adversary radars and passive sensors (IRST, etc..), it's not even a given that the F-35 can operate in contested airspace.
2. Given advancements in adversary radars and passive sensors (IRST, etc..), it's not even a given that the F-35 can operate in contested airspace.
Military pilots might tend to project their assigned aircraft's reputation to their own. And therefore focus on the selling points.
It's good we on HN, unlike military pilots, have no bias and can focus on things that matter in warplane mission performance.
Can't wait to find the forum of fighter pilots bitching about Rust vs. C.
Clearly they would choose raw x86_64 assembly for its superior performance profile.
Yeah no working military pilot is going to publically disrespect their aircraft, lest their career take a sudden turn toward desk duty.
I did get a sense of
"These sandwiches are acceptable."
"Permission to speak freely?"
"Permission denied"
"These sandwiches are acceptable."
"These sandwiches are acceptable."
"Permission to speak freely?"
"Permission denied"
"These sandwiches are acceptable."
Like many fields, they will bitch non-stop to fellow pilots, but to 'external' groups will always say how much they love it.
It's natural.
It's natural.
They didn't get to fly the most prestigious planes for lacking soft skills.
I'd like to see anonymous reports.
I'd like to see anonymous reports.
Agreed! However, not all of the pilots in the article were actively flying, so there's that.
The F22 hasn’t upgraded its cockpit yet, so is a bit behind the F35 generationally. Additionally, the F22 has much more stealth that makes exports more difficult than the F35. This is really orthogonal to whether the F35 is great in its role or not.
But F35 has a different role from the F22. How can it be 'as good'? By what metrics would you compare them?
I kind of assumed so because it would be hard to find pilots that would put their name on a critical piece.
Well the f22 was canned 8 years ago, hard to sell even if you wanted to sell as is, let alone with all the downgrades that are require for export which would push the price up
It’s not good enough for us by hey want to buy one ?
It’s not good enough for us by hey want to buy one ?
It was just too expensive
It was originally developed by many nations sharing the data. So, it can't probably be kept as much in secret as F22 anyway, this is why it is available for export.
It also fills a completely different role. U.S. has such an overwhelming air superiority in any potential combat theater from Somalia to Moscow that they shouldn't be worried about someone having a better plane to bomb then.
It also fills a completely different role. U.S. has such an overwhelming air superiority in any potential combat theater from Somalia to Moscow that they shouldn't be worried about someone having a better plane to bomb then.
also...can't really build more F-22s either, not without significant additional Congressional cash...
I doubt US allies are going to buy a plane because of a PR piece.
No discussions about how we smile at the costs?
"Given the very high program costs "
I am skeptical about the F32. It looks to me like a one trick pony. But an individual plane is not expensive (which is different from program costs). It is on par with the Eurofighter/Thyphoon.
I am skeptical about the F32. It looks to me like a one trick pony. But an individual plane is not expensive (which is different from program costs). It is on par with the Eurofighter/Thyphoon.
Why the downvote?
1. It is a one trick pony. I can't fly fast, can't carry big payload, can't dog fight and takes a shit-load of maintenance. The only advantage is that it may or may not be "invisible" to opponents. I am sure it outclasses any third world countries like Iran, Iraq, whatever. But against China or Russia this is a big if. And if not (invisible) then you are screwed big time. You bought a ton of trade-offs for one advantage that disappeared.
Take this as an example: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-s-500-f-35-or...
Or this one (dubious source) https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-24/russian-su-35-pilo...
2. The price of the two planes (Eurofighter vs. F35) is basically the same. Fact. So the price of the F35 is not really an issue. https://aviatia.net/eurofighter-vs-f35/
1. It is a one trick pony. I can't fly fast, can't carry big payload, can't dog fight and takes a shit-load of maintenance. The only advantage is that it may or may not be "invisible" to opponents. I am sure it outclasses any third world countries like Iran, Iraq, whatever. But against China or Russia this is a big if. And if not (invisible) then you are screwed big time. You bought a ton of trade-offs for one advantage that disappeared.
Take this as an example: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-s-500-f-35-or...
Or this one (dubious source) https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-24/russian-su-35-pilo...
2. The price of the two planes (Eurofighter vs. F35) is basically the same. Fact. So the price of the F35 is not really an issue. https://aviatia.net/eurofighter-vs-f35/
> to penetrate sophisticated enemy air defenses and find and disable threats—requires what the fifth-generation jet offers: stealth and a stunning array of passive and active sensors
> U.S. forces first took these capabilities into combat last September, when Marine F-35Bs struck the Taliban in Afghanistan
against disorganized rebel forces less well armed than the average suburban American, with no air force and no surface to air missiles. and the U.S. still can't win that war.
> U.S. forces first took these capabilities into combat last September, when Marine F-35Bs struck the Taliban in Afghanistan
against disorganized rebel forces less well armed than the average suburban American, with no air force and no surface to air missiles. and the U.S. still can't win that war.
I was trying to find an article I read years ago, about how unsuited the supersonic fighter jets are for air support of ground operations. The main contentions were:
1. Modern jets need long runways (aircraft carrier slingshot notwithstanding) so anytime troops were calling in air support, a supersonic f16 would fly for an hour, have enough fuel for a couple of bombing runs before having to fly back to the closest large airport, compared to what the troops really wanted, a super tucano turboprop, which can take off from the dirt airstrips available anywhere in the country.
2. Modern jets, with their stunning array of passive and active sensors, encourage an eyes-off approach to dropping bombs : pilots can only trust their data, they are not close enough to the ground to recognize who's friendly and who's not.
Alluded in my sibling comment, A10 warthogs would have been perfect for these missions -- I don't know where the unwillingness to fund them comes from. Googling now reveals that Super Tucano turboprops are now being delivered to the afghan airfoce, since that's what you actually need to fight small arms battles in the remote regions of the country.
Closest thing I found was 2015, detailing why modern technology doesn't win the war, 'low and slow' can be a better game plan:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8qxzyv/low-and-sl...
1. Modern jets need long runways (aircraft carrier slingshot notwithstanding) so anytime troops were calling in air support, a supersonic f16 would fly for an hour, have enough fuel for a couple of bombing runs before having to fly back to the closest large airport, compared to what the troops really wanted, a super tucano turboprop, which can take off from the dirt airstrips available anywhere in the country.
2. Modern jets, with their stunning array of passive and active sensors, encourage an eyes-off approach to dropping bombs : pilots can only trust their data, they are not close enough to the ground to recognize who's friendly and who's not.
Alluded in my sibling comment, A10 warthogs would have been perfect for these missions -- I don't know where the unwillingness to fund them comes from. Googling now reveals that Super Tucano turboprops are now being delivered to the afghan airfoce, since that's what you actually need to fight small arms battles in the remote regions of the country.
Closest thing I found was 2015, detailing why modern technology doesn't win the war, 'low and slow' can be a better game plan:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8qxzyv/low-and-sl...
I've posted about this a couple times here in the past (though misspelled Tucano), and saw exactly what you are talking about in Iraq.[1] This article and the F-35 make me sad. It's the last of the samurai. For close air support in a low threat environment the Super Tucano and other aircraft are much better at the task and cheaper. For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia), expendable, stealthy drones acting as missile trucks are much better assuming somehow the war doesn't go nuclear and we don't lose in space and cyber first. The F-35 is too expensive and epitomizes the trajectory of the battle ship, where more and more money is put into defense of the platform, and it eventually succumbs to cheaper threats. I think the Future of War delves into this concept well.[2] The F-35 is probably more boondoggle then defense.
1. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=super%20tacano&sort=byPopulari...
2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/470769.The_Future_of_War
1. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=super%20tacano&sort=byPopulari...
2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/470769.The_Future_of_War
>expendable, stealthy drones acting as missile trucks
The 70s called and want their cruise missiles back.
The type of weapon you're describing already exist and are widely used. They are commonly launched by missile destroyers, submarines or large bomber aircraft behind the front lines. You still need a manned fighter at the front lines to find targets to shoot at.
The 70s called and want their cruise missiles back.
The type of weapon you're describing already exist and are widely used. They are commonly launched by missile destroyers, submarines or large bomber aircraft behind the front lines. You still need a manned fighter at the front lines to find targets to shoot at.
“Find targets to shoot at.” The man is hardly involved at all. It’s a battle of sensors. It’s a battle over the electromagnetic spectrum and the man in the loop in the aircraft isn’t the critical part. Unless, you lose the battle of the EM spectrum and can’t communicate with a drone. Then a man in the loop could be critical but you’ve probably already lost at that point and would be better off with the “cruise missiles” you deride using ground mapping to find the way to the area and AI for specific target selection. I’m talking more about what aircraft are these days in BVR air-to-air: missile trucks, carrying AAMRAM, which is the real weapon. I’ve flown against F-22s, seen their weaknesses, and wouldn’t base our defense strategy on planes that have become too expensive compared to missiles.
Sure, but one pilot assigning targets to dozens of drones that are just outside the enemy controlled area waiting for instructions can go a long way towards making the pilot extremely effective.
That pilot can also be replaced by, say, 200 kilograms of extra sensors and communication equipment and two or three people in a container in the nearest airbase.
That pilot can also be replaced by, say, 200 kilograms of extra sensors and communication equipment and two or three people in a container in the nearest airbase.
> manned fighter at the front lines
Why a manned fighter? Why not remotely-human-piloted drones?
Why a manned fighter? Why not remotely-human-piloted drones?
Good stuff, the US is seriously on some Maginot Line crap. I sadly realize there will indeed be another great war, innovation in manned flight will not play a role in the outcome, and what we now denigrate may become in hindsight the pinacle of technological civilization.
It's going to be cyber war and no one is prepared. Here is an example how it may look like:
https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-w...
https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-w...
> cyber war
What proportion of chips used in American computers come from the far east?
What proportion of chips used in American computers come from the far east?
> For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia)
In what fantasy world does anyone actually posit it not devolving quickly into nuclear war with these nations?
We've had MAD for half a century and yet today so many people seem to spruik this idea that conventional direct warfare is possible between nuclear armed states. It's simply not going to happen.
In what fantasy world does anyone actually posit it not devolving quickly into nuclear war with these nations?
We've had MAD for half a century and yet today so many people seem to spruik this idea that conventional direct warfare is possible between nuclear armed states. It's simply not going to happen.
The exact same sorts of scenario as occurred in the Korean War & Vietnam. I.e. a proxy-war using non-nuclear assets between the great powers. Where do you think the North Vietnamese were getting MIGs from?
Not only were China, USSR, and North Korea supplying MiGs, they were training pilots, providing logistical support, manning AAA batteries, and in the case of the North Korea, flying combat missions [1].
The point isn't necessarily to be able to wage a conventional war against Russia or China. Other countries, like Iran or Syria, potentially have access to the same weapons systems.
[1]: "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975", pp. 261-263. https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/decla...
The point isn't necessarily to be able to wage a conventional war against Russia or China. Other countries, like Iran or Syria, potentially have access to the same weapons systems.
[1]: "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975", pp. 261-263. https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/decla...
It's only not going to happen because there's a conventional deterrent backing up the nuclear deterrent.
Suppose Russia invades Poland. With a conventional deterrent, NATO can deploy ground and air forces to a defensive front and hold Russia to a stalemate. Eventually it would escalate to a nuclear exchange, but only through a stepwise process. Most importantly, this is why Russia doesn't invade Poland.
Without a conventional deterrent, Russian tanks could reach Brussels and the only countermeasure would be a nuclear first strike against Russia. That wouldn't happen. Which means there's no reason for Russia not to invade every non-nuclear-armed country it wants to. Which means every single country in the vicinity of Russia is going to want their own nuclear deterrent, because that will be the only effective defense.
(Also, missile defense is getting good enough that MAD might not survive the 21st century, and then we'll feel silly for not having any other military options.)
Suppose Russia invades Poland. With a conventional deterrent, NATO can deploy ground and air forces to a defensive front and hold Russia to a stalemate. Eventually it would escalate to a nuclear exchange, but only through a stepwise process. Most importantly, this is why Russia doesn't invade Poland.
Without a conventional deterrent, Russian tanks could reach Brussels and the only countermeasure would be a nuclear first strike against Russia. That wouldn't happen. Which means there's no reason for Russia not to invade every non-nuclear-armed country it wants to. Which means every single country in the vicinity of Russia is going to want their own nuclear deterrent, because that will be the only effective defense.
(Also, missile defense is getting good enough that MAD might not survive the 21st century, and then we'll feel silly for not having any other military options.)
India and Pakistan have been there I think - and lately came close again, though both sides recognized the thin line.
And also, both sides don't exactly follow MAD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence
Basically, it's not "I can glass your whole country" but more "I can nuke a few of your main cities, you will survive but it will hurt".
Mostly, only the USA and Russia can follow MAD, the other nuclear powers with a few hundreds warheads, follow Minimal Deterrence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence
Basically, it's not "I can glass your whole country" but more "I can nuke a few of your main cities, you will survive but it will hurt".
Mostly, only the USA and Russia can follow MAD, the other nuclear powers with a few hundreds warheads, follow Minimal Deterrence.
> I don't know where the unwillingness to fund them comes from
The Air Force. Air Force brass has less than zero interest in maintaining the A-10 fleet. Just a few months ago a friend of mine recounted a conversation he had with a base commander. Basically, the Air Force believes the F-35 and UAVs provide superior capabilities than the A-10 for every conceivable mission.
I asked him why the Army doesn't offer to takeover the A-10, but I just got a big shrug. I don't think that possibility is on anybody's radar, by which I infer not even the Army is particularly keen on the A-10.
The Air Force. Air Force brass has less than zero interest in maintaining the A-10 fleet. Just a few months ago a friend of mine recounted a conversation he had with a base commander. Basically, the Air Force believes the F-35 and UAVs provide superior capabilities than the A-10 for every conceivable mission.
I asked him why the Army doesn't offer to takeover the A-10, but I just got a big shrug. I don't think that possibility is on anybody's radar, by which I infer not even the Army is particularly keen on the A-10.
The Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. Also, it's entirely possible the Army is more than satisfied with their Apache attack helicopters and no longer needs an anti-tank machine gun with an airplane attached.
Don’t get me wrong, the GAU8 “Avenger” 30mm cannon the A10 was built around is an utter beast, but it has simply met its match with modern tank armor. It wouldn’t be effective against the most recent few generations of tanks do to increasingly effective armor. It was designed for old Soviet gear, which it obliterates, but it hasn’t been updated and Soviet weaponry has. A modern T14 Armata would be damaged (optics, sensors, etc) but ultimately would most likely survive an A10 gun run. Now for simple infantry ground support, there really is no match for a flying tank! As you’ve alluded to, the AH64 is a very capable flying tank and is very good at the same mission. Bonus points that the hellfire missiles the Apache carries are still quite effective against all currently known armor.
Disclaimer: I flew the Shadow 200 TUAV in OIF II and did targeting for several A10 missions. Nothing quite like a BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT cutting the thing you’ve put a laser on in half! I still don’t think it would do well against a modern Russian armor division.
Disclaimer: I flew the Shadow 200 TUAV in OIF II and did targeting for several A10 missions. Nothing quite like a BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT cutting the thing you’ve put a laser on in half! I still don’t think it would do well against a modern Russian armor division.
The GAU8 tears up Toyota pickups slightly faster than road salt (and time is of the essence in a CAS situation) and more cheaply than bombs/missiles.
The A10 is a lot less vulnerable to ground-fire and MANPADS than helicopters, can carry more and loiter longer. It's like a AC130 but cheaper to operate and with more missiles.
While the gun isn't going to be effective against a modern armored division having a high capacity missile truck is worthwhile as evidenced in desert storm.
That said, time to get on scene is very important and the A10 is very poor at that compared to other fixed wing aircraft.
The A10 is a lot less vulnerable to ground-fire and MANPADS than helicopters, can carry more and loiter longer. It's like a AC130 but cheaper to operate and with more missiles.
While the gun isn't going to be effective against a modern armored division having a high capacity missile truck is worthwhile as evidenced in desert storm.
That said, time to get on scene is very important and the A10 is very poor at that compared to other fixed wing aircraft.
"It's like an AC130 without a howitzer and a totally different machine gun" making it entirely unlike an AC130. The AC130's GAU23 and the GAU8 on the A10 are very different. I also did targeting missions in Ramadi for AC130s, and it was a lot of fun.
Have you ever been in combat with an A10? I have. I was literally the guy putting a laser (from my Shadow 200 TUAV) onto a weapons cache building in Tal'Afar, Iraq and watched an A10 BRRRRRTTTTTT cut the building in 1/2 before it ignited from all of the ordinance inside.
As to showing the A10's effectiveness in Desert Storm, that was what, 1991? The Soviet T90-A was designed to specifically be fine against 30mm GAU8 rounds, and it was released in 1993. Soviet armor divisions also have serious business anti-aircraft like the Pantsir system, which would obliterate an A10 no question. All recent Soviet weaponry, up to and including the most recent T14 Armata would survive strafing from an A10 just fine, and in the meantime provide targetting data to anti-air platforms to take it out.
TL;DNR: Using the weapons from the early 1990s to fight a war now is a great way to lose. The A10 is an amazing machine, but so was the P51 Mustang in its heyday.
Have you ever been in combat with an A10? I have. I was literally the guy putting a laser (from my Shadow 200 TUAV) onto a weapons cache building in Tal'Afar, Iraq and watched an A10 BRRRRRTTTTTT cut the building in 1/2 before it ignited from all of the ordinance inside.
As to showing the A10's effectiveness in Desert Storm, that was what, 1991? The Soviet T90-A was designed to specifically be fine against 30mm GAU8 rounds, and it was released in 1993. Soviet armor divisions also have serious business anti-aircraft like the Pantsir system, which would obliterate an A10 no question. All recent Soviet weaponry, up to and including the most recent T14 Armata would survive strafing from an A10 just fine, and in the meantime provide targetting data to anti-air platforms to take it out.
TL;DNR: Using the weapons from the early 1990s to fight a war now is a great way to lose. The A10 is an amazing machine, but so was the P51 Mustang in its heyday.
"Been in combat"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAI_RQ-7_Shadow)
:-)
:-)
It isn’t flown from Nevada like the bigger UAVs. It’s flown from in country, often only 1km from the mission site (although the total effective range is up to around 160km depending on wind direction, wind speed, and altitude). We’re doing convoys, we’re getting shot at, we’re risking our life. We woke up to mortar and missile fire every day. This is what the military refers to as combat, even cooks see combat. Did you? :)
If you get a combat patch and combat pay, it is combat. If your operational flight record says you have 482 combat flight hours, what would you call it (that is the number of hours I got in OIF II 2003-2004). You don’t have to kick down doors and drop bodies with your hands to be in combat. It was the RQ-7A in specific I flew as the RQ-7B is a bigger airframe with better endurance.
If you get a combat patch and combat pay, it is combat. If your operational flight record says you have 482 combat flight hours, what would you call it (that is the number of hours I got in OIF II 2003-2004). You don’t have to kick down doors and drop bodies with your hands to be in combat. It was the RQ-7A in specific I flew as the RQ-7B is a bigger airframe with better endurance.
That's not the threat, though. If you're attacking a modern Russian armor division, you don't shoot bullets at it directly. You attack the weak stream of rubles linking it to Moscow, and maneuver around it until it runs out of fuel.
The A-10 is still effective against light cavalry and mounted cavalry using low-armored ground vehicles, which are the units of choice for highly mobile hit-and-run guerilla combatants. Shooting pennies to destroy dollars is a viable strategy, and the A-10 spews nickels instead of launching quarters.
The A-10 is still effective against light cavalry and mounted cavalry using low-armored ground vehicles, which are the units of choice for highly mobile hit-and-run guerilla combatants. Shooting pennies to destroy dollars is a viable strategy, and the A-10 spews nickels instead of launching quarters.
The "keep the A10" camp is specifically arguing that the A10 is crucial for providing air support to ground troops against insurgent-style opponents, and that there's no equivalent available if the A10s are mothballed.
There's some interesting counter-arguments to that view in this thread; I'm not knowledgeable enough in the domain to have a strong opinion.
There's some interesting counter-arguments to that view in this thread; I'm not knowledgeable enough in the domain to have a strong opinion.
I love the A-10 and it is better than the fast-movers for anti-insurgency work (Especially if you take cost into consideration). However it is not the best as it is still colossal overkill.
There were plans for light attack propeller aircraft. The US actually bought a bunch of them for the Iraqi airforce and were falling over themselves saying how good they were for the job. The US airforce then trialled their own light attack aircraft (apparently grudgingly) but...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/01/18/the-air-forces-pl...
and to be honest, ths reasons given are pretty suspect to me anyway.
There were plans for light attack propeller aircraft. The US actually bought a bunch of them for the Iraqi airforce and were falling over themselves saying how good they were for the job. The US airforce then trialled their own light attack aircraft (apparently grudgingly) but...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/01/18/the-air-forces-pl...
and to be honest, ths reasons given are pretty suspect to me anyway.
This is also why the Marines kept the Corsair as far into the jet age as they could.
Unfortunately, it might not. Take a look at this: https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-a...
In my adult life I’ve only ever seen the BRRRRRRRRTTTTT used on troops in the open/defilade. Those rounds work fine, even on the high tech armor favored by the enemy in Afghanistan, trees.
Just how many 30mm shells do you think modern tank armor can withstand? The A10 carries a lot of ammo, all to be fired at the same spot.
Also, a tank without optics and sensors is pretty damn useless.
Also, a tank without optics and sensors is pretty damn useless.
A lot more than you might realize it seems. Here is a good overview of basically how the A10 is simply ineffective as a modern tank-killer.
https://www.quora.com/Can-an-A-10-Warthog-airplane-take-down...
Again, a hellfire missile from an Apache is a much better way to kill a modern tank.
https://www.quora.com/Can-an-A-10-Warthog-airplane-take-down...
Again, a hellfire missile from an Apache is a much better way to kill a modern tank.
I reach the opposite conclusion from your article.
It is clear that a single GAU-8 shell to undamaged frontal armor will not cause serious damage. Everything else points to the A-10 being highly effective.
Since we don't get to fire at the T-90 for testing purposes, note that smaller and slower shells from the Bradley have taken out the M1A2 Abrams.
Nothing says you can't hit the same location 100 times. For increased accuracy, improving the ammunition is possible. A few years back, DARPA got 50 caliber (12.7 mm) bullets to have active steering. If we can do that in 50 caliber, 30 mm should be easy.
As for the Hellfire, the A-10 has that beat too, with the Maverick. It goes 3 times as far, carrying 7 to 15 times as much explosive. The A-10 can also carry Paveway, JSOW, and various other precision bombs.
I don't think the psychological effect should be ignored either. Having an A-10 visibly loitering over the battlefield will have an effect on the morale and behavior of both sites of the conflict.
It is clear that a single GAU-8 shell to undamaged frontal armor will not cause serious damage. Everything else points to the A-10 being highly effective.
Since we don't get to fire at the T-90 for testing purposes, note that smaller and slower shells from the Bradley have taken out the M1A2 Abrams.
Nothing says you can't hit the same location 100 times. For increased accuracy, improving the ammunition is possible. A few years back, DARPA got 50 caliber (12.7 mm) bullets to have active steering. If we can do that in 50 caliber, 30 mm should be easy.
As for the Hellfire, the A-10 has that beat too, with the Maverick. It goes 3 times as far, carrying 7 to 15 times as much explosive. The A-10 can also carry Paveway, JSOW, and various other precision bombs.
I don't think the psychological effect should be ignored either. Having an A-10 visibly loitering over the battlefield will have an effect on the morale and behavior of both sites of the conflict.
Fair enough, but hitting the same spot twice (even that quora article points that out) is never going to happen. In some real world situations 22 rounds will hit a vehicle the size of a T90 if the pilot has 100% perfect aim, something that is totally possible, but unlikely. You're right on the maverick as well, but the A10 is aging. It won't be too much longer before the maximum wear of the titanium frame has happened and the entire thing will have to be rebuilt, something that likely won't happen. What they need, is a modern re-make of the A10, but it won't come from the air force. They love their fast stealth jets too much.
The Army does have some fixed wing aircraft, so it's not without precedent. And in any event I figured if the Army loved the A-10 so much they could call the Air Force's bluff and ask Congress to give them a mandate.
What all the evidence suggests to me is that there's overwhelming consensus at the Pentagon to scrap the A-10. Congress, the defense media, and anecdotally every ground trooper from Iraq and Afghanistan disagree, but there you have it.
What all the evidence suggests to me is that there's overwhelming consensus at the Pentagon to scrap the A-10. Congress, the defense media, and anecdotally every ground trooper from Iraq and Afghanistan disagree, but there you have it.
>What all the evidence suggests to me is that there's overwhelming consensus at the Pentagon to scrap the A-10. Congress, the defense media, and anecdotally every ground trooper from Iraq and Afghanistan disagree, but there you have it.
Grunts love firepower. Back when the M16 was new everyone got full auto. Then the powers that be decided it was overkill and gave them three round burst. Now the marines are fielding the M27....
Just because they eat crayons doesn't mean they don't know what works and what doesn't.
That said, having your CAS system be capable of showing up at mach 1.8 is worth something.
Grunts love firepower. Back when the M16 was new everyone got full auto. Then the powers that be decided it was overkill and gave them three round burst. Now the marines are fielding the M27....
Just because they eat crayons doesn't mean they don't know what works and what doesn't.
That said, having your CAS system be capable of showing up at mach 1.8 is worth something.
[deleted]
That's the problem. The branches of the US military are based on theater of operation, rather than mission.
Close aerial ground support is 100% a different mission profile than for air superiority fighters and air defense batteries.
If I were commander in chief, I would move most of the military to a new Logistics Corps, and put it in charge of all unit and cargo transport, aerial refueling, airdrops, at-sea resupply, construction and fortifications, vehicles maintenance, and permanent base buildings and facilities. Next, the nuclear triangle of long-range bombers, ballistic missile silos, and missile submarines would go into the Strategic Deterrents Corps, along with ballistic missile defenses, launch detection satellites, strategic-threat tracking radars, and hypersonic cruise missiles. The rest can go into Offense, Defense, and Special Teams, or any other arrangement they please. Once logistics, diplomacy, and strategic advantage are already taken care of, the tactics should be adaptable to the conditions of the conflict at hand.
Close aerial ground support is 100% a different mission profile than for air superiority fighters and air defense batteries.
If I were commander in chief, I would move most of the military to a new Logistics Corps, and put it in charge of all unit and cargo transport, aerial refueling, airdrops, at-sea resupply, construction and fortifications, vehicles maintenance, and permanent base buildings and facilities. Next, the nuclear triangle of long-range bombers, ballistic missile silos, and missile submarines would go into the Strategic Deterrents Corps, along with ballistic missile defenses, launch detection satellites, strategic-threat tracking radars, and hypersonic cruise missiles. The rest can go into Offense, Defense, and Special Teams, or any other arrangement they please. Once logistics, diplomacy, and strategic advantage are already taken care of, the tactics should be adaptable to the conditions of the conflict at hand.
This is why the Marine Corps operates their own air support and the Navy also controls their own aviation.
> The Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
That is 100% false. The 160th SOAR flies some CASA-212s, the MC-12 and the regular army flies a variety of SEMA and transport fixed wing aircraft. The Army doesn’t fly fighters, but air superiority isn’t their mission, that’s the Air Force’s job. Naval Aviation is really just a weapons system for ships; it’s for force projection rather than air superiority; Marine Aviation is strictly close air support for Marine operations: not force projection or air superiority.
The Army isn’t more than satisfied with Apaches: they’re not going to be buying any more as the FVL program comes online. That program is taking over from the Blackhawks and Apaches. The Apache was designed to fight tanks in Western European Cold War scenarios.
However, the Army actually wants F-35s rather than the Warthog for CAS. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said as much at a symposium last year. However, he wants the Air Force flying those planes as that has been the traditional division of labor for the Army: the Air Force generally provides CAS. But it doesn’t really matter what anyone says, there is a contingent of people that hate the military and everything the F-35 represents, regardless of the actual quality of the airplane. The critics have never flown the plane and many of those critics have never spent any time in combat situations where an F-35 would be relevant. There are plenty of ridiculous weapons systems that we don’t need (the Crusader artillery system for example,) but the F-35 isn’t one of them. It’s an incredible plane that allows missions that just wouldn’t be possible in a Super Hornet or a Raptor — at least not without unacceptable losses.
That is 100% false. The 160th SOAR flies some CASA-212s, the MC-12 and the regular army flies a variety of SEMA and transport fixed wing aircraft. The Army doesn’t fly fighters, but air superiority isn’t their mission, that’s the Air Force’s job. Naval Aviation is really just a weapons system for ships; it’s for force projection rather than air superiority; Marine Aviation is strictly close air support for Marine operations: not force projection or air superiority.
The Army isn’t more than satisfied with Apaches: they’re not going to be buying any more as the FVL program comes online. That program is taking over from the Blackhawks and Apaches. The Apache was designed to fight tanks in Western European Cold War scenarios.
However, the Army actually wants F-35s rather than the Warthog for CAS. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said as much at a symposium last year. However, he wants the Air Force flying those planes as that has been the traditional division of labor for the Army: the Air Force generally provides CAS. But it doesn’t really matter what anyone says, there is a contingent of people that hate the military and everything the F-35 represents, regardless of the actual quality of the airplane. The critics have never flown the plane and many of those critics have never spent any time in combat situations where an F-35 would be relevant. There are plenty of ridiculous weapons systems that we don’t need (the Crusader artillery system for example,) but the F-35 isn’t one of them. It’s an incredible plane that allows missions that just wouldn’t be possible in a Super Hornet or a Raptor — at least not without unacceptable losses.
> However, the Army actually wants F-35s rather than the Warthog for CAS. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said as much at a symposium last year.
Is this desire based on technical merits or political/practical realities? What criteria could be used to evaluate which aircraft is "better" for CAS?
Seems that the F-35 has higher operating costs, is less maneuverable, is more fragile, etc. Does stealth have an advantage when one is strafing at less that 10K feet in a (generally) low-threat and low-intensity environment?
Given all the combat engagements the A-10 has had over the decades, wouldn't it be prudent to at least have the F-35 run some "live" CAS missions to see how it does first? IIRC, the F-35 can't even fire its gun yet (until there's a future software update).
Is this desire based on technical merits or political/practical realities? What criteria could be used to evaluate which aircraft is "better" for CAS?
Seems that the F-35 has higher operating costs, is less maneuverable, is more fragile, etc. Does stealth have an advantage when one is strafing at less that 10K feet in a (generally) low-threat and low-intensity environment?
Given all the combat engagements the A-10 has had over the decades, wouldn't it be prudent to at least have the F-35 run some "live" CAS missions to see how it does first? IIRC, the F-35 can't even fire its gun yet (until there's a future software update).
My understanding, from knowing some Air Force officers and what I read:
Air Force officers manage people. They don't do things. Specifically, they don't risk their own lives. The Air Force is built around NORAD and SAC and ICBMs. Being the organization owning nuclear missiles is their dream state. They recently added space and cyber to that, both of which also don't involve getting shot at. The A-10 is the ultimate in "not our job" to the USAF. UAVs could not get here fast enough.
Unfortunately, they also don't want anyone else to have the whole aircraft thing. So the Army doesn't get to fly fixed wings and the Navy only has that "aircraft carrier" excuse.
Air Force officers manage people. They don't do things. Specifically, they don't risk their own lives. The Air Force is built around NORAD and SAC and ICBMs. Being the organization owning nuclear missiles is their dream state. They recently added space and cyber to that, both of which also don't involve getting shot at. The A-10 is the ultimate in "not our job" to the USAF. UAVs could not get here fast enough.
Unfortunately, they also don't want anyone else to have the whole aircraft thing. So the Army doesn't get to fly fixed wings and the Navy only has that "aircraft carrier" excuse.
The idea that low cost STOL aircraft will suddenly solve the CAS conundrum is a Reddit-baked solution void of any actual data or understanding. I'm a military aviator and the public more than anything needs to understand that as with most things in this world, it simply isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
The data from the war in Afghanistan paints a pretty good picture of capability versus perception. The vast majority of the responses to troops-in-contact came in the form of precision munitions from F-16s or F-15s. What the "troops" want is not a good variable in understanding what the best method of providing CAS is. Everyone wants the A-10, it's sexy. The reality on the ground is that even in a low threat environment such as Afghanistan the A-10 doesn't nearly do the job as good as an F-16 for a number of reasons which I won't get into in a public forum.
The Airforce vision of CAS is precision munitions from both manned and un-manned platforms that present very little risk to both the operators of the platform and the infrastructure that support them. It would be a significant de-evolution of our capability as a military to continue to operate the A-10 purley on nostalgia and public perception of its' capabilities. I don't expect the public at large to look at this situation with nuisance or data, but let's use common sense if anything. The reason why the Afghan Airforce is operating A-29s and armed C-208Bs has much more to do with cost and sustainability than it does to do with effectiveness. In fact you can find multiple articles of Afghan brass complaining about how what we are giving them isn't particularly well suited to the mission they are expected to sustain. A couple of tool boxes and spare PT6 parts will keep that fleet flying for a couple of years. I don't see them really providing a meaningful impact on the battlefield however.
Being close to the ground is the Army's mission and they do it really well. Adding a couple gunned turboprops won't change anything on the ground today or tomorrow. We are training and developing doctrine for a near-peer threat. We've been focused on COIN too long, and developing budgets and technology for yesterday's conflicts is exactly what set us back in the early days of the GWOT. So consider for a moment that the F-35, despite it's many setbacks and runaway budget might actually do the CAS mission quite well. I'll take the laser guided 500LB bomb over a spray of Hyrda rockets when some asshole starts throwing IDF my way. By the time we procure, field, and properly employ something like the A-29 it's basically going to be limited to a low threat environment scout attack role. Hey doesn't the Army do that??!!
So I told you what this soldier wants, and what the Airforce is doing. Hopefully that's good enough.
The data from the war in Afghanistan paints a pretty good picture of capability versus perception. The vast majority of the responses to troops-in-contact came in the form of precision munitions from F-16s or F-15s. What the "troops" want is not a good variable in understanding what the best method of providing CAS is. Everyone wants the A-10, it's sexy. The reality on the ground is that even in a low threat environment such as Afghanistan the A-10 doesn't nearly do the job as good as an F-16 for a number of reasons which I won't get into in a public forum.
The Airforce vision of CAS is precision munitions from both manned and un-manned platforms that present very little risk to both the operators of the platform and the infrastructure that support them. It would be a significant de-evolution of our capability as a military to continue to operate the A-10 purley on nostalgia and public perception of its' capabilities. I don't expect the public at large to look at this situation with nuisance or data, but let's use common sense if anything. The reason why the Afghan Airforce is operating A-29s and armed C-208Bs has much more to do with cost and sustainability than it does to do with effectiveness. In fact you can find multiple articles of Afghan brass complaining about how what we are giving them isn't particularly well suited to the mission they are expected to sustain. A couple of tool boxes and spare PT6 parts will keep that fleet flying for a couple of years. I don't see them really providing a meaningful impact on the battlefield however.
Being close to the ground is the Army's mission and they do it really well. Adding a couple gunned turboprops won't change anything on the ground today or tomorrow. We are training and developing doctrine for a near-peer threat. We've been focused on COIN too long, and developing budgets and technology for yesterday's conflicts is exactly what set us back in the early days of the GWOT. So consider for a moment that the F-35, despite it's many setbacks and runaway budget might actually do the CAS mission quite well. I'll take the laser guided 500LB bomb over a spray of Hyrda rockets when some asshole starts throwing IDF my way. By the time we procure, field, and properly employ something like the A-29 it's basically going to be limited to a low threat environment scout attack role. Hey doesn't the Army do that??!!
So I told you what this soldier wants, and what the Airforce is doing. Hopefully that's good enough.
I'm struggling to find analogies here.
Everyone, you need to drive the Ford 35 Mustang. It's not the fastest car but it's pretty fast. If you strap a trailer on the back then sure it now loses all it's maneuverability but it's now a truck, right? So we don't need trucks any more.
Since it's invisible you don't need any combat capability, unless you load it out with 8 pylons and now it's not invisible any more, so now it does need to outfly the enemy. But it can't because it needs to carry all this load.
It needs to take off and land vertically which means it needs a small cross section but it needs to be able to have a high wing load to turn so it needs a large cross section.
It needs to do close air support but it can't get close. It needs to be slow but it also needs to be fast.
It needs to be a bomber and have long range, but needs to be a fighter and have high performance (or energy maneuverability).
It's what Boyd warned everyone about during the last generation, you need to avoid mutli role aircraft as they're not good at anything.
Everyone, you need to drive the Ford 35 Mustang. It's not the fastest car but it's pretty fast. If you strap a trailer on the back then sure it now loses all it's maneuverability but it's now a truck, right? So we don't need trucks any more.
Since it's invisible you don't need any combat capability, unless you load it out with 8 pylons and now it's not invisible any more, so now it does need to outfly the enemy. But it can't because it needs to carry all this load.
It needs to take off and land vertically which means it needs a small cross section but it needs to be able to have a high wing load to turn so it needs a large cross section.
It needs to do close air support but it can't get close. It needs to be slow but it also needs to be fast.
It needs to be a bomber and have long range, but needs to be a fighter and have high performance (or energy maneuverability).
It's what Boyd warned everyone about during the last generation, you need to avoid mutli role aircraft as they're not good at anything.
>It's what Boyd warned everyone about during the last generation, you need to avoid mutli role aircraft as they're not good at anything.
Like the F-16 or the F-15E? Hillaker said he'd have designed the F-16 differently(more akin to the F-16XL) if he had known it was going to be multi-role.
Like the F-16 or the F-15E? Hillaker said he'd have designed the F-16 differently(more akin to the F-16XL) if he had known it was going to be multi-role.
Right. It wasn't supposed to be multi-role, the original was a beautiful thing to behold before they started hanging all kinds of crap off of it.
Like radar?
Eh, if it went into production as they had envisioned, it would have been built only to F-104 kind of numbers. By compromising a little on the air to air aspect, they gained enormously in the air to ground aspect and overall utility. Most of the sorties have been air to ground for a good awhile now.
Eh, if it went into production as they had envisioned, it would have been built only to F-104 kind of numbers. By compromising a little on the air to air aspect, they gained enormously in the air to ground aspect and overall utility. Most of the sorties have been air to ground for a good awhile now.
Have you ever thought about that it does not have to fulfill all those roles at once and that war is fought in phases which each require a different trade-off?
Yes.
These are the design constraints. Really it should be 2 or 3 different, almost certainly cheaper, aircraft.
These are the design constraints. Really it should be 2 or 3 different, almost certainly cheaper, aircraft.
beyond that if the guy in the ground need precise explosive delivery just build laser guided medium range rockets, a ship could bring thousand of those into any theatre with reasonable safety and skip the expensive delivery platform along with all the concerns for the meatbag inside
Laser guidance kits are pretty expensive which is why there’s a push to move to GPS guidance.
gps can't do the things the guy above asked for
I don't follow your logic, but perhaps you can't answer my question in public --
For someone like the Army, it seems like a drone version of the A-10, which drops a lot of the pilot armor for increased munitions and dwell time, would be a decisive factor in CAS.
If you look at say, the ambush on American forces in Syria by the Wagner group, substantial amounts of fire were provided by helicopters and AC-130s.
So I'm just lost at how a plane which can reach target faster than a helicopter, but provide similar close in support doesn't have a role in such engagements.
That's not to say that stealth penetration, ECW, and targeted strikes aren't important -- eg, providing openings in IAD, hitting fortified targets quickly, etc. Just that given how things with Wagner went, it seems like long-dwell, high munition count CAS is useful.
For someone like the Army, it seems like a drone version of the A-10, which drops a lot of the pilot armor for increased munitions and dwell time, would be a decisive factor in CAS.
If you look at say, the ambush on American forces in Syria by the Wagner group, substantial amounts of fire were provided by helicopters and AC-130s.
So I'm just lost at how a plane which can reach target faster than a helicopter, but provide similar close in support doesn't have a role in such engagements.
That's not to say that stealth penetration, ECW, and targeted strikes aren't important -- eg, providing openings in IAD, hitting fortified targets quickly, etc. Just that given how things with Wagner went, it seems like long-dwell, high munition count CAS is useful.
Again the fascination with the A-10 despite the fact that it isn't a particularly effective CAS platform nowadays will be my constant struggle in a forum like this.
The issue right now isn't with loiter time or payload. Range is the enemy more than anything right now. We fight a global conflict and providing resources anywhere at anytime is alot harder than it sounds. Making A-10s into drones doesn't solve any particular problem. Once the Army fully realizes future vertical lift we'll have a better picture of what "local" CAS will look like moving forward. Right now we team 64s with UAVs all wholly owned and operated by the Army to project force locally.
Response time is key. An F-16 hauling ass from Al Udeid will give me more than an A-10 hauling ass from Al Udeid. Low risk precision is key. A UCAV at altitude raining hate in the from of hellfires presents very low risk to the asset and a great deal of precision for the troops on the ground. The A-10 can act great as a delivery platform, but it is slow and incredibly vulnerable. Time matters for those troops in contact, and providing fast precision is the key ingredient in CAS right now. Sustainment comes in the form of larger platforms such as the B-1 and the B-52. In a low to moderate risk environment you can start throwing in Army assets and special mission stuff like the AC-130. Air power is built as a stack, and the idea to to provide quick reaction to troops in contact with precision munitions. Bring in ISR platforms (or already have them in place) at altitude to develop the battlefield. Finally, sustain air power with larger platforms or locally employed assets (think short range long loiter) such as AH-64s, AH-6s, DAPS, etc.
The reason why the A-10 doesn't have a KEY role in all of this is because after decades at war, lessons were learned. Now the A-10 isn't SUPER BAD at CAS, we've just evolved. An F-35 will do the job just well in that it provides that critical speed, range, payload, precision and all with an amazing capability set. If we ever need to destroy battalions of tanks en-mass with zero risk of effective counter air or anti-air, I'm sure we'll see the A-10 again.
In terms of Khasham, you're also ignoring the dozen or so sorties flown that day by F-22s, F-15s, and B-52s that provided probably more than 80% of the total payload. Not to mention the many un-named ISR and UCAV platforms that probably stayed in the stack for the better part of that week. Going back to the "stack" mentioned above.
The issue right now isn't with loiter time or payload. Range is the enemy more than anything right now. We fight a global conflict and providing resources anywhere at anytime is alot harder than it sounds. Making A-10s into drones doesn't solve any particular problem. Once the Army fully realizes future vertical lift we'll have a better picture of what "local" CAS will look like moving forward. Right now we team 64s with UAVs all wholly owned and operated by the Army to project force locally.
Response time is key. An F-16 hauling ass from Al Udeid will give me more than an A-10 hauling ass from Al Udeid. Low risk precision is key. A UCAV at altitude raining hate in the from of hellfires presents very low risk to the asset and a great deal of precision for the troops on the ground. The A-10 can act great as a delivery platform, but it is slow and incredibly vulnerable. Time matters for those troops in contact, and providing fast precision is the key ingredient in CAS right now. Sustainment comes in the form of larger platforms such as the B-1 and the B-52. In a low to moderate risk environment you can start throwing in Army assets and special mission stuff like the AC-130. Air power is built as a stack, and the idea to to provide quick reaction to troops in contact with precision munitions. Bring in ISR platforms (or already have them in place) at altitude to develop the battlefield. Finally, sustain air power with larger platforms or locally employed assets (think short range long loiter) such as AH-64s, AH-6s, DAPS, etc.
The reason why the A-10 doesn't have a KEY role in all of this is because after decades at war, lessons were learned. Now the A-10 isn't SUPER BAD at CAS, we've just evolved. An F-35 will do the job just well in that it provides that critical speed, range, payload, precision and all with an amazing capability set. If we ever need to destroy battalions of tanks en-mass with zero risk of effective counter air or anti-air, I'm sure we'll see the A-10 again.
In terms of Khasham, you're also ignoring the dozen or so sorties flown that day by F-22s, F-15s, and B-52s that provided probably more than 80% of the total payload. Not to mention the many un-named ISR and UCAV platforms that probably stayed in the stack for the better part of that week. Going back to the "stack" mentioned above.
> Response time is key. An F-16 hauling ass from Al Udeid will give me more than an A-10 hauling ass from Al Udeid.
Why would the A-10 (Or a light attack aircraft) be hauling ass from there instead of already being in the air near the AO since it has a lot more fuel and loiter time (and lower cost per flight hour)? Or being closer since they can launch from more austere airfields.
Also, I have read articles:
* Quoting JTACs saying dialling in the fast movers afer their arrival takes a lot longer than a slow-mover in a near-contact situation which can be a serious issue (and large removes the "haul ass" 8-minute rule advantage)
* Quoting army captains saying the loiter time is so low after the fast movers have arrived that enemy forces basically learned to stop the attack for 30 minutes then resume after the fast-mover has had to go to the nearest tanker to refuel.
I can maybe see the F-35's sensor suite helping with the first one but not the second (Unless it is so good that it can reliably find targets on the ground even when the JTAC cannot be sure).
Or when I read about Special forces literally having to do end-runs around official policy to get some A-29s to support them because the existing kit wasn't doing the job.
I am not an "A-10 forever" type but I find the "F-35 solves EVERYTHING" crowd to be a bit over-zealous and I have read enough about issues with the Airforce (brass especially) and its relationship with the CAS/COIN role to make me wonder about their ability to evaulate without bias.
Why would the A-10 (Or a light attack aircraft) be hauling ass from there instead of already being in the air near the AO since it has a lot more fuel and loiter time (and lower cost per flight hour)? Or being closer since they can launch from more austere airfields.
Also, I have read articles:
* Quoting JTACs saying dialling in the fast movers afer their arrival takes a lot longer than a slow-mover in a near-contact situation which can be a serious issue (and large removes the "haul ass" 8-minute rule advantage)
* Quoting army captains saying the loiter time is so low after the fast movers have arrived that enemy forces basically learned to stop the attack for 30 minutes then resume after the fast-mover has had to go to the nearest tanker to refuel.
I can maybe see the F-35's sensor suite helping with the first one but not the second (Unless it is so good that it can reliably find targets on the ground even when the JTAC cannot be sure).
Or when I read about Special forces literally having to do end-runs around official policy to get some A-29s to support them because the existing kit wasn't doing the job.
I am not an "A-10 forever" type but I find the "F-35 solves EVERYTHING" crowd to be a bit over-zealous and I have read enough about issues with the Airforce (brass especially) and its relationship with the CAS/COIN role to make me wonder about their ability to evaulate without bias.
I'm not arguing that the F-35 solves every problem here. I'm trying to deconstruct this weird interpretation of CAS that many people have.
> Why would the A-10 (Or a light attack aircraft) be hauling ass from there instead of already being in the air near the AO since it has a lot more fuel and loiter time (and lower cost per flight hour)? Or being closer since they can launch from more austere airfields.
That's a bad way to frame it, I could just argue that a bunch of B-1s should have been at altitude already as well. I guess we'll prop up multiple airfields in Syria because .... well we don't have to, we'll just use other equally as good assets that can be rapidly fielded from regional bases. It simplifies cost, provides quick and effective fire all at a much lower risk. Ultimately the ground force commander builds their own stack and helps arrange and field assets before any major operation. In a low threat environment, hell yes have a bunch of A-10s in the stack ready to rock. But what about some ODA in Nigeria that randomly gets ambushed? That's how we need to be talking about CAS.
> Quoting JTACs saying dialling in the fast movers afer their arrival takes a lot longer than a slow-mover in a near-contact situation which can be a serious issue (and large removes the "haul ass" 8-minute rule advantage).
"Quoting JTACs" is like quoting the private news network in my eyes.
> Quoting army captains saying the loiter time is so low after the fast movers have arrived that enemy forces basically learned to stop the attack for 30 minutes then resume after the fast-mover has had to go to the nearest tanker to refuel.
I wouldn't say that the loiter time is what led to that outcome. Being all holed up in a COP on a mountain side isn't the best place to be in the first place. That's why local CAS must also come into the picture somewhere if you plan to sustain operations.
> Or when I read about Special forces literally having to do end-runs around official policy to get some A-29s to support them because the existing kit wasn't doing the job.
Special mission stuff will always be special mission stuff. We still have OV-10s doing high speed shit in Iraq. That doesn't mean we should build more OV-10s. Tailored solutions are just that.
> Why would the A-10 (Or a light attack aircraft) be hauling ass from there instead of already being in the air near the AO since it has a lot more fuel and loiter time (and lower cost per flight hour)? Or being closer since they can launch from more austere airfields.
That's a bad way to frame it, I could just argue that a bunch of B-1s should have been at altitude already as well. I guess we'll prop up multiple airfields in Syria because .... well we don't have to, we'll just use other equally as good assets that can be rapidly fielded from regional bases. It simplifies cost, provides quick and effective fire all at a much lower risk. Ultimately the ground force commander builds their own stack and helps arrange and field assets before any major operation. In a low threat environment, hell yes have a bunch of A-10s in the stack ready to rock. But what about some ODA in Nigeria that randomly gets ambushed? That's how we need to be talking about CAS.
> Quoting JTACs saying dialling in the fast movers afer their arrival takes a lot longer than a slow-mover in a near-contact situation which can be a serious issue (and large removes the "haul ass" 8-minute rule advantage).
"Quoting JTACs" is like quoting the private news network in my eyes.
> Quoting army captains saying the loiter time is so low after the fast movers have arrived that enemy forces basically learned to stop the attack for 30 minutes then resume after the fast-mover has had to go to the nearest tanker to refuel.
I wouldn't say that the loiter time is what led to that outcome. Being all holed up in a COP on a mountain side isn't the best place to be in the first place. That's why local CAS must also come into the picture somewhere if you plan to sustain operations.
> Or when I read about Special forces literally having to do end-runs around official policy to get some A-29s to support them because the existing kit wasn't doing the job.
Special mission stuff will always be special mission stuff. We still have OV-10s doing high speed shit in Iraq. That doesn't mean we should build more OV-10s. Tailored solutions are just that.
Just wanted to chime in that I appreciate the detailed answer!
Edit:
> Making A-10s into drones doesn't solve any particular problem.
Just wanted to call out -- it actually does solve one problem, and one I've heard expressed as a concern, which is the potential loss of pilots involved with low-flying, slow CAS aircraft, such as the A-10. It also substantially changes the performance requirements when you're not trying to safely house a pilot -- fuel capacity, electronics, lighter or smaller craft (if we're talking future planes), etc.
Hence the reason for my suggestion: it shifts the risk envelope in terms of sending them as CAS, while offering a distinct platform from say, Predator style drones, with relatively lighter armaments.
Let me just conclude by saying my information on military hardware largely comes from Wikipedia, may not include various platforms that haven't been widely publicized, and certainly doesn't include accurate information on combat.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to talk.
Edit:
> Making A-10s into drones doesn't solve any particular problem.
Just wanted to call out -- it actually does solve one problem, and one I've heard expressed as a concern, which is the potential loss of pilots involved with low-flying, slow CAS aircraft, such as the A-10. It also substantially changes the performance requirements when you're not trying to safely house a pilot -- fuel capacity, electronics, lighter or smaller craft (if we're talking future planes), etc.
Hence the reason for my suggestion: it shifts the risk envelope in terms of sending them as CAS, while offering a distinct platform from say, Predator style drones, with relatively lighter armaments.
Let me just conclude by saying my information on military hardware largely comes from Wikipedia, may not include various platforms that haven't been widely publicized, and certainly doesn't include accurate information on combat.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to talk.
[deleted]
> If we ever need to destroy battalions of tanks en-mass with zero risk of effective counter air or anti-air, I'm sure we'll see the A-10 again.
Aircraft peashooters aren't strong enough to shoot down tanks nowadays.
Aircraft peashooters aren't strong enough to shoot down tanks nowadays.
A GAU8 will destroy any armored vehicle today. Tanks aren't armored equally on all aspects, and the top of the tank (where the majority of the GAU's rounds will impact is usually the thinnest. Now the A10 won't survive long enough against a decent opponent to employ the GAU, but that doesn't matter since either a Maverick or a SDB would be the preferred weapon against a tank. The GAU is really intended for soft targets, not tanks.
[deleted]
> the F-35, despite it's many setbacks and runaway budget might actually do the CAS mission quite well
If you're defining CAS as dropping overkill PGMs from 30,000ft in clear skies.
But that form of CAS is unique to the 'last war'. How will the F-35 fare in Central Europe where 90% of days are overcast and media coverage means you can't just throw a 500lber into a block of flats to suppress a sniper.
> So I told you what this soldier wants, and what the Airforce is doing.
The soldier wants the target suppressed ASAP, in any weather and with minimal risk to friendly force. The Air Force is following its usual tactic of appearing to do just enough to fulfil the soldier's needs so that it can keep the Army away from armed fixed-wing.
If you're defining CAS as dropping overkill PGMs from 30,000ft in clear skies.
But that form of CAS is unique to the 'last war'. How will the F-35 fare in Central Europe where 90% of days are overcast and media coverage means you can't just throw a 500lber into a block of flats to suppress a sniper.
> So I told you what this soldier wants, and what the Airforce is doing.
The soldier wants the target suppressed ASAP, in any weather and with minimal risk to friendly force. The Air Force is following its usual tactic of appearing to do just enough to fulfil the soldier's needs so that it can keep the Army away from armed fixed-wing.
>But that form of CAS is unique to the 'last war'.
Unique like how the A-10 has been operating in such uncontested airspace of the 'last war'? An SU-25 was downed by a MANPADS last year in Syria. The A-10 is tough and highly survivable, but the case of not being hit in the first place has some merit.
Unique like how the A-10 has been operating in such uncontested airspace of the 'last war'? An SU-25 was downed by a MANPADS last year in Syria. The A-10 is tough and highly survivable, but the case of not being hit in the first place has some merit.
That form of CAS it not at all unique to the "last war", it's the next evolution of CAS from lessons learned. CAS doesn't need to mean slow, fat, and scary. It needs to be effective and fast.
Even on an overcast day you could still throw a munition through a window of a building, I don't know why you think that cloud coverage diminishes our capability.
Even on an overcast day you could still throw a munition through a window of a building, I don't know why you think that cloud coverage diminishes our capability.
For parent commenter, or anyone else interested, I really liked this in-depth interview with Major Dave Burke (Marine Corps pilot, Top Gun instructor, and Forward Air Controller). Maybe you will like it too...
http://jockopodcast.com/2017/04/05/69-the-real-top-gun-battl...
http://jockopodcast.com/2017/04/05/69-the-real-top-gun-battl...
Listening right now, thanks for the share.
A separate question is whether the jack of all trades concept of the F-35 makes sense.
(I mean, that's a source of lots of the problems with the program)
A plane different than the F-35 doing CAS doesn't have to be the aging A-10.
(I mean, that's a source of lots of the problems with the program)
A plane different than the F-35 doing CAS doesn't have to be the aging A-10.
> What the "troops" want is not a good variable in understanding what the best method of providing CAS is.
That reminds of a talk I heard by a historian who pointed out that the Sherman tank was actually a better tank than its reputation suggests. While a bigger gun and more armor could have helped, the tank commands actually turned down bigger guns (because they hadn't yet seen tanks that needed them) and providing sufficient armor to actually stop the weapon fire being trained on them may not have been possible with the logistical constraints of the US Army.
That reminds of a talk I heard by a historian who pointed out that the Sherman tank was actually a better tank than its reputation suggests. While a bigger gun and more armor could have helped, the tank commands actually turned down bigger guns (because they hadn't yet seen tanks that needed them) and providing sufficient armor to actually stop the weapon fire being trained on them may not have been possible with the logistical constraints of the US Army.
Probably this one by the chieftain "Myths of American Armor"?
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY
Same guy, although I don't think that was the precise talk in question.
My cousin was much more impressed by a plane that could stay over their position for an extended period of time in Afghanistan. The A-10 that showed up could do that and that gun could keep a large number of enemy pretty occupied. CAS actually requires being able to stay over the troops, and the F-35 just is not that type of plane.
I won't argue with loiter time, but projecting that force is hard when those distances increase. The solution has and always will be in-air refueling which every other platform can do just as well.
CAS is more than just "staying", if anything it has a lot more to do with "getting there". We're very good at getting a lot of shit down range, what gets there QUICKLY makes the difference to those on the ground.
CAS is more than just "staying", if anything it has a lot more to do with "getting there". We're very good at getting a lot of shit down range, what gets there QUICKLY makes the difference to those on the ground.
What kept him alive was the A-10’s ability to stay above him and keep shooting the enemy. Quick is great, but actually covering troops that we put out by themselves is more important.
Again, the fascination despite the facts. Quick is key. That A-10 does the job well in a VERY specific environment. One void of counter air or anti air wherein the launch base is within a reasonable distance to the target. This is highly unique to that AO. Building a CAS capability around a very narrow definition such as that is stupid, and that is why the Air Force isn't doing it.
I still question the Air Force doing it at all if the F-35 is the answer. How long could the F-35 have stayed above the troops that night? The gun capacity is just awful.
Gun capacity on an A10 isn't that hot either. The sex appeal of the GAU is great, but it only has a shade over 1k rounds, and those go by pretty quickly.
What's really interesting is looking at the data; the majority of CAS missions in Afghanistan were performed by the B-1, hardly what comes to mind when you picture that aircraft. But it has high speed, packs a ton of munitions, and has the ability to persist for a long time over the battlespace.
What's really interesting is looking at the data; the majority of CAS missions in Afghanistan were performed by the B-1, hardly what comes to mind when you picture that aircraft. But it has high speed, packs a ton of munitions, and has the ability to persist for a long time over the battlespace.
What vacuum do you think military aviation operates in? Honestly. The A-10 will loiter for an hour or two at most depending on loadout. The F-35 will do about the same.
Loiter time isn't as big of a variable as people make it out to be. We'll just throw more assets into the mix. What matters is getting there fast to be able to actually impact the fight in a meaningful way.
Loiter time isn't as big of a variable as people make it out to be. We'll just throw more assets into the mix. What matters is getting there fast to be able to actually impact the fight in a meaningful way.
If someone wants "the facts", are you aware of any publicly available information that does a (in your opinion) fair/accurate assessment of the pros and cons of the available CAS platform options? (Weblogs, forum posts, white papers, etc.)
since when is the a-10 sexy? its old and ugly but effective.
there is no aircraft on the planet that provides close air support as well as the A10. not even most military brass that want to get rid of the A10 will admit otherwise.
troops want the a10 because they dont want a friggen bomb dropped on their head, not because of nostalgia.
there is no aircraft on the planet that provides close air support as well as the A10. not even most military brass that want to get rid of the A10 will admit otherwise.
troops want the a10 because they dont want a friggen bomb dropped on their head, not because of nostalgia.
You must be a one of those "troops" then since you seem to know what they want?
"there is no aircraft on the planet that provides close air support as well as the A10"
Apache drivers love their guns, don't say that too loudly. Those Marine AH-1 guys hate their lives so they might not care so much you have that opinion. Those Air Force F-15, F-16, F-22 and B-2 drivers might however be a tad salty that despite the fact they are the ones present at those troop in contact missions most of the time they don't get any love because of LUL BRRRRT.
Troops if anything don't want the A-10 because they don't want a friggen strafe ran over them when they could've had a JDAM. But hey, BRRRRRT
"there is no aircraft on the planet that provides close air support as well as the A10"
Apache drivers love their guns, don't say that too loudly. Those Marine AH-1 guys hate their lives so they might not care so much you have that opinion. Those Air Force F-15, F-16, F-22 and B-2 drivers might however be a tad salty that despite the fact they are the ones present at those troop in contact missions most of the time they don't get any love because of LUL BRRRRT.
Troops if anything don't want the A-10 because they don't want a friggen strafe ran over them when they could've had a JDAM. But hey, BRRRRRT
Apaches have a habit of getting shot down during daytime operations.
You're probably thinking of either the AC130 or Blackhawks operating un-escorted.
Army pilot here, no they don't.
Thank you for coming into this thread and dropping knowledge bombs. There are way too many BRRRRT-heads online that think they're experts in military aviation because they watched a youtube clip one time.
> So I told you what this soldier wants, and what the Airforce is doing. Hopefully that's good enough.
In your opinion, does this article accurately reflect the current limitations of the A-10, and list useful enhancements of what a "Warthog 2.0" should have? For example:
> Because CAS missions often take place at very low altitudes and low airspeeds — anywhere from 150 knots to 300 knots — the aircraft must be able to perform a two-G sustained turn at a rate of five degrees per second with a turn radius of no more than 2,000 feet.
> The instantaneous turn rate — that is, how quickly a plane can wheel around in the first few seconds of a maneuver — would have to be better than 20 degrees per second while pulling six Gs. The aircraft must also be able to remain less than one mile from a target between attacks while pulling no more than two Gs — except for the roll-in to the attack and the time it’s leaving the area.
[...]
> The A-10 cannot take off at its maximum weight in places like Afghanistan and must either off-load weapons or fuel. The next-generation aircraft must be able climb out of a runway at maximum gross weight at a rate of the 4,000 feet per minute at a density altitude of 20,000 feet. Further, it must be able to operate out of a 3,000-foot runway at sea-level with a full fuel load and an internal gun. Ideally, it should be able to operate out of austere 1,500-foot runways.
> A cruise speed of at least 360 knots is desirable, the pilots said. Initially, the group believed that it would be best for a next-gen aircraft to cruise at 480 knots with a dash speed of 540 knots. However, with Sprey’s input, the team came to the conclusion that such a requirement would be aerodynamically incompatible with a tight turn radius at low airspeed.
[...]
> The prospective next-generation Warthog replacement needs to have a minimum combat radius of 150 nautical miles with at least four hours on station time with internal fuel, the pilot explains.
* https://warisboring.com/what-will-the-next-a-10-warthog-look...
* https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mcsallys-case-let...
In your opinion, does this article accurately reflect the current limitations of the A-10, and list useful enhancements of what a "Warthog 2.0" should have? For example:
> Because CAS missions often take place at very low altitudes and low airspeeds — anywhere from 150 knots to 300 knots — the aircraft must be able to perform a two-G sustained turn at a rate of five degrees per second with a turn radius of no more than 2,000 feet.
> The instantaneous turn rate — that is, how quickly a plane can wheel around in the first few seconds of a maneuver — would have to be better than 20 degrees per second while pulling six Gs. The aircraft must also be able to remain less than one mile from a target between attacks while pulling no more than two Gs — except for the roll-in to the attack and the time it’s leaving the area.
[...]
> The A-10 cannot take off at its maximum weight in places like Afghanistan and must either off-load weapons or fuel. The next-generation aircraft must be able climb out of a runway at maximum gross weight at a rate of the 4,000 feet per minute at a density altitude of 20,000 feet. Further, it must be able to operate out of a 3,000-foot runway at sea-level with a full fuel load and an internal gun. Ideally, it should be able to operate out of austere 1,500-foot runways.
> A cruise speed of at least 360 knots is desirable, the pilots said. Initially, the group believed that it would be best for a next-gen aircraft to cruise at 480 knots with a dash speed of 540 knots. However, with Sprey’s input, the team came to the conclusion that such a requirement would be aerodynamically incompatible with a tight turn radius at low airspeed.
[...]
> The prospective next-generation Warthog replacement needs to have a minimum combat radius of 150 nautical miles with at least four hours on station time with internal fuel, the pilot explains.
* https://warisboring.com/what-will-the-next-a-10-warthog-look...
* https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mcsallys-case-let...
This is why the Marines specifically wanted a STOVL variant. Horizontal speed can be arbitrarily slow for a STOVL jet, even zero, and STOVL jets can take off from small, hastily constructed airfields. Likewise, most close air support these days is actually from helicopters.
The A-10 is a flying anti-tank machine gun from the 1970's.
The A-10 is a flying anti-tank machine gun from the 1970's.
STOVL aircraft including the F-35B never hover during normal operations except for the last few seconds before landing. It burns too much fuel, and depending on how much weight the aircraft is carrying (fuel plus ordnance) there may not even be enough thrust available.
The point of the person you responded to was that STOVL aircraft can fulfill the requirement of a close air support (CAS) platform of being able to take off from hastily constructed airstrips, rather than being limited to carriers and large bases, often far removed from the area of operations.
Well that was the theory but it's never really worked out in practice due to security, maintenance, and logistics obstacles. Aircraft in forward bases are too vulnerable to mortar attacks. And all the fuel, parts, and ordnance has to be brought in by truck convoys or helicopter. It's just totally impractical.
It’s impractical in a setting like Iraq or Afghanistan, sure. On the other hand, if the Marines were to land on one of the Spratly Islands or on the coast of Norway, they could construct an airfield and have the Navy supply it from the sea, freeing one of the carriers or amphibious carriers to be redeployed elsewhere (or perhaps just adding to the local airfield capacity). Being able to base and operate STOVL aircraft days or weeks before heavier aircraft can be deployed there provides a significant advantage.
As programmers we are well trained to find the source of a problem, not treating the symptoms. The source problem is a lack of fire support for troops. This does not require an airborne weapon platform, fire support can be delivered by cannon and rocket artillery. And coincidentally this area is lacking in the US armed forces.
The Paladin is based on a chassi from like the early 1960s and can only do three rounds per minute or one round per minute sustained up to 22km. In comparison the Panzerhaubitze 2000 that can fire 10-13 rounds a minute continuously up to 30km. The 2016 Russian 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV can do 16 rounds per minute up to 40km, even the older 2S19 "Msta-S" manages 6-8 rounds per minute up to 24km. Not to mention the modern wheeled based systems like the Archer or the CAESAR which would be ideal for rapid redeployment against threats in a low intensity conflict.
And then we have rocket artillery systems, here the USA actually have a modern piece that is good in low intensity warfare, the M142 HIMARS. But compared to the Russians the US basically doesn't have any long range rocket artillery systems available for fire support.
But if you insist on having a CAS platform then forget about the A-10. Ask the Russians if you can buy some SU-25 Frogfoots. It's the best CAS in the world.
The Paladin is based on a chassi from like the early 1960s and can only do three rounds per minute or one round per minute sustained up to 22km. In comparison the Panzerhaubitze 2000 that can fire 10-13 rounds a minute continuously up to 30km. The 2016 Russian 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV can do 16 rounds per minute up to 40km, even the older 2S19 "Msta-S" manages 6-8 rounds per minute up to 24km. Not to mention the modern wheeled based systems like the Archer or the CAESAR which would be ideal for rapid redeployment against threats in a low intensity conflict.
And then we have rocket artillery systems, here the USA actually have a modern piece that is good in low intensity warfare, the M142 HIMARS. But compared to the Russians the US basically doesn't have any long range rocket artillery systems available for fire support.
But if you insist on having a CAS platform then forget about the A-10. Ask the Russians if you can buy some SU-25 Frogfoots. It's the best CAS in the world.
Sustained rate of fire isn't as important as you've implied. First off, you'll either burn out your barrel, or run out of ammo. Two, most fire missions in high intensity combat will be shoot and scoot, where each system fires 2-3 rounds then moves to a secondary fire position to avoid counterbattery fires. In low intensity combat situations where relocation isn't a requirement (Iraq/Afghan), firing rate is completely unimportant.
And you're also ignoring ATACMS. HIMARS is nice for the Marines, but ATACMS is great for high intensity warfare.
And the SU-25? Junk. It wouldn't survive 30 minutes against anyone with a decent AD (though neither would the A-10). Everyone underestimates how lethal modern combat will be against any and all aircraft.
And you're also ignoring ATACMS. HIMARS is nice for the Marines, but ATACMS is great for high intensity warfare.
And the SU-25? Junk. It wouldn't survive 30 minutes against anyone with a decent AD (though neither would the A-10). Everyone underestimates how lethal modern combat will be against any and all aircraft.
Is rate of fire really a blocker for US artillery? Can't they just bring more guns?
1 rpm sustained fire is extremely low. That's like a magnitude worse than the other modern alternatives. All others also fire atleast twice as fast and for almost 150% of the distance. Also sense the gun is that bad it creates a self reinforcing effect, why would you want more of it if it's bad?
>Ask the Russians if you can buy some SU-25 Frogfoots. It's the best CAS in the world.
\laughs in CIA supplied MANPADS\
\laughs in CIA supplied MANPADS\
Haha!
It's a good joke. Don't know why you are being downvoted.
Now the other guy could could afford to get some of those downvotes instead.
It’s cause A10’s are cheap and F-35’s are expensive. Same reason why the SR-71 was killed (10 planes to own the sky and any adversary vs an order for hundreds).
The SR-71 was a recon platform, not a fighter or bomber. It was made obsolete largely by advances in satellite technology.
Also: "On Sept. 3, 2012 an article written by Rakesh Krishman Simha for Indrus.in explains how the Foxhound was able to stop Blackbirds spy missions over Soviet Union on Jun. 3, 1986.
That day, no less than six MiG-31s “intercepted” an SR-71 over the Barents Sea by performing a coordinated interception that subjected the Blackbird to a possible all angle air-to-air missiles attack.
Apparently, after this interception, no SR-71 flew a reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union and few years later the Blackbird was retired to be replaced with the satellites."
https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/
That day, no less than six MiG-31s “intercepted” an SR-71 over the Barents Sea by performing a coordinated interception that subjected the Blackbird to a possible all angle air-to-air missiles attack.
Apparently, after this interception, no SR-71 flew a reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union and few years later the Blackbird was retired to be replaced with the satellites."
https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/
The Aurora project and TR3-B were successful. There's no chance we don't have a few of them in Dreamland or off the intercontinental self where we simply use them for reconnaissance. Just look at the old F-16 pilot footage from 2007, it was a controlled leak to see how the government would react to such technology, just like the disclosure of Area 51 (Bob Lazar) after satellite imagery was beginning to become popular.
IDK, part of me feels like there's too high of a chance of Aurora being confused for a ICBM reentry. And similarly, the same interceptor missiles used for hypersonic payloads like that would be effective against it. And the countries that don't have nukes and anti-nuke infrastructure, we just fly drones over with relative impunity. So I legitimately don't see the niche where they make more sense than something else that's public.
That being said, the Space Shuttle didn't really make sense on it's face either and we built it, so I could def be wrong.
That being said, the Space Shuttle didn't really make sense on it's face either and we built it, so I could def be wrong.
I agree with you on all points, but they are already disclosing the late 80s technology to the general public with the SR-72. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72) Allegedly, Ben Rich of Skunk Works after he retired in 1991 gave a presentation at UCLA chronicling his career and hinted at the Aurora and that "we now have the technology to send ET home" so we probably have some new type of propulsion system that makes planes interstellar. This is all speculation though.
What's really fascinating is the x-37b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 we have an autonomous space craft in orbit for years, yet I never head anything about it. It's part DARPA project so, it's probably some sort reconnaissance experiment.
I could go on and on, I just find this all fascinating.
What's really fascinating is the x-37b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 we have an autonomous space craft in orbit for years, yet I never head anything about it. It's part DARPA project so, it's probably some sort reconnaissance experiment.
I could go on and on, I just find this all fascinating.
That makes planes interstellar.
I’m sorry, what?
As in can fly to proxima centuri?
I’m sorry, what?
As in can fly to proxima centuri?
It was capable of bombing and A-to-A combat, but was never used for either, according to the Skunk Works book by Ben Rich.
Good to know! I'll have to pick up a copy of Skunk Works, I've heard many good things about it.
Making new A-10s wouldn't be cheap. The newest ones are 35 years old.
The company that built them shuttered 16 years ago.
The company that built them shuttered 16 years ago.
The 'replacement specs' supposedly exist in an unofficial capacity:
* https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17236/a-10-replacement...
An older article talking about the current Warthog limitations and what a "Warthog 2.0" should have:
* https://warisboring.com/what-will-the-next-a-10-warthog-look... * https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mcsallys-case-let...
* https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17236/a-10-replacement...
An older article talking about the current Warthog limitations and what a "Warthog 2.0" should have:
* https://warisboring.com/what-will-the-next-a-10-warthog-look... * https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mcsallys-case-let...
The A10 has lots of redundancy, including a second engine, and even some armor. Super Tucanos lack all that. For a country like the USA, with expensive pilots and a huge aversion to getting pilots killed, something like the A10 makes far more sense. Other countries have a different situation obviously, making the Super Tucano a better choice for them.
The sane choice for the USA would be a new A10, redone mostly to avoid components that are getting difficult to source. Minor other changes are fine (geared turbofans, modernized armor, no bleed air...) but one shouldn't let Second System Syndrome make a monster.
The sane choice for the USA would be a new A10, redone mostly to avoid components that are getting difficult to source. Minor other changes are fine (geared turbofans, modernized armor, no bleed air...) but one shouldn't let Second System Syndrome make a monster.
That's because it's like being a doctor trying to eradicate cancer that is spread throughout the patient's body in minute amounts. You can do a precision strike against one small area, but how do you eradicate all the cancer without killing healthy cells (also in this analogy killing any healthy cells makes you a murderer).
The only way to win is to convince the patient's immune system (the host country's civilians) to kill its own cancer.
The only way to win is to convince the patient's immune system (the host country's civilians) to kill its own cancer.
There is no winning move in Afghanistan: the President who pulls out will be blamed when Afghanistan returns to its pre-war state, and political enemies will chalk it up as a "loss."
There might be a chance of ending the war during a lame duck presidency, but that President will be thinking of Legacy at that point.
Thus the only politically-viable course of action is to keep the war going. As a sibling comment mentioned: war serves more than one purpose.
Unless of course the culture of America shifts to an anti-war or non-interventionist stance and sees peace as more important than "winning" or "losing" in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
There might be a chance of ending the war during a lame duck presidency, but that President will be thinking of Legacy at that point.
Thus the only politically-viable course of action is to keep the war going. As a sibling comment mentioned: war serves more than one purpose.
Unless of course the culture of America shifts to an anti-war or non-interventionist stance and sees peace as more important than "winning" or "losing" in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Petraeus said Afghanistan was the kind of conflict we were in our for the rest of our life, and our children's lives. Just my $0.02.
That framing isn’t right. The F35 is not sent in to “win.” it has a specific mission. With regard to winning, both the USSR and the US (or China,etc.) could win a war in AF. The question is are they willing to do what it would take? The answer is no. It would cause too many casualties (no one is willing to bear that, even the taliban). So war becomes more a tool to serve a policy rather than a way to vanquish an enemy.
War is always a servant of policy. "Vanquishment" thinking is where the United States has gone wrong, for a long time now.
The “continuation of politics by other means”
The average suburban American doesn't have fully automatic weapons or RPG's.
The Taliban also at one point did have surface-to-air missiles (specifically MANPADS) but most references to that are old enough that they might have run out by now unless someone's been resupplying them.
The Taliban also at one point did have surface-to-air missiles (specifically MANPADS) but most references to that are old enough that they might have run out by now unless someone's been resupplying them.
I'd take an all-American AR-15 restricted to semi-automatic fire over a rusty old fully-automatic Afghan Kalashnikov.
Not a California-spec AR-15 mind you, but a full bore, Screamin Eagle, Texas-spec AR-15, with a high capacity magazine and all the other bells and whistles.
Not a California-spec AR-15 mind you, but a full bore, Screamin Eagle, Texas-spec AR-15, with a high capacity magazine and all the other bells and whistles.
To be fair, I would fully expect American guerrillas to be able to maintain an insurgency just as effectively as the Afghans, particularly in the Rockies, Appalachians, Alaska, and Cascades. Texas is more flat and wide open, but if you managed to hold the local fuel infrastructure you can do a lot with guys in pickups.
I'd take a squad of dudes with AKs and full auto fire capability over a squad of dudes with ARs. Your tactical options are so much better when you get that extra tool in the toolbox.
> less well armed than the average suburban American, with no air force and no surface to air missiles
You'd be surprised, they have access to a lot of old and not so old russian tech + captured weapons. Definitely not as effective as modern tech but much better than what a civilian can get anywhere in the world.
Afaik talibans shot down multiple military planes and helicopters. Americans are fighting in Afghanistan for 17+ years, clearly they have more than spears and stones.
You'd be surprised, they have access to a lot of old and not so old russian tech + captured weapons. Definitely not as effective as modern tech but much better than what a civilian can get anywhere in the world.
Afaik talibans shot down multiple military planes and helicopters. Americans are fighting in Afghanistan for 17+ years, clearly they have more than spears and stones.
[deleted]
Definitely a tick in the box.
f35 can achieve air supremacy against men with ak47 on Toyota pickups
f35 can achieve air supremacy against men with ak47 on Toyota pickups
Is the F-35 meant to be a true replacement for the A-10?
I think that was the hope, but reality has set in and the lifetime of the A-10 has been extended.
I mean, why not? There is no current or planned plane as capable or as survivable as the A-10. F-35? Single engine, inline. Take that out and instant eject. Warthog was designed to lose an engine, even let it burn off and make it home. Control surfaces have mechanical backups. Not to mention the titanium tub protecting the pilot. And the cannon? Oh, the cannon. Can an F-35 take out a T-72 or T-80 on cannons alone? Doubtful.
A-10 is one of my favorite warplanes. Design was basically: here's this cannon, build a plane around it.
I mean, why not? There is no current or planned plane as capable or as survivable as the A-10. F-35? Single engine, inline. Take that out and instant eject. Warthog was designed to lose an engine, even let it burn off and make it home. Control surfaces have mechanical backups. Not to mention the titanium tub protecting the pilot. And the cannon? Oh, the cannon. Can an F-35 take out a T-72 or T-80 on cannons alone? Doubtful.
A-10 is one of my favorite warplanes. Design was basically: here's this cannon, build a plane around it.
"There is no current or planned plane as capable or as survivable as the A-10."
Re:survivability....The A-10 survives being hit. The F-35 avoids being hit in the first place. Modern SAMs like the S-400 will spot and engage the A-10 are farther ranges than they can even detect an F-35. The A-10 can survive ground cannon fire (say from a Pantsir-S1's cannons) better than the F-35...but the F-35 doesn't need to get "low and slow" to deliver ordnance on target in the first place.
If F-35s are tasked with doing gun runs on T-80s, then in your AOC (Air Force operations center) or DASC (Marine equivalent, roughly) somebody sucks at either weaponeering, building an Air Tasking Order, or both.
Re:survivability....The A-10 survives being hit. The F-35 avoids being hit in the first place. Modern SAMs like the S-400 will spot and engage the A-10 are farther ranges than they can even detect an F-35. The A-10 can survive ground cannon fire (say from a Pantsir-S1's cannons) better than the F-35...but the F-35 doesn't need to get "low and slow" to deliver ordnance on target in the first place.
If F-35s are tasked with doing gun runs on T-80s, then in your AOC (Air Force operations center) or DASC (Marine equivalent, roughly) somebody sucks at either weaponeering, building an Air Tasking Order, or both.
Yes, and that is why the F-35 can't replace the A-10, it is too fast, it can't loiter in the combat area & pick targets when they appear, this makes the F-35 a bad ground support aircraft when battles prolong for several hours.
Except "loitering and picking targets" isn't how Close Air Support is being done these days anyway. It introduces too much risk, because there is always the "fog of war" and confusion on the battlefield. If your pilots are picking targets with the Mk1 Eyeball, there is a decent chance they will pick friendly forces, or civilians, by accident.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-j...
That's why we are moving to digitally-aided CAS and precision munitions. Of course, if we get in fight with the Chinese or Russians GPS will be jammed to Hell, so that needs to be taken into account too...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-j...
That's why we are moving to digitally-aided CAS and precision munitions. Of course, if we get in fight with the Chinese or Russians GPS will be jammed to Hell, so that needs to be taken into account too...
The A-10 is amazing. This pilot landed her plane after receiving massive damage, including a giant hole in the wing and loss of all hydraulics. [1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)
Cool. But it's generally better if your aircraft isn't being hit by AA gun fire in the first place.
Sure, and it probably has it's place, but what war are we supposed to be preparing for? I've come around to some of the other comments in this thread that point out that we spent a lot of time preparing for the last war, which got us caught with our pants down in OIF/OEF. It's probably wise to analyze the F-35, warts and all, in that context. A lot of the criticisms I see seem to bake in this assumption that it would do very poorly in a COIN type war. I don't exactly agree, since by the time I left AFG (2013) it was mostly drone, F-16, and B1 support we had. I never saw a single A-10. Lots of little birds, but that's it. So if all we need the F-35 to do is drop some GBUs it seems it'll probably be able to do that at least as good as everything else.
If we're actually trying to prepare for a near-peer adversary, I'm much more concerned with the vast suite of electronics on this platform than I am with it's ability to dog fight. What use is dog fighting in a early/mid 21st century war? If you're trying to dog fight I think you've already lost. As the US has dominated the sky (and the sea) for the last half century our near-peers have optimized on that they are good at, and what we are not. The Russians with more and more advanced missile technology, and the Chinese their cyber weapons - neither of which the F-35 has anything to do with countering, at least explicitly, and with the latter seems uniquely vulnerable to.
But yes, I agree, "take this huge cannon and weld a cockpit, two engines, and some wings to it" made for a pretty cool aircraft.
If we're actually trying to prepare for a near-peer adversary, I'm much more concerned with the vast suite of electronics on this platform than I am with it's ability to dog fight. What use is dog fighting in a early/mid 21st century war? If you're trying to dog fight I think you've already lost. As the US has dominated the sky (and the sea) for the last half century our near-peers have optimized on that they are good at, and what we are not. The Russians with more and more advanced missile technology, and the Chinese their cyber weapons - neither of which the F-35 has anything to do with countering, at least explicitly, and with the latter seems uniquely vulnerable to.
But yes, I agree, "take this huge cannon and weld a cockpit, two engines, and some wings to it" made for a pretty cool aircraft.
Yeah everybody loves the A-10.
The A-10 does a lot of things well but it only works if you already have air superiority.
If you control the skies? Cool, bring it in for the BRRRT. Great for chasing down those insurgents in pickup trucks.
Against a modern and capable foe (Russia, China, or -- perhaps more realistically -- countries equipped by them) that is far less likely to be the case.
It's helpless against fighters and missiles. It might survive some damage, which is great for the pilot, but it still means the plane's been neutralized and hey, you still need to figure out how to get that air support.
Also, my understanding is that modern Russian tanks (reactive armor, etc) can survive the A-10's gun. The A-10 has been around as a feared tank killer for decades and hasn't really evolved. You don't think Russia has spent the last few decades figuring out how to deal with it?
The A-10 does a lot of things well but it only works if you already have air superiority.
If you control the skies? Cool, bring it in for the BRRRT. Great for chasing down those insurgents in pickup trucks.
Against a modern and capable foe (Russia, China, or -- perhaps more realistically -- countries equipped by them) that is far less likely to be the case.
It's helpless against fighters and missiles. It might survive some damage, which is great for the pilot, but it still means the plane's been neutralized and hey, you still need to figure out how to get that air support.
Also, my understanding is that modern Russian tanks (reactive armor, etc) can survive the A-10's gun. The A-10 has been around as a feared tank killer for decades and hasn't really evolved. You don't think Russia has spent the last few decades figuring out how to deal with it?
Yes and it's insanity. Entire books have been written about this.
Your average suburban American doesn't have access to proper military hardware (thanks to the NFA).
It's also a deterrent against more conventional opponents or potential opponents like Russia and China.
That describes most of our weapons: brilliant against barbarians, under certain circumstances, but generally useless and certain to be destroyed in the first minute of a global conflict with another major power.
What other major powers? There are only two other major regional military powers: Russia and China.
Please provide robust examples to back up your premise. The last large conflict between US weapons and another competitor, resulted in absolute humiliation on the part of Russia/USSR in the Gulf War.
Russia can't globally project its military and neither can China. Russia can barely leave its borders and can barely afford to even in a limited fashion. Neither comes close to having the logistics, bases, comprehensive weapons systems and information systems necessary to fight a war outside their borders against the US. They simply can't do it under any circumstances. China will need 30 more years to get to that level at the rate they're going; they still haven't properly modernized their military, much less figured out how to use that modernization effectively.
Russia's entire military is rotting top to bottom. Putin has shifted Russia's focus to a narrow selection of propaganda heavy 'super' weapons, because they can no longer afford to maintain their military to keep up with the US broadly. They can't afford the SU-57, it'll never be constructed in meaningful numbers. They can't properly maintain or sustain their one aircraft carrier. Russia is no longer a broad military rival to the US, they're a narrow weapons systems rival (eg the excellent S missile systems).
Things are not going to get better for Russia on the military front, they're going to keep getting worse in line with their permanently stagnate economy. They'll have to make a choice on cutting the size of their military (further limiting their capabilities to mostly defense of Russian territory), or allowing the average quality of their forces to continue to erode. A $1.6 trillion economy - smaller than Canada's economy - simply isn't going to enable them to keep up over the coming decades with the US and Chinese economies.
China is the sole military rival to the US going forward. As of today, they're still solidly behind the US in nearly every weapon system. Maybe in a couple decades the story will be very different (one assumes), today it's not.
Please provide robust examples to back up your premise. The last large conflict between US weapons and another competitor, resulted in absolute humiliation on the part of Russia/USSR in the Gulf War.
Russia can't globally project its military and neither can China. Russia can barely leave its borders and can barely afford to even in a limited fashion. Neither comes close to having the logistics, bases, comprehensive weapons systems and information systems necessary to fight a war outside their borders against the US. They simply can't do it under any circumstances. China will need 30 more years to get to that level at the rate they're going; they still haven't properly modernized their military, much less figured out how to use that modernization effectively.
Russia's entire military is rotting top to bottom. Putin has shifted Russia's focus to a narrow selection of propaganda heavy 'super' weapons, because they can no longer afford to maintain their military to keep up with the US broadly. They can't afford the SU-57, it'll never be constructed in meaningful numbers. They can't properly maintain or sustain their one aircraft carrier. Russia is no longer a broad military rival to the US, they're a narrow weapons systems rival (eg the excellent S missile systems).
Things are not going to get better for Russia on the military front, they're going to keep getting worse in line with their permanently stagnate economy. They'll have to make a choice on cutting the size of their military (further limiting their capabilities to mostly defense of Russian territory), or allowing the average quality of their forces to continue to erode. A $1.6 trillion economy - smaller than Canada's economy - simply isn't going to enable them to keep up over the coming decades with the US and Chinese economies.
China is the sole military rival to the US going forward. As of today, they're still solidly behind the US in nearly every weapon system. Maybe in a couple decades the story will be very different (one assumes), today it's not.
I think this is a bad misunderstanding of what makes things effective in war.
Yeah, we can count tanks and planes and bases, mobile or otherwise, and declare that the US would win in an overwhelming fashion in a WWIII scenario. But I think that assumes we'd be fighting based on our terms - which never happens in war. I don't think it's consequential, at all, that Russia and China struggle with the carrier vessel concept. These "super weapons" that are supposedly just Russian propaganda would render these things obsolete. Chinese cyber weapons knocking out US military communications systems would be catastrophic. Let's also not forget the very regrettable state the US Navy itself is in[1]. This is simply to say that I think you're overstating the primacy of the US military today for fighting a "conventional" style war. Actually, between the three countries only Russia has done so, fight a "conventional war", in the last decade or so when they annexed Crimea. The US has been engaged in a forever-war of "Counter Insurgency" that most assuredly has atrophied both experience and technical skill for fighting great land wars. I'm not saying it's an even playing field, but I would not underestimate Russian or Chinese ingenuity to exploit weaknesses here.
I also figure that a WWIII scenario would be much more like WWI than WWII, since there will be a myriad of new technologies all clashing together for the first time. I don't think anyone can say for certain today what trumps what. Do hunter-seaker drones take out infantry platoons faster than they can be replenished, or do EW units - something that's never actually been tested against these adversaries - knock out the drones first?
[1]https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgeral...
Yeah, we can count tanks and planes and bases, mobile or otherwise, and declare that the US would win in an overwhelming fashion in a WWIII scenario. But I think that assumes we'd be fighting based on our terms - which never happens in war. I don't think it's consequential, at all, that Russia and China struggle with the carrier vessel concept. These "super weapons" that are supposedly just Russian propaganda would render these things obsolete. Chinese cyber weapons knocking out US military communications systems would be catastrophic. Let's also not forget the very regrettable state the US Navy itself is in[1]. This is simply to say that I think you're overstating the primacy of the US military today for fighting a "conventional" style war. Actually, between the three countries only Russia has done so, fight a "conventional war", in the last decade or so when they annexed Crimea. The US has been engaged in a forever-war of "Counter Insurgency" that most assuredly has atrophied both experience and technical skill for fighting great land wars. I'm not saying it's an even playing field, but I would not underestimate Russian or Chinese ingenuity to exploit weaknesses here.
I also figure that a WWIII scenario would be much more like WWI than WWII, since there will be a myriad of new technologies all clashing together for the first time. I don't think anyone can say for certain today what trumps what. Do hunter-seaker drones take out infantry platoons faster than they can be replenished, or do EW units - something that's never actually been tested against these adversaries - knock out the drones first?
[1]https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgeral...
Were there any fighting when Russia "annexed" Crimea? I though most fighting was in the East of Ukraine in the Donbass region.
The God is on the side of bigger battalions and US battalions are MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger. It is a matter of spending in the end. US can outspend Russia and China combined without even noticing. In 20 years.. well we have no clue what will happen in 20 years.
In 20 years if you're still counting battalions you've already lost.
There is no evidence that USA can out-produce China and a great deal of evidence for the opposite.
Sure, Russia and China may be way poorer than the US but remember the Vietnam war?
The US was the vastly more powerful and technologically advanced contender but got whooped by some rice farmers with second hand AK-47s.
The US was the vastly more powerful and technologically advanced contender but got whooped by some rice farmers with second hand AK-47s.
That was most of America's weapons during the Cold War too.
This seems to me a bit like a kid begging their parents for a Neo Geo. The parents don't want to, of course, because it's horribly expensive, and not that useful, and their kid already has a Super Nintendo and a Turbografx 16, and doesn't actually need any more video game systems, and probably shouldn't even be playing so many video games in the first place. And the kid's mode of argument is to just keep reminding them, increasingly loudly, how awesome the Neo Geo is.
Obviously, it's not a perfect analogy. One difference is that, in this case, everyone involved is a grown-up.
Obviously, it's not a perfect analogy. One difference is that, in this case, everyone involved is a grown-up.
That's my criticism of the F-35 as well. I don't know anything about fighter planes, but as a taxpayer it just seems way to expensive.
Denmark is buying 27 F-35. That not nearly enough to do anything meaningful against an enemy like Russia. Buying a plane, like the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, would have allowed the Danish Airforce to do basically the same operations, for much much less money. The Danish airforce isn't going to intercept Russian fighters. The missions are patrol and bombings for NATO.
For a country like the US, sure, maybe the F-35 is something they need for the type of missions they fly. I just can see any country do anything with 27 planes. 27 is less planes than an aircraft carrier has.
Denmark is buying 27 F-35. That not nearly enough to do anything meaningful against an enemy like Russia. Buying a plane, like the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, would have allowed the Danish Airforce to do basically the same operations, for much much less money. The Danish airforce isn't going to intercept Russian fighters. The missions are patrol and bombings for NATO.
For a country like the US, sure, maybe the F-35 is something they need for the type of missions they fly. I just can see any country do anything with 27 planes. 27 is less planes than an aircraft carrier has.
The cost for an F18 is about 70 million in 2017[0]. The cost for a F35 is about 85 million in 2020[1], probably more than that because future estimates are always low. That's ignoring how much more useful an F35 is.
Once economies of scale kick in, it doesn't seem that much more expensive. There was supposed to be a more comprehensive review of the F35 vs older platforms, I'd love for someone more knowledgeable to chime in with an apples to apples comparison.
[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-updated-f18-comparabl...
[1]: https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/07/do...
Once economies of scale kick in, it doesn't seem that much more expensive. There was supposed to be a more comprehensive review of the F35 vs older platforms, I'd love for someone more knowledgeable to chime in with an apples to apples comparison.
[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-updated-f18-comparabl...
[1]: https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/07/do...
F-35 is far more capable than the Gripen and only costs around twice as much.
In a war with Russia, there is no amount of fighter planes that would keep Denmark safe. Russia has nuclear weapons. Denmark is just too small to do it without the rest of NATO. Buying the F-35 maybe helps coordination with other NATO countries?
In a war with Russia, there is no amount of fighter planes that would keep Denmark safe. Russia has nuclear weapons. Denmark is just too small to do it without the rest of NATO. Buying the F-35 maybe helps coordination with other NATO countries?
I do worry that there is opportunity for massive "disruption" for fighter jets in precisely the Clayton Christensen / Innovator's dilemma sense.
The innovation shouldn't be around stealth and maneuverability, but rather production cost/rate and AI automation. It is really hard to train a fighter pilot, this means you have very few of them, and the one with the best jet wins.
In the new world of AI the jets themselves are trivial, it's the AI that matters and the VOLUME you can produce them at. In this case someone like China is way better positioned -- just steal the IP for the physical airframe (or develop one that is just good enough) then innovate on the assembly line and AI aspects.
The AI fighter jet problem feels much easier than the self driving car problem.
The innovation shouldn't be around stealth and maneuverability, but rather production cost/rate and AI automation. It is really hard to train a fighter pilot, this means you have very few of them, and the one with the best jet wins.
In the new world of AI the jets themselves are trivial, it's the AI that matters and the VOLUME you can produce them at. In this case someone like China is way better positioned -- just steal the IP for the physical airframe (or develop one that is just good enough) then innovate on the assembly line and AI aspects.
The AI fighter jet problem feels much easier than the self driving car problem.
This kind of overlooks that the cost of the aircraft isn't entirely in the original production and (possible) training of pilots. They also require a large ground team burning several man-hours for every hour that they are in the air. The problem with the mass AI fighter drone scenario is that the logistics chain and maintenance costs kill you.
Except that the drones themselves can be much simpler than the fighters they replace - there is no meatware inside, no life support or safety equipment that needs to be maintained and checked. With enough intelligence built in, the drone can land with a very detailed list of items that need maintenance because of performance anomalies.
Plus, the AI can be augmented by a human on the ground.
Plus, the AI can be augmented by a human on the ground.
Totally. Just the HUD systems on the F-35 cost tens of millions of dollars.
My thought is that there is just ZERO innovation in this area at a big picture level. Sure the person designing the radar has a PhD from Caltech -- but it's mostly incremental optimization of individual components.
Someone is going to figure out how to be the Elon Musk of fighter jets and we better hope it's going to be someone from the USA.
But again -- it doesn't matter how good your tech is if the next person can do it 85% as good for 20% the price.
My last major point is this: Fighter jets are limited in their maneuverability when they have humans on-board -- they can't pull more G's than the body can withstand. AI fighters don't have this limitation.
My thought is that there is just ZERO innovation in this area at a big picture level. Sure the person designing the radar has a PhD from Caltech -- but it's mostly incremental optimization of individual components.
Someone is going to figure out how to be the Elon Musk of fighter jets and we better hope it's going to be someone from the USA.
But again -- it doesn't matter how good your tech is if the next person can do it 85% as good for 20% the price.
My last major point is this: Fighter jets are limited in their maneuverability when they have humans on-board -- they can't pull more G's than the body can withstand. AI fighters don't have this limitation.
That life support stuff has to be replaced by automation, so "much simpler" is probably stretching it. Plus you're talking about adding in a bunch of sensors and software which is even more complexity (IE things that will break or go wrong). The exploding complexity problem is a pernicious one.
If the sensors and computers that manage the control surfaces of any modern fighter fail, the plane crashes anyway, so they still need to be there. Not having to route everything to the cockpit can simplify design and improve ruggedness.
A lot of the resistance against this comes from the fact robots don't get medals.
A lot of the resistance against this comes from the fact robots don't get medals.
> so "much simpler" is probably stretching it.
What if you used AI to design the airframe itself, optimising for the simplest and least expensive way?
What if you used AI to design the airframe itself, optimising for the simplest and least expensive way?
Idk, you could go with the gripen, But tbh even Sweden thinks it's a joke. Ask anyone about it and you'll hear a lot of jokes about how they are great at attacking the ground (crashing). The same types of "why the F35 and not gripen" points came up when Norway got them. The answer is a combination of NATO + the fact that, especially compared to the gripen, the F35 is the better choice. Multipurpose, easily deployed in multiple arms of military, can hold payloads for any mission type, etc. Sure it would be quite poetic to have Denmark pay Sweden for swedish planes but I don't see it happening soon.
> "why the F35 and not gripen"
Among other things, this question seems like a simple misunderstanding of prices.
The unit cost of the F-35A is $80M, while a top-end Gripen costs a fairly similar $60M. When Denmark did look at buying the Gripen, it requested upgrades to power and payload (already satisfied by the F-35) that could easily have made up the remaining price gap. Maintenance and flight costs are substantially higher for the F-35 also, but that's relatively manageable for a country that doesn't expect regular deployments and a large supply of spares for their fleet.
It's the development cost where the F-35 comes in at more than 10x the price of the Gripen, which is largely irrelevant to small buyers ordering a finished product. Denmark did end up contributing to the F-35 development costs, but only about the cost of another plane, $110M. And in return, they stand to compete for parts-development contracts which wouldn't have been available for the Gripen.
Among other things, this question seems like a simple misunderstanding of prices.
The unit cost of the F-35A is $80M, while a top-end Gripen costs a fairly similar $60M. When Denmark did look at buying the Gripen, it requested upgrades to power and payload (already satisfied by the F-35) that could easily have made up the remaining price gap. Maintenance and flight costs are substantially higher for the F-35 also, but that's relatively manageable for a country that doesn't expect regular deployments and a large supply of spares for their fleet.
It's the development cost where the F-35 comes in at more than 10x the price of the Gripen, which is largely irrelevant to small buyers ordering a finished product. Denmark did end up contributing to the F-35 development costs, but only about the cost of another plane, $110M. And in return, they stand to compete for parts-development contracts which wouldn't have been available for the Gripen.
I am no expert either but it could be about platform integration and partially because to be in good graces so that US still has an incentive underwriting security of Europe.
> I just can't see any country do anything with 27 planes.
All else aside, the Danish Air Force has 30 active fighters, all F-16s. Their fighter force doesn't ever seem to have exceeded 50 planes in service. So the role for 27 F-35s is "everything F-16s are doing now, but newer and better". That doesn't guarantee it's a useful role, but it means that the small order size isn't a new consideration.
All else aside, the Danish Air Force has 30 active fighters, all F-16s. Their fighter force doesn't ever seem to have exceeded 50 planes in service. So the role for 27 F-35s is "everything F-16s are doing now, but newer and better". That doesn't guarantee it's a useful role, but it means that the small order size isn't a new consideration.
> That's my criticism of the F-35 as well. I don't know anything about fighter planes, but as a taxpayer it just seems way to expensive.
Not just expensive, that money is going to the US. We (the Netherlands) will also buy a bunch of F35's, but we can't afford enough of them to be useful. We could have bought Eurofighters, the money would have remained in Europe's economy and we would have an actually finished plane.
Not just expensive, that money is going to the US. We (the Netherlands) will also buy a bunch of F35's, but we can't afford enough of them to be useful. We could have bought Eurofighters, the money would have remained in Europe's economy and we would have an actually finished plane.
From what I read in this thread, Denmark and Belgium also bought about 30-40 each. Those numbers start to add up.
I wouldn’t be so quick to declare that Danish fighters couldn’t intercept Russian planes. While I’m not well versed in the relative merits of the F-35 vs. their MiG equivalents, massively one sided engagements are quite common in air battles. If you told me that some F-35s decisively won a battle and some Gripens were completely destroyed I would not be surprised one bit.
> I don't know anything about fighter planes
Then where does your opinion on this subject come from?
Then where does your opinion on this subject come from?
I wouldn't assume everyone involved is a grown-up.
$406 billion!!!
Just imagine how many humans you can bring out of poverty with that kind of money? I understand the world we live in but if you spend one tenth the amount they spent on this educating/helping the very people this plane would be eventually targeted at, I think it would cause more of an impact.
I was reading a book by Steven Pinker and in it he lays out the case for how modern society has essentially made war illegal.
And in Sapiens the author (Yuval Harari) makes the case that modern society is no longer based on static wealth that can be conquered and consumed like Gold, Silver etc., Its made of human skill and mind that create wealth that does not exist. So say China occupies the US it sure can take all the wealth that is static but it cannot force people to use their minds to create a Google or an Apple or FB(i know..i know..)..
If you believe the above you have to ask yourself:- "So then what is the benefit of spending so much money?"
Just imagine how many humans you can bring out of poverty with that kind of money? I understand the world we live in but if you spend one tenth the amount they spent on this educating/helping the very people this plane would be eventually targeted at, I think it would cause more of an impact.
I was reading a book by Steven Pinker and in it he lays out the case for how modern society has essentially made war illegal.
And in Sapiens the author (Yuval Harari) makes the case that modern society is no longer based on static wealth that can be conquered and consumed like Gold, Silver etc., Its made of human skill and mind that create wealth that does not exist. So say China occupies the US it sure can take all the wealth that is static but it cannot force people to use their minds to create a Google or an Apple or FB(i know..i know..)..
If you believe the above you have to ask yourself:- "So then what is the benefit of spending so much money?"
I think unfortunately people are living in a fairy tale if they think like that.
Resources like fossil fuels and raw materials are critical for the real function of economies. Global wealth inequality between countries can be extreme and quite obviously reflects resource distribution inequality.
Its the same as all of history. Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth. The US has the most most wealth and resource control globally by far. This is not because the US has Facebook or because "war is illegal" (LOL). Its because the US and proxies/allies have the most massive and dominant military ever seen and use that actively to maintain the advantages.
I can understand how people do not realize this since the media does a very good job of distributing propaganda about the numerous wars, suggesting that each military action is isolated and motivated by some mythical moral cause.
Resources like fossil fuels and raw materials are critical for the real function of economies. Global wealth inequality between countries can be extreme and quite obviously reflects resource distribution inequality.
Its the same as all of history. Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth. The US has the most most wealth and resource control globally by far. This is not because the US has Facebook or because "war is illegal" (LOL). Its because the US and proxies/allies have the most massive and dominant military ever seen and use that actively to maintain the advantages.
I can understand how people do not realize this since the media does a very good job of distributing propaganda about the numerous wars, suggesting that each military action is isolated and motivated by some mythical moral cause.
>> I think unfortunately people are living in a fairy tale if they think like that.
Everything humans create is subjective reality. Shared fictions are commonly held beliefs in fictional entities. For example, belief in the power of money is a shared fiction.
>> Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth
Depends on how you measure "dominate"? What time period? Do they have more wealth than others at time period dT? Do they think they have more power to direct the wheel of the history at that time dT? History teaches all civilizations fail soon or late.
Everything humans create is subjective reality. Shared fictions are commonly held beliefs in fictional entities. For example, belief in the power of money is a shared fiction.
>> Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth
Depends on how you measure "dominate"? What time period? Do they have more wealth than others at time period dT? Do they think they have more power to direct the wheel of the history at that time dT? History teaches all civilizations fail soon or late.
> $406 billion!!!
Yeah, the government should give that money back to the people instead! Bring them out of poverty!
Except it already does, right? When we spend money on our military (or NASA, or other things) that money goes right back into the economy and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. And then those people spend money and create other jobs, etc etc etc.
I don't necessarily think that building killing machines is the best way to bring vast numbers of people out of poverty, but it does do that to an extent by creating those jobs.
No matter what economic system you favor, things always ultimately come down to job creation in some form or another.
Yeah, the government should give that money back to the people instead! Bring them out of poverty!
Except it already does, right? When we spend money on our military (or NASA, or other things) that money goes right back into the economy and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. And then those people spend money and create other jobs, etc etc etc.
I don't necessarily think that building killing machines is the best way to bring vast numbers of people out of poverty, but it does do that to an extent by creating those jobs.
No matter what economic system you favor, things always ultimately come down to job creation in some form or another.
[deleted]
The idea that this has anything to do with fighting a war is absurd. The wars are also not about any specific goals. Does the F-35 have any relevance in a fight against the Taliban? I'd be surprised if the Taliban had even one plane, or heck even a radar.
The reason this plane was built was: to spend so much money. It was to support a high-tech industry that needs a guaranteed buyer to develop expensive sensors, joysticks, and so on. You might ask yourself: but why this use? Surely all of that engineering talent can be put to good use building more useful, non-destructive technologies?
The answer, I think, is only a historical accident: after World War II the military became a money faucet to industry, and that tap proved difficult to control or turn off. The Department of Defense has been resisting an audit for the last 30 years; it is a paragon of profligacy. It pumps half a trillion dollars into the economy every year, and for the most part Americans are oblivious or approving. There is no great public outcry to reduce the military budget; but there are a great number of industries eager to keep the money flowing. Thus, we get this kind of pointless waste of everyone's time.
The reason this plane was built was: to spend so much money. It was to support a high-tech industry that needs a guaranteed buyer to develop expensive sensors, joysticks, and so on. You might ask yourself: but why this use? Surely all of that engineering talent can be put to good use building more useful, non-destructive technologies?
The answer, I think, is only a historical accident: after World War II the military became a money faucet to industry, and that tap proved difficult to control or turn off. The Department of Defense has been resisting an audit for the last 30 years; it is a paragon of profligacy. It pumps half a trillion dollars into the economy every year, and for the most part Americans are oblivious or approving. There is no great public outcry to reduce the military budget; but there are a great number of industries eager to keep the money flowing. Thus, we get this kind of pointless waste of everyone's time.
You have good points here. However, I think there is some economic utility to the very idea that the United States, and US companies are behind the design and build of the strongest air powered aircraft in this moment. I say this without knowing what the evolving military threat might be or whether a fighter jet can counter it.
The F35 is a recruiting tool, not only to the armed services, but to the very nationalism that is used to persuade people to keep working toward an "American" dream.
I'm not saying this to portray these in a sparkling light, but because I think they are real "benefits" of the $406B that my be hard to measure.
I have my own pet causes and beneficiaries I'd direct even a fraction of those expenses but they would not make very good HD videos.
The F35 is a recruiting tool, not only to the armed services, but to the very nationalism that is used to persuade people to keep working toward an "American" dream.
I'm not saying this to portray these in a sparkling light, but because I think they are real "benefits" of the $406B that my be hard to measure.
I have my own pet causes and beneficiaries I'd direct even a fraction of those expenses but they would not make very good HD videos.
Your analysis doesn't consider defense. Actors on the international stage aren't always rational, so you need to consider defending yourself against others, however irrational.
I'm not saying that tips the argument one way or another. But you can't not talk about it.
I'm not saying that tips the argument one way or another. But you can't not talk about it.
Computers, radio, internet, etc. all started as big government spending with eyes towards military applications.
Spending 406 billion on a program like this largely _is_ giving it back to the people: productive people who are designing and manufacturing parts, building technological know-how and innovating to meet the ambitious goals of the program. Spending money like this is the luxury we have earned by becoming a civilization - the more money we have to spare, the more we can re-invest it into learning new things instead of spending it on subsistence, making life for future generations better in an exponential sort of way. This type of spending is a huge component of how we build that human skill and expertise you're talking about.
Spending 406 billion on a program like this largely _is_ giving it back to the people: productive people who are designing and manufacturing parts, building technological know-how and innovating to meet the ambitious goals of the program. Spending money like this is the luxury we have earned by becoming a civilization - the more money we have to spare, the more we can re-invest it into learning new things instead of spending it on subsistence, making life for future generations better in an exponential sort of way. This type of spending is a huge component of how we build that human skill and expertise you're talking about.
I think what people are missing about this comment is that you don't need to cut the whole program in order to see benefits.
All you have to do is reduce the project cost by 0.25%. That's a little over $1bn saved.
All you have to do is reduce the project cost by 0.25%. That's a little over $1bn saved.
> $406 billion!!! Just imagine how many humans you can bring out of poverty with that kind of money?
$406 billion divided by 7 billion humans = $58 per human. A lunch for two in a rich country, or a monthly pay in a poor country. Hardly a way out of poverty.
$406 billion divided by 7 billion humans = $58 per human. A lunch for two in a rich country, or a monthly pay in a poor country. Hardly a way out of poverty.
7 billion humans aren't in poverty though. The OP also doesn't say its enough money to get everyone out of poverty - the point is, it's an incredible sum of money that could make a huge, positive difference, if it wasn't being used to kill people.
Yes, in an ideal world where everybody is nice and friendly there is no need for defense and money could've been spent on something more virtuous. In the real world countries need to spend money to have trained and well equipped people ready to fight back.
Agreed. But... $406 billion?!
In the real world, some countries need to stop invading others on false pretenses, stop overthrowing democratically elected governments, stop helping would-be terrorist organisations, etc.
In the real world, some countries need to stop invading others on false pretenses, stop overthrowing democratically elected governments, stop helping would-be terrorist organisations, etc.
> For tests in departure resistance, we truly had to trick the system. We would disengage all the self-protect mechanisms to put it into an out-of-control regime. And then we would allow the controller to wake up. It would recognize the situation it was in, and then it would get itself out of the situation. Absolutely fascinating. It will null all of the pitch rates, yaw rates, and roll rates to the extent that you can get it out the attitude that you’ve got it into.
> When it comes to true departure resistance, we allowed the system to be 100 percent engaged, and we would [fly like] a very badly trained pilot. So everything that I have been taught not to do as a pilot since the age of—crikey, when did I first start flying? Maybe 13—I was being asked to do.
I would love to read about the people who code these sort of controls systems.
> When it comes to true departure resistance, we allowed the system to be 100 percent engaged, and we would [fly like] a very badly trained pilot. So everything that I have been taught not to do as a pilot since the age of—crikey, when did I first start flying? Maybe 13—I was being asked to do.
I would love to read about the people who code these sort of controls systems.
> I would love to read about the people who code these sort of controls systems.
I feel like Falcon 9's control systems (for example) would be a weekend hobby project for them.
I feel like Falcon 9's control systems (for example) would be a weekend hobby project for them.
Those test conditions are absurd. I would never want to be in a position where firmware I wrote had to cold boot, detect position, and correct the plant at 10,000 feet/5Gs!
That really puts previous reports about bugs in F-35 software under different perspective. Of course they spent so much time to debug this, the requirements seem to basically be a fully autonomous and capable auto-pilot!
We should keep our minds open to the possibility that this isn't the worst plane ever made.
I think the real crime is the ridiculous cost, and putting all our eggs in the F35 basket.
I think the real crime is the ridiculous cost, and putting all our eggs in the F35 basket.
All pilots, retired or not, have tight limits to what they can say about new fighter early in the production.
The end result is just PR piece. It's OK to enjoy military porn from glossy magazines, but HN should not be place for it. It has no information.
The end result is just PR piece. It's OK to enjoy military porn from glossy magazines, but HN should not be place for it. It has no information.
> It's OK to enjoy military porn from glossy magazines
Even when I do this, it's for the kid in me. Show me big guns, fast jets, and give me some astounding numbers. This article has none of that!
Even when I do this, it's for the kid in me. Show me big guns, fast jets, and give me some astounding numbers. This article has none of that!
The unit price is a quite astounding number ;-)
This article was in the latest issue of Air & Space. There have been a number of articles that have ridiculed the F35 as a waste of time and money, but it is interesting to hear what the pilots think about the plane now that they are flying them.
Are you sure this is what the pilots think?
For me, the overall message is so flattering for the airplane that it sounds more as the result of lots of press training or at least as pilots being very careful in what they say because publicly critiquing this airplane is not good for one’s career prospects.
For me, the overall message is so flattering for the airplane that it sounds more as the result of lots of press training or at least as pilots being very careful in what they say because publicly critiquing this airplane is not good for one’s career prospects.
Clearly, reading product reviews is a science :-) but I think there is some good information there. It's not all puff and PR :-).
And my experience with the journalism at Air & Space has been positive, I have read both highly critical and very insightful articles from their journalists over the years. That experience gives me some trust in them which I could understand would not come on first exposure.
I think it would also be useful for them to find 8 pilots who have both flown the new plane and are critical of it versus other aircraft designed for a similar role. That will have to wait I think until there are more flight hours on it in more situations.
What I find most interesting about these types of systems are the differences between the AA-1 version (first article) and the one they consider 'first release.' In new systems there are lots of things that change during the initial testing and evaluation. This is true of software just as much as it is hardware, although hardware takes a lot more documentation.
And my experience with the journalism at Air & Space has been positive, I have read both highly critical and very insightful articles from their journalists over the years. That experience gives me some trust in them which I could understand would not come on first exposure.
I think it would also be useful for them to find 8 pilots who have both flown the new plane and are critical of it versus other aircraft designed for a similar role. That will have to wait I think until there are more flight hours on it in more situations.
What I find most interesting about these types of systems are the differences between the AA-1 version (first article) and the one they consider 'first release.' In new systems there are lots of things that change during the initial testing and evaluation. This is true of software just as much as it is hardware, although hardware takes a lot more documentation.
Seems entirely possible that the F-35 has grown into a solid piece of engineering and is great to fly from a pilot's perspective without that necessarily invalidating cost-related and overrun-related criticisms of the project.
If it had grown into a solid piece of engineering we would be hearing about it from all angles and seeing it at every airshow. There is nothing the military would rather do than demonstrate that this zillion-dollar albatross is not only still alive, but it's also not developmentally disabled.
One of the pilots comments seemed to indicate that:
"In the two years since [the 388th’s] last Red Flag exercise, the airplane itself has had some pretty significant advancements. A couple of months before the 2017 Red Flag, the Air Force declared that the squadron was what we call “initial operational capable.” So the jet still had some operating limitations—altitude, airspeed, Gs, things like that. The software on the aircraft, though very capable, still had some limitations in terms of some of the systems and some of the weapons it could control. Fast forward two years, and we’re operating with what’s referred to as full warfighting capability software. It’s a more advanced F-35 than it was two years ago."
"In the two years since [the 388th’s] last Red Flag exercise, the airplane itself has had some pretty significant advancements. A couple of months before the 2017 Red Flag, the Air Force declared that the squadron was what we call “initial operational capable.” So the jet still had some operating limitations—altitude, airspeed, Gs, things like that. The software on the aircraft, though very capable, still had some limitations in terms of some of the systems and some of the weapons it could control. Fast forward two years, and we’re operating with what’s referred to as full warfighting capability software. It’s a more advanced F-35 than it was two years ago."
It's also the time of year that federal budgets are being drawn up.
But it's entirely possible that the plane is fine. Keep in mind that a lot of the criticism of the F-35 is also PR from competing defense contractors.
But it's entirely possible that the plane is fine. Keep in mind that a lot of the criticism of the F-35 is also PR from competing defense contractors.
I'm not inclined to take this article at face value. The pilots could have been cherry picked and bribed, and Lockheed-Martin is a major donor to the Air & Space Museum, the parent organization of the publisher [0].
[0] https://airandspace.si.edu/theater-type/lockheed-martin-imax...
[0] https://airandspace.si.edu/theater-type/lockheed-martin-imax...
Given that one of the main motivations for the plane's existence is support roles, I'm more interested in hearing from the people getting supported by the aircraft.
Planes aren't just for dropping bombs on people, the PR value of them is part of their power. You have to have the domestic population thinking they have the best planes.
Sadly the F-35 is failing in this latter role. At a recent air show in the UK it was the elderly Ukrainian Sukhoi machines that got the gasps of oohs and aahs from the crowd. The crowd were not what you might call communist, they just know what planes put on the best show.
There are no figures bandied around regarding the PR value of the F-35. Facts don't come into it when emotions are involved and the F-35 is fundamentally not loved or held in awe. Plenty of times the USAF have had planes that amaze everyone's inner 9 year old, the F-35 just doesn't cut it.
Meanwhile, in Russia, lots of people take pride in their war planes and believe them to be the best in the world. It could be argued with fact things that their planes are rubbish but facts have nothing to do with belief.
Ultimately it comes down to the air show, not what the pilots say, whether they are paid shills or not. And nope, there is no use for a 'Cobra manoeuvre' but the crowds lap it up, think their pilots are aces and let their kids join the armed forces on that basis.
Sadly the F-35 is failing in this latter role. At a recent air show in the UK it was the elderly Ukrainian Sukhoi machines that got the gasps of oohs and aahs from the crowd. The crowd were not what you might call communist, they just know what planes put on the best show.
There are no figures bandied around regarding the PR value of the F-35. Facts don't come into it when emotions are involved and the F-35 is fundamentally not loved or held in awe. Plenty of times the USAF have had planes that amaze everyone's inner 9 year old, the F-35 just doesn't cut it.
Meanwhile, in Russia, lots of people take pride in their war planes and believe them to be the best in the world. It could be argued with fact things that their planes are rubbish but facts have nothing to do with belief.
Ultimately it comes down to the air show, not what the pilots say, whether they are paid shills or not. And nope, there is no use for a 'Cobra manoeuvre' but the crowds lap it up, think their pilots are aces and let their kids join the armed forces on that basis.
Interesting point about talent acquisition... if you want the best pilots you have to put on a good show for them when they're kids xD
You can't possibly be serious.
The US isn't spending hundreds of billions just to make the people think their country is the best. I doubt most people even know what an F-18, F-22 or F-35 are.
The US isn't spending hundreds of billions just to make the people think their country is the best. I doubt most people even know what an F-18, F-22 or F-35 are.
> could be argued with fact things that their planes are rubbish
This is the first time I've heard that Russian war planes are rubbish. Please share some of these fact things.
This is the first time I've heard that Russian war planes are rubbish. Please share some of these fact things.
https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all...
Not a definitive combat record of all modern jets by any means and one could argue that many of the losses of MiGs from export client states were due to poor training, poor maintenance, outdated/inferior export models or having to fight Israelis constantly ;) But then again, when Russian and Israeli pilots went head to head [1] the Russian fighter planes did not really hold their own there either.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
Not a definitive combat record of all modern jets by any means and one could argue that many of the losses of MiGs from export client states were due to poor training, poor maintenance, outdated/inferior export models or having to fight Israelis constantly ;) But then again, when Russian and Israeli pilots went head to head [1] the Russian fighter planes did not really hold their own there either.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
I'm sure it's all completely unbiased.
Good read, thnx for posting ;)
These guys are test pilots and engineers who have thousands and thousands of hours of flight time and have actually flown the F-35.
They can't possibly know what they're talking about, so this must just be a PR piece to cover up how horrible this aircraft is.
It would be so much more credible if they just interviewed a non-pilot/non-engineer tech journalist who can tell us the truth.
/sarcasm
They can't possibly know what they're talking about, so this must just be a PR piece to cover up how horrible this aircraft is.
It would be so much more credible if they just interviewed a non-pilot/non-engineer tech journalist who can tell us the truth.
/sarcasm
True, but when have you heard a test pilot criticising his employer while still having an active career?
That's the trouble with this stuff. It's really tough to find someone who has both the skillset and experience to offer meaningful criticism, and who also has the political and economic freedom to be allowed to publish it widely, plus the credibility to be believed when they do.
The most interesting (fun?) one to read for me was Squadron Leader Andy Edgell, Royal Air Force.
> “Yeah, Test, you didn’t put the right rudder in.” I said, “Yeah, I know. I couldn’t lift my leg up.”
> [...]
> Legalized hooliganism! All in the pursuit of data and good test points, of course.
> [...]
> I did, for a moment, stare through the windows of the bridge. And you think to yourself, “This is a view that no one really gets.”
> “Yeah, Test, you didn’t put the right rudder in.” I said, “Yeah, I know. I couldn’t lift my leg up.”
> [...]
> Legalized hooliganism! All in the pursuit of data and good test points, of course.
> [...]
> I did, for a moment, stare through the windows of the bridge. And you think to yourself, “This is a view that no one really gets.”
They have their demo team debut this weekend in FL.
https://airandspaceshow.com/f-35-demo/
https://airandspaceshow.com/f-35-demo/
I saw the F-35 takeoff and a couple of maneuvers at an airshow in 2017, do you know what the difference between that demonstration and the one in FL will be?
The article says "North American debut".
Right, but it's already flown at at least one North American airshow (since I've seen it fly), so this must be different in some way than the ones that have already been flying. So I'm curious what will be different.
Difference between doing fly-by and basic maneuvers, and a full-on all-performance show by effectively a stunt team, as best I can tell.
This news article supports that: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/28/f-35-ligh...
This news article supports that: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/28/f-35-ligh...
Awesome! I saw the F-35 in Duluth MN and it was the most impressive takeoff I've ever seen, so I'd be really excited to see it again now. Thanks for the info.
Yeah, I'm kind of bummed because I'll be at Sun n' Fun, which is one of the largest air shows... and only like an hour away from Melbourne, but apparently the F-35 isn't visiting.
Hard to justify a drive to Melbourne to JUST watch an F-35.
Hard to justify a drive to Melbourne to JUST watch an F-35.
The thing with fighter aircraft is that you don't need the latest and the greatest at production day, what you need is a extendable platform for the future & and good training platform for the pilots. These platforms need to live for about 40 years with constant updates & training (F-16 introduced in 1978).
F-35 is neither.
Because of design decision of marrying three different military branches requirements (air force, navy, marines) with three different fighter roles (intercept, ground support, reconnaissance) a lot of the extendability is already gone.
Cost of flying F-35 is one of the highest yet for a fighter aircraft (except maybe for F-22), this means that the pilots will not get sufficient training. Sure, with modern on the ground simulation you can get quite far, but you need the real deal, especially when training in formation & against real adversaries, like other countries.
Which fighter aircraft will win the dogfight? The one in the air with a skilled pilot and not the empty one on the ground for maintenance.
And of course, future development of highly advanced UAV:s & future radar & missile technology will make the case for expensive fighter aircraft even tougher.
F-35 is neither.
Because of design decision of marrying three different military branches requirements (air force, navy, marines) with three different fighter roles (intercept, ground support, reconnaissance) a lot of the extendability is already gone.
Cost of flying F-35 is one of the highest yet for a fighter aircraft (except maybe for F-22), this means that the pilots will not get sufficient training. Sure, with modern on the ground simulation you can get quite far, but you need the real deal, especially when training in formation & against real adversaries, like other countries.
Which fighter aircraft will win the dogfight? The one in the air with a skilled pilot and not the empty one on the ground for maintenance.
And of course, future development of highly advanced UAV:s & future radar & missile technology will make the case for expensive fighter aircraft even tougher.
Let's say all the claims in this article are correct.
What happens when one gets shot down (as it inevitably will), and the enemy reverse-engineers the stealth tech to either copy or find weaknesses in its capabilities?
If they can reverse-engineer faster than we can improve our stealth tech, which seems reasonable, whatever claimed advantages this plane has will be temporary.
Or is there another way of looking at this?
What happens when one gets shot down (as it inevitably will), and the enemy reverse-engineers the stealth tech to either copy or find weaknesses in its capabilities?
If they can reverse-engineer faster than we can improve our stealth tech, which seems reasonable, whatever claimed advantages this plane has will be temporary.
Or is there another way of looking at this?
They don't even need to shoot it down. The Chinese already stole the designs, evaluated them, and have been working on their own less-risky copy for years. They have a proven ability to copy and adapt weapon systems at a faster rate than anyone gives them credit for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31
The J-31 is basically a twin-engine F-35, minus the sensor fusion capabilities. The Chinese are still very poor at making fighter jet engines, so they went with 2 smaller engines probably for redundancy and because they can't build one gigantic reliable engine anyway. The jet is probably still underpowered.
The J-31 is basically a twin-engine F-35, minus the sensor fusion capabilities. The Chinese are still very poor at making fighter jet engines, so they went with 2 smaller engines probably for redundancy and because they can't build one gigantic reliable engine anyway. The jet is probably still underpowered.
Do you think it will save costs if the united states moved F-35 manufacturing to China? Quality will be lower but Apple was able to do it with the iPhone without compromising quality.
Sure it would "save costs".....until we get in a shooting war with China and they stop sending us spare parts. Or given concerns about backdoors in Huawei gear, you can be damned sure they would put hardware-level backdoors in fighter jet control systems. So the cost-benefit analysis needs to take into account the degradation of your security posture that comes from having your greatest adversary supplying your equipment.
If we get into a shooting war with China then we can switch to Russia. Last resort is north Korea. Although North Korea is really poor with the equivalent infrastructure changes that happened in China we can build it up to a nuclear super power and North Korea can supply the needed parts for F-35 at a really cheap price.
Chuck Yaeger still thinks the F-35 is a waste of money:
https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/111111144983590912...
https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/111111144983590912...
Many of those pilots are literally paid to love it.
There’s plenty of reason to be critical of the F-35, but wow I loved reading this article.
The two things that really stood out to me:
1. The F-35s top feature is situational awareness, essentially the way in which it processes and displays information to a pilot. Information is becoming a critical piece of war, and the advances made here will trickle down to us civilians in the years to come. Imagine what their HUDs are capable of? Add to that its ability to essentially fly itself, I have to imagine there are some features of autonomy that will be useful to us down the line.
2. Speaking of information, from a metatextual perspective, this article is also a great application of the human domain of warfare (1) this article itself being a weapon. The anti-F35 articles used to concern me from this perspective, but I wonder if even those were part of a larger information campaign (The enemy thinks the jet is bad, thus under estimating it).
The first 2019 Redflag was just a few weeks ago, I wish I would have made the drive out to the desert to watch.
1)https://mailchi.mp/digitalfuture/dff4-316401 (scroll down to the animated gif of a machine gun)
The two things that really stood out to me:
1. The F-35s top feature is situational awareness, essentially the way in which it processes and displays information to a pilot. Information is becoming a critical piece of war, and the advances made here will trickle down to us civilians in the years to come. Imagine what their HUDs are capable of? Add to that its ability to essentially fly itself, I have to imagine there are some features of autonomy that will be useful to us down the line.
2. Speaking of information, from a metatextual perspective, this article is also a great application of the human domain of warfare (1) this article itself being a weapon. The anti-F35 articles used to concern me from this perspective, but I wonder if even those were part of a larger information campaign (The enemy thinks the jet is bad, thus under estimating it).
The first 2019 Redflag was just a few weeks ago, I wish I would have made the drive out to the desert to watch.
1)https://mailchi.mp/digitalfuture/dff4-316401 (scroll down to the animated gif of a machine gun)
"You are telling the airplane to go up or down, speed up or slow down, go left or right. And the computers figure out what’s the best way to do that, and they’re going to move the flight controls to do it. And the interesting thing is, they may not do it the same way twice. So let’s say the airplane gets damaged, and one of the flight controls is no longer available. A legacy airplane would still try to use that surface because it doesn’t know any better. The F-35 digital flight control systems will say, “That surface isn’t doing much for me anymore, so I’m going to have to compensate by using some other things. Maybe I’ll have to move them a little bit more to get the same effect because the pilot still wants to turn left.”"
Anyone have the details on how it does that?
A while back, I read a report about an experimental aircraft that would attempt to determine the effectiveness of its control surfaces by moving all of them in a short period of time. The impression I got was that it would have a few seconds of rough flight, after which it would return to flying normally even if it had lost the use of a major control surface.
Anyone have the details on how it does that?
A while back, I read a report about an experimental aircraft that would attempt to determine the effectiveness of its control surfaces by moving all of them in a short period of time. The impression I got was that it would have a few seconds of rough flight, after which it would return to flying normally even if it had lost the use of a major control surface.
Meanwhile, the F-35's fully mission capable rate remains miserable.
https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/03/f-35-far-from-rea...
The f-35 is a great example of the practically pathological need for the US military to appear to ne the most technologically advanced military in the world. To be clear, it is, but finally China is making significant improvements. This cold-war hold-over means that instead of making a boring solution for an actual problem, the US made a trillion dollar jack of all trades. The f-35 is worse at each of the individual task than the specialized frames it is supposed to replace. I can't find the link, but I remember an article where f-16 s won every mock dogfight with f-35s.
I think horses beat the f-35 in jousts. Dogfights are WWII style of fighting. Modern fighting is done from 50 miles away with missiles, where the f-35 had significant advantages. I still think the plane is an example of design by committee.
this article addresses that. i had the same opinion up until read the article
its hard to take the opinions of the pilots that fly them with complete confidence. they have a vested interest, their career is over if the f35 is over.
On the low end, the f35 costs about as much as 5 f16s, which also have twice the range over an f35. the f35 is the bf109 of the modern era.
military brass keeps wanting all purpose aircraft, and 100 years of military aircraft experience has shown that never works.
On the low end, the f35 costs about as much as 5 f16s, which also have twice the range over an f35. the f35 is the bf109 of the modern era.
military brass keeps wanting all purpose aircraft, and 100 years of military aircraft experience has shown that never works.
> ...wanting all purpose aircraft, and 100 years of military aircraft experience has shown that never works.
Other than the p51, the f18, the f15...
Other than the p51, the f18, the f15...
Pilots can switch planes like programmers can switch programming languages so "protecting career" is unlikely.
"Obeying my boss" is what is most likely happening here. I get the sense that they are literally instructed not to give bad PR about the plane. Or even worse, this entire article is scripted.
"Obeying my boss" is what is most likely happening here. I get the sense that they are literally instructed not to give bad PR about the plane. Or even worse, this entire article is scripted.
> Pilots can switch planes like programmers can switch programming languages so "protecting career" is unlikely.
Except that military pilots have one single possible employer.
Except that military pilots have one single possible employer.
What military pilots can't change to civilian pilots when they leave the military?
(a) Pilots rarely specialise in just one aircraft.
(b) F35 at this point in its lifecycle is always going to be much more expensive more than a last generation model.
(b) F35 at this point in its lifecycle is always going to be much more expensive more than a last generation model.
The Smithsonian Institution is administered by the US federal government. The grain of salt you should take with this is mountain-sized. Even if it weren't direct propaganda (which it likely is), these pilots would be ill-advised to say anything bad about the F-35 in a government-run publication.
The first interview mentions the Paris air show as a critical public demonstration. You can watch it here https://youtu.be/93NdwZAeXhI
Oh, and more impressive to me is the footage out of the Jedi Transition: https://youtu.be/d9HqVXGRJL0
For those who don’t know, about 3.5 hours from Los Angeles you can go see a ton of amazing jet fighters coming back or going to training exercises. There’s no way to know when you’ll see something, or what you’ll see, but the area is a scene of jet geeks. I keep meaning to go (Should have gone after the recent Redflag).
For those who don’t know, about 3.5 hours from Los Angeles you can go see a ton of amazing jet fighters coming back or going to training exercises. There’s no way to know when you’ll see something, or what you’ll see, but the area is a scene of jet geeks. I keep meaning to go (Should have gone after the recent Redflag).
The iPhone would be more expensive then this aircraft if we only built 100. Just shows the value of scale.
There should be an alternative military group that tries to leverage the existing supply chain to build robust defensive weapons.
The spacex approach.
There should be an alternative military group that tries to leverage the existing supply chain to build robust defensive weapons.
The spacex approach.
This is so unfortunate in the modern age, with the globe hyper connected, we still need these planes to go to possibly war against other civilized countries.
Plane seems like a really good fit for it's role. Would be pretty cool to meet the engineers that designed it.
Ten years from now all the cellphones/radars/powerlines/whatever in the US are going to go dead and the Iranian government will start making demands. Your fancy airplane will not help one bit. The military are always fighting the last war :(
Amazing that employees of Lockheed say nice things about the F-35.
A staggering, epic waste of talent, money, and time. Its advocates have harmed the US and its future prospects.
That'll sell some planes.
To put it another way, it the F35 was really as good as the F22, as the article seems to claim, then it would not be available for export.