The F-35 Thread

[Mr_Burns]

Well a show of force - yeah an A-10 shooting its cannon and firing unguided rockets may be a little nervy, but an F-35B speeding over the battlefield in full afterburner in a 360 degree circle only to stop in a hover behind the advancing troops whilst the pilot opens the canopy, stands on his seat, moons the insurgents, then sits back down a flies off dropping PGMs their heads....

 

It brings a new meaning to CAS - Close Air in Style....

[tflash]

Do your really think that when there is still SAM coverage and CAP the F-35's will be used to destroy a vehicle nearby troops? What a nonsense.

 

The whole argument that current CAS platform cannot do so in a high intensity conflict yet the F-35 would do so is completely crap, because in such a case CAS is nowhere a priority. The F-35's would go for the SAM and the CAP. You seem to think they will load Chuck Norris with a parachute in their internal bay to drop him over the troops in contact, but chances are they will prefer to load anti-radiation and air-to-air missiles and Chuck will have to take the bus.

[outlawal2]

Do your really think that when there is still SAM coverage and CAP the F-35's will be used to destroy a vehicle nearby troops? What a nonsense.

 

The whole argument that current CAS platform cannot do so in a high intensity conflict yet the F-35 would do so is completely crap, because in such a case CAS is nowhere a priority. The F-35's would go for the SAM and the CAP. You seem to think they will load Chuck Norris with a parachute in their internal bay to drop him over the troops in contact, but chances are they will prefer to load anti-radiation and air-to-air missiles and Chuck will have to take the bus.

 

Right... So one guy on the ground with a Strela and you abandon the entire cas mission?

 

BS...

 

Just because all we have seen is jerks with AK's and rocks in the last 10 years does NOT mean that all future conflicts will be that way...

 

Yes there will be circumstances where full air superiority will be in question and CAS will still be required...

 

And given your scenario, you outfit 2 of them with HARMS and and air to air and the other 2 outfitted for CAS...

 

It isn't that hard to envision..

 

(Oh and forgot to mention that since this plane is STEALTH, it just MAY be more suitable since the CAP won't see it in the first place)

Edited January 13, 2015 by outlawal2

[Vampyre]

CAS on a scale required to win the battlefield will not be a priority in contested airspace with an aircraft designed for multiple missions. The maximum effort will be devoted to winning dominance over the aerial battlefield through attrition of enemy aircraft, air defenses and C3I targets. Once a permissive environment is established, only then will the CAS missions will become more of a priority for the air commanders. Only a dedicated CAS platform will be doing CAS before complete dominance is achieved simply because it has no other role to fill. Logically, the F-35 variety of CAS involves flying circles at 20k feet or higher and dropping a couple of JDAM's to avoid low level optically aimed point and shoot weapons systems. Even an aircraft equipped with stealth by design is not totally invisible to radars from all angles plus, it can still be seen with the Mk 1 Eyeball. The A-10 has a combat persistence that is much higher than the F-35 by virtue of its loiter capability (which can be translated into multiple unrefueled weapons loading evolutions in a peer vs. peer scenario), heavy war load, and ability to operate from austere forward locations with a minimal amount of ground support. What is the projected unit cost of an F-35 right now? $100-$150 million...ish. The A-10 unit cost is around $20 million right now and they are already paid for. We could lose five to eight A-10's for the cost of one F-35. The peer vs. peer conflict will be a short and bloody affair and the winner will be determined by who can attrite whom the quickest and still maintain the advantage on the battlefield. This type of conflict will likely last less than two months (I believe far less, possibly only weeks). World War Two was the last true peer vs. peer conflict fought and was won by the superior numbers of the allied side. Quantity has a quality all of its own and the country with significantly higher numbers will win regardless of the advanced technology fielded by either one of the sides. Right now the US has the numbers and the technology but that could change in 10 years. The cost of the F-35 means that they will probably be limited in number and losses of them will be unacceptable whilst losses of a cheaper, lower technology aircraft that are designed to take damage and make it back to base will be much more acceptable. I think the US was on the correct track in the late 70's with the concept of the high/low cost mix. The F-35 was an attempt at that high/low cost mix but the concept is turning out to be a high/higher cost mix. For low intensity conflicts the F-35 makes even less sense as an A-10 replacement... It's like using a Bugatti Veyron to run out and get groceries from the local supermarket... wrong tool for the wrong job. A low cost, dedicated CAS platform has a place in our order of battle. On call CAS is a game changer on the front lines of battlefields and has the ability to instantly change the tempo of a ground fight. Most other aerial missions (Strike, BAI, CAP, Sweep, ISR) over and just behind the front lines are fragged to support that front line fight. Having a less effective CAS aircraft flown by aircrew who have to learn many more mission set's filling the CAS role is a less than adequate solution. While the F-35 seems to be a poor CAS aircraft it looks like it will excel at short range Strike and will be a worthy replacement for the F-117 for sure. Everything else... well, I just don't know. From what I have read of the F-35 both pro and con, the F-35/A-10 replacement plan seems very poorly thought out. Perhaps more A-10's or a similar dedicated CAS platform would be a better investment... we could afford another 60-90 units of a low cost ($20 Million) CAS aircraft by simply not purchasing 12 F-35's.

[Tirak]

The point of the multirole F-35 was to bring down the cost of having multiple specialized aircraft. Sure the A-10 is cheap, but like you said it does exactly one thing and one thing only. The logic behind the F-35 replacing pretty much everything in the USAF arsenal was that it would be cheaper to operate one aircraft, instead of 2-3. No, it will not be as effective as the A-10 at that work, but it certainly will be capable of doing it.

 

I also agree, that until air dominance is achieved, F-35s aren't going to be running CAS missions, they'll be too busy with SEAD and other strike missions aimed at helping the F-22s grab air superiority, or doing that job themselves. The idea of the the F-35 running stealth CAS is frankly ludicrous in terms of operational reality. To that end however, that also means that the throw weight of the F-35 in a fully kitted CAS scenario is actually higher than the A-10. The A-10 carries about 16000lbs of ordinance on 11 pylons, the F-35 is carrying 18,000lbs on 6 pylons (The pylons slated for A/A weaponry only i am not including, but if you were, that would drag the number up to 10, and the A-10 only actually uses 8 of those pylons because 1 for the Sidewinder rail, 1 for the TGP and 1 for the ECM Pod), but, two of those pylons (the internal bays) will be carrying 4 weapons each, and the externals will no doubt be cleared for TERs when they finally get around to it or hell just BRU-61s, giving you your numbers of pinpoint guided bombs.

 

When it comes to weapons, the F-35 loses only in not having a 30mm cannon, which is obsolete for the role originally envisioned for it.

 

In terms of loiter time, the A-10 also wins hands down, this is because the A-10 is incredibly slow, also a plus in CAS work. And because it's so slow, it's also got significant amounts of armor to protect it from small arms, which are expected to hit it. In a CAS bird these things are the "specialist" equipment that make it unsuitable for any other role. It's slow speed is only possible because of it's thick unswept wings, it's high loiter is provided by that same speed and huge fuel tanks provided by those big armored wings. And when compared against that, yeah, the F-35 isn't going to be doing low gunruns. Yes, it's going to sit at 15-20k feet and drop JDAMS, but aside from gunruns, that's also what A-10s do.

 

Sure, it's really cool to see TGP footage on youtube from A-10s as they strafe MG nests, but a lot of CAS work is also TGP footage from F-16s planting a JDAM right on top of that same kind of nest. In terms of overall effectiveness, there will be a drop, because it's not a specialist and has to do other jobs too, but that drop is not likely to be as significant as several opponents of the F-35 seem to think it will be. Remember, the F-35 is only replacing the manned fixed wing CAS element, (barring AC-130s of course), so other close in options like the AH-64s, and Predators aren't going anywhere.

 

The price of the F-35 has been coming down steadily, and will continue to come down as the aircraft matures and finally reaches production. Keep in mind that not insignificant amounts of the cost are proofing against overruns which will disappear provided smooth implementation of the program. As the program reaches actual production, those costs will continue to drop, and as foreign sales finally start happening, the cost will go down even more.

 

Is that cost going to hit F-16 levels? No. Absolutely not. But that cost is not going to be so astronomically outrageous as it used to seem. There will likely be around a 20% increase in cost over 4th generation aircraft thanks to advanced technology in the airframe, but when comparing it to all the aircraft it will be replacing, that cost may very well end in nearly a 1:1 trade. That is of course extremely optimistic, and I'm fully expecting the F-35 to trade worse than that, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

 

And Vampyre, keep in mind that with a military the size of the US, one of the greatest cost cutting things to do is to scale up. Keeping around a few birds to do one job isn't just airframes. It's spare parts, specialized mechanics, specifically trained pilots, proper basing, and a whole host of other things that make low run productions a Bad Thing.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Tirak

[PLP]

The whole thing is eerily similar to the F-111 program: an intended one-size-fits all program that ends up not being especially good at anything and super expensive. I think that the premise of the F-35 is just wrong, at one point trying to fit a bunch of different roles and constraints on a single airframe costs more and delivers a worse product than producing 2-3 different airframes. A vertical-takeoff CAS plane just isn't compatible with a supersonic stealth sead/dead platform, and making them so costs a whole bunch of $$$.

[PFunk1606688187]

The biggest loss in my mind with respect to ground attack is that without a dedicated mud mover you lose that focus. Multi-role means the pilots have to train on everything. Specialization has a huge benefit to the overall quality of the end result.

 

Too much thought on the platform itself and what it can do distracts from the question of the pilot. The platform might have X capability but without training the pilot can only go so far with it. They won't be training CAS too hard in an F-35 methinks, not as hard as the A-10 pilot does.

 

Losing the A-10 to fund the F-35 is like taking all the knowledge and experience of that fleet of pilots, every lesson learned since the 70s, and dumping it out a window. The A-10 is the reservoir of a lot of knowledge that simply can't exist in other fleets since they don't put CAS so high on their training priority list and that list is very important given the low numbers of hours they get to fly a month.

[Tirak]

The biggest loss in my mind with respect to ground attack is that without a dedicated mud mover you lose that focus. Multi-role means the pilots have to train on everything. Specialization has a huge benefit to the overall quality of the end result.

 

Too much thought on the platform itself and what it can do distracts from the question of the pilot. The platform might have X capability but without training the pilot can only go so far with it. They won't be training CAS too hard in an F-35 methinks, not as hard as the A-10 pilot does.

 

Losing the A-10 to fund the F-35 is like taking all the knowledge and experience of that fleet of pilots, every lesson learned since the 70s, and dumping it out a window. The A-10 is the reservoir of a lot of knowledge that simply can't exist in other fleets since they don't put CAS so high on their training priority list and that list is very important given the low numbers of hours they get to fly a month.

 

 

This is completely untrue. Just like Hornet Squadrons and F-16 squadrons, you train some aircrews for one role, and some for the other, and save on having the common aircraft. And then if you suddenly need a ton of CAS pilots or a ton of CAP pilots, you've got them in reserve. A-10 pilots are specialists in CAS, but you give them a quick course on an F-16 and they'll learn how to fly that to a tolerable level on the quick. Same deal with the F-35. The CAS squadron guys can learn to do CAP readily enough, and vise verse. It'll take a heck of a lot longer for them to reach the same level as their opposite numbers, but this isn't going to be a case of the USAF suddenly forgetting how to do CAS work. Specialized training is fine, it's Specialized Equipment that starts making things complicated.

 

I'm really puzzled by this sudden notion that the USAF is going to forget how to do CAS work, and that by dropping the A-10, no one in the USAF will know how to shoot at targets on the ground. To make the argument is to be incredibly naive, refusing to examine the big picture, or purely intended to present a false narrative that the USAF will become sky shooting jet jockeys, and poor Johnny Grunt will never receive support from the air ever again. It's a false argument by any standard.

 

The only training that we're going to learn when the A-10 is dropped, which frankly it still doesn't look like it's going anytime soon, is strafing runs with the 30mm, every other weapon the A-10 can carry, so too can the F-35, you lose one role, which is more easily performed by Apache Gunships, or AC-130s. Helicopters in the environment the A-10 excels at are superior to the A-10. They can provide pin point strikes, with long loiter times and closer basing options. The A-10 is not the end all be all of CAS work, just the sexiest because of BRRRRRRT.

[rcjonessnp175]

In truth. Once the bone heads in the pentagon take the a10c away from us ground guys we will happily tell the Airforce to plow itself and use our own assets. Apaches can and have done a better job then all the Airforce fix wing stuff anyways.

What angers us the most is dudes in suits aka liars are the ones determining what works best on current and future battlefield just so they get their cut of the pie. We are our worst enemy...

Edited January 14, 2015 by rcjonessnp175

[NineLine]

Ok guys, lets return to our regular programming, this thread is about the F-35, lets resume on that.

[NineLine]

 

Edited January 16, 2015 by NineLine

[HiJack]

:prop: thank god it's on the ground :doh:

[ФрогФут]

Bombs, bombs, bombs. Where are the air-to-ground missiles?:)

[NineLine]

Bombs, bombs, bombs. Where are the air-to-ground missiles?:)

 

Arent those AGM-88s pictured there? As well, arent the Brits planning on throwing Brimstones on theirs?

[ФрогФут]

Arent those AGM-88s pictured there? As well, arent the Brits planning on throwing Brimstones on theirs?

AIM-120s, no?

[NineLine]

AIM-120s, no?

 

You might be right, the fins look a little small for the 88 so I am probably wrong... but I am pretty sure the F-35 can do A2G missiles as well... maybe not everything is pictured there, or variants vary...

[joey45]

Arent those AGM-88s pictured there? As well, arent the Brits planning on throwing Brimstones on theirs?

 

Our weapons arn't in that photo.

[NineLine]

Our weapons arn't in that photo.

 

No I didnt think they were, but I was just mentioning them as in saying the F-35 is capable of throwing A2G missiles...

[GGTharos]

No 88's anywhere in that picture. Those things on the side are 120C/Ds.

 

I think they're sort of making the point that they don't necessarily need an 88 ... got painted? Jam it and throw a cloud of SDBs at it :)

 

Arent those AGM-88s pictured there? As well, arent the Brits planning on throwing Brimstones on theirs?

[ФрогФут]

Jam it

 

And if you fail?

[leafer]

Nope. I wasn't asking in my earlier post. I already know the answer.

[NineLine]

Just cleaned up this thread, note the title, if you guys want to talk A-10, make an A-10 thread.

[rcjonessnp175]

Oh sith come on its just a philosophical debate lol. So i havent read to much into the f35 but i have heard something about it making the pilots sick. Something to do with the HMD ?

[Officer25]

in my opinion way too many people hate on the f-35...

 

if I was given the opportunity to fly an F-35 or not fly anything at all, I would surely accept and I assume many others would too.. :)

[PLP]

in my opinion way too many people hate on the f-35...

 

if I was given the opportunity to fly an F-35 or not fly anything at all, I would surely accept and I assume many others would too.. :)

 

Well part of the hate is understandable, it does cost an Astronomical sum of money at a time when countries don't exactly bathe in cash. I don't want to derail this thread into politics, I am just arguing it is fair to hold the F-35 to a high standard when you are buying them for ~150mil $ a pop, plus I think it will effectively cost the taxpayer more.