Discussion on canning the F-35 for the US Air Force

[y_p_w]

but also deniability... there's a lot more anonimity when using drones. Nobody knows whose it was and nobody is missing any if one falls or gets shot down

They're properly marked.

I was rather surprised at how light these things are. I saw a Predator at an air show and I was allowed to touch it and lift it. I know it was on wheels and as such easy to lift, but I was still pretty light considering its size.

 

[y_p_w]

When you fire Hellfire missile, or any missile, you really do not have to claim ownership. Missile will leave enough fragments for propaganda. Take Afghanistan for example: do you really need to claim ownership so that everyone knows whose UAS was?

Probably wouldn't want this:

 

[edyvw]

Look mom, the new AGM-179 ?

View attachment 46933

LOL. Mystery!

 

[wemay]

We need 100 more A-10's

You took the words right out of my mouth. But two different scopes of battle.

 

[y_p_w]

You took the words right out of my mouth. But two different scopes of battle.

Nobody is going to revive the A-10 and any replacement is likely to be much cheaper.

 

[Tdog02]

Some of us knew the F-35 was an overpriced failure to deliver the promised capability over a decade ago.

I have a lot of respect for you and your willingness to share experiences you had in your military career. (what you could share anyway) My question to you is how do we unring this bell? What is the solution to this money pit?

 

[edyvw]

I have a lot of respect for you and your willingness to share experiences you had in your military career. (what you could share anyway) My question to you is how do we unring this bell? What is the solution to this money pit?

This is political issue, let's not go there
I spoke last week to my good friend who is in one of the air forces that has Lockheed competing with F35. He is member of selection commision. It is like organized effort by air force against politics to drop that plane. They will literally take anything, just not F35.
There is an issue of qualitative edge. Projects like F35 allow the US to invest a lot in RD that other countries cannot keep up with. But, I am not sure this project has good ROI.

 

[Dave Hess]

We need 100 more A-10's

More like 400.

 

[Astro14]

I have a lot of respect for you and your willingness to share experiences you had in your military career. (what you could share anyway) My question to you is how do we unring this bell? What is the solution to this money pit?

This ship has sailed. We are buying it, so are allies to maintain interoperability and capability.

Despite my misgiving about the Swiss Army knife (does everything, none of it well) it’s here and here to stay.

It’s the largest acquisition program in history. So, there’s no “undoing” it. Sadly.

Ironic that much cheaper airplanes were called ridiculously over priced, unaffordable boondoggles, but the noise on this has quieted down. It’s $100 million for each airplane. Net, not including the $40 billion in development costs.

That’s an incredibly expensive airplane to fill the “low end, lightweight, multi-role” fighter position occupied by the AV-8B, F-16 and F/A-18.

 

[y_p_w]

What is the solution to this money pit?

Right now it's sunk costs. Lockheed Martin wants to find foreign militaries willing to buy them to bring down the per unit development costs.

It certainly doesn't sound like it's as bad as the toughest critics makes it out to be. What does the US or foreign militaries need it for? They're talking about some future 4.5 gen fighter that's more advanced than an F-16 but cheaper and more available than the F-35. Maybe something with the electronics but not necessarily the stealth?

I had the feeling that the whole JSF idea was a bad one because they would spend so much money trying to fix the issues with a unified platform rather than just building 3 different aircraft. Also wondering if Boeing could have done a better job.

 

[y_p_w]

More like 400.

What does an A-10 really do though? Isn't it somewhat of a sitting duck against an enemy with sophisticated antiaircraft weapons? I don't think the USAF really likes it. Not sure why the USAF suspended the OA-X program though.

 

[Dave Hess]

What does an A-10 really do though? Isn't it somewhat of a sitting duck against an enemy with sophisticated antiaircraft weapons? I don't think the USAF really likes it. Not sure why the USAF suspended the OA-X program though.

OK...... then maybe F-4 Phantom style centerline gun pod mounted to an F-16 ?

Very useful when soldiers and Marines need some strafing from above.

Easy for Generals that never seen real combat (not war games) and sitting behind a desk to say retire all A-10s.......

 

[y_p_w]

OK...... then maybe F-4 Phantom style centerline gun pod mounted to an F-16 ?

Very useful when soldiers and Marines need some strafing from above.



View attachment 46966

Isn't the big selling point of the A-10 for ground troops that it can loiter for hours and go low and slow? You're not going to get that with an F-16. However, I thought that helicopters do a lot of that these days. Especially with guns that can be pointed independently by a weapons officer.

I was in HS in the 80s and a few friends of mine loved talking about military aircraft. The issue we always understood about the A-10 was that it could take a lot of rounds and maybe survive shoulder launched missiles, but not anything more advanced. And this was during the Cold War when the big enemy was the Soviet Union. Right now it just seems like it's most useful against totally overmatched forces.

 

[Dave Hess]

Not to change the subject....

If anyone gets a chance read the book Cleared Hot by Col. Bob Stoffey. Hardcover book has much more info and definitely a 5 star book.

Excellent book about his combat tours in Vietnam flying the Huey and OV-10 Bronco in the Marines supporting his men on the ground as a forward air controller and close air support. He cheated death many times and you get the story from someone who didn’t sit behind a desk in air conditioned room drinking a cold soda.

You will have a much better understanding of Close Air Support and the need for slower and lower flying aircraft, tactics and organization of air strikes.

 

[y_p_w]

Not to change the subject....

If anyone gets a chance read the book Cleared Hot by Col. Bob Stoffey. Hardcover book has much more info and definitely a 5 star book.

Excellent book about his combat tours in Vietnam flying the Huey and OV-10 Bronco in the Marines supporting his men on the ground as a forward air controller and close air support. He cheated death many times and you get the story from someone who didn’t sit behind a desk in air conditioned room drinking a cold soda.

You will have a much better understanding of Close Air Support and the need for slower and lower flying aircraft, tactics and organization of air strikes.

Wasn't that done a lot back then with propeller-driven aircraft and helicopters? I did see the movie Bat*21. Didn't quite understand what forward air control was until seeing that.

That being said, wasn't the A-10 expected to suffer huge losses in any kind of fight with the Soviet Union? These days they'd probably just send out drones.

 

[4WD]

Times are changing (again):

US Army Is Building The World's 'Most Powerful' Laser Weapon - Interesting Engineering

These lasers would emit bullet-like pulses of light that would exterminate the target.

interestingengineering.com

 

[y_p_w]

Not sure what's going on. General Brown now says he wants to keep F-35 production on track.

TacAir Study Will Determine If F-35 Production Surge Needed | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force remains committed to the F-35, but the new tactical aviation study will decide if USAF should surge its production of the jet.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[ZeeOSix]

I had the feeling that the whole JSF idea was a bad one because they would spend so much money trying to fix the issues with a unified platform rather than just building 3 different aircraft. Also wondering if Boeing could have done a better job.

The story I heard was the X-32 did everything well ... but the AF didn't like the way it "looked".

Boeing X-32 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[y_p_w]

The story I heard was the X-32 did everything well ... but the AF didn't like the way it "looked".

Boeing X-32 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They had an issue with VTOL too.

 

[edyvw]

Isn't the big selling point of the A-10 for ground troops that it can loiter for hours and go low and slow? You're not going to get that with an F-16. However, I thought that helicopters do a lot of that these days. Especially with guns that can be pointed independently by a weapons officer.

I was in HS in the 80s and a few friends of mine loved talking about military aircraft. The issue we always understood about the A-10 was that it could take a lot of rounds and maybe survive shoulder launched missiles, but not anything more advanced. And this was during the Cold War when the big enemy was the Soviet Union. Right now it just seems like it's most useful against totally overmatched forces.

Helicopters can’t do what A10 can. After experience during invasion of Iraq, there was a lot of rethinking what helicopters can and cannot do.
You won’t use A10 against military with capable air defense. During NATO operation in Serbia, it was not used. After F117 was shot down, other aircrafts were also kept at 10,000ft minimum. But, since 1999 US, NATO didn’t encounter any enemy with such capabilities. A10 was indispensable in Afghanistan and Iraq. AF tried to use Strike Eagle for 2 months in Afghanistan to “prove” that such airplane can execute close support, just to bring back A10. Think about it, what is likelihood of conflict with sophisticated military compared of likelihood of conflict with non-state actor?