The F-35’s Terrifying Bug List
defenseone.com
defenseone.com
With all the problems noted over the last few years I'm surprised that anyone wants it. The F-22 has had its problems and production was cut at a very low number (I think I read that they wanted to shift gears and go with the F-35). The complexity of these two planes could make them more of a liability in a conflict.
It makes more sense to me (as a taxpayer) to spend the defense dollar on things that can be built quickly and for minimal initial cost so that many can be built to replace those lost to attrition in conflict. They should also be purpose-built for specific missions just as we built planes in WW2. We have the technology and we don't need a fleet of flying super-computers that can't fight their way out of the battlespace. Planes are great support tools for infantry and armored units who actually win the wars by taking and holding territory from the enemy. They won't win wars by themselves. Sorry 'bout that, Air Force.
The world has moved on since WW2, and the idea of cheap hordes of aircraft, or spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy to build them in wartime just won't fly.
Ask the Syrians how well their simple Mig-21s and Mig-23s did in the Bekka Valley in 1982 when they ran up against the Israeli's flying F-15s and F-16s. Turkey shoot doesn't even begin to describe it. If you bring a biplane to a modern dogfight, you'll end up a splat mark on the ground.
People don't realize this. Your smartphone is vastly more powerful than pretty much any single CPU found in the avionics of a fighter. If you really dig around old press releases you can figure out some of what these aircraft use, but I'd rather not specify. But, think about when the F-35 systems were largely designed: the period from 2000 to 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19#Batt...
I agree with the parent in that a diversified set of aircraft focused on specific missions and more easily produced and upgraded with new tech is critical (no ones saying build bi-planes). And sure we can say 4th-gen beats 3rd-gen and now 5th-gen beats 4th-gen, unfortunately adversaries often don’t follow the script. F-35 seems to be more a danger to national security than a help.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) [2] http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121375-MiG-21-...
A fleet of Mig-21s, even upgraded, would be no match for F-35s. Even using Su-30s as a mini AWACs, the F-35s wouldn't be detected on radar. So the F-35s could wax the Sukhois, and then take on the blind Fishbeds with ease. It would be like what the F-22 pilots call it when they went up against 4th Gen fighters; clubbing baby seals.
Fishbeds are decent jets in terms of speed and agility, but they're not dogfighters; they have horrible visibilty, they bleed energy in turns (delta wings), and they have limited weapons carriage.
I like the F-22 for Air-to-Air. I think the F-35 is probably okay, just not remotely worth the money. But I think our "all in" on a single do-it-all, super-expensive fighter-bomber is a huge risk and the wrong direction. We need a mix of assets. And unfortunately, the F-35 just eats up the whole budget so we can't afford anything else. It definitely shouldn't be doing CAS, and strike is probably best performed by other assets too. Trying to merge AF, Navy, and Marine planes into one super plane is bad for so many reasons.
The whole plan seems incapable of taking on serious adversaries and incredible overkill for insurgency operations. A no man's land of happy defense contractors and bad military strategy.
i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range.
Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4.
You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.
I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff.
I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
If you think jets are so delicate, you haven't been paying attention to the mishap rate with drones. It's not like an RC model you're controlling within sight. You're operating them at ranges where lag is significant, where control links can be jammed, where GPS is easily spoofed, and where current performance is similar to a small Cessna.
How pray tell, is a small, cheap drone going to be able to carry a high power laser or "high energy RF" weapon (whatever that is) to the altitude that modern jets operate at? And if these "high energy RF" weapons are available, why wouldn't they be deployed on fighters, which can carry heavier weapons than drones, and have more surplus electrical capacity to power them?
It's easy to come up with armchair tactics when it's all Starcraft you're drawing upon. But the military doesn't work like that. Weapons take time to design, to implement, to refine. You can't just set your factories up to build UNIT X and ZERG!
http://defensetech.org/2016/01/04/u-s-navy-plans-to-fly-firs...
I doubt that there will be more than some technology demonstrators in less than four years.
And everyone is forgetting that with small size comes small range and payload. Small range means your opponent has to get close to you, exposing themselves. The article has some huge assumptions, at least concerning attacking a naval ship (which is far easier than an aircraft that can outperform a drone). The idea that an Aegis cruiser is going to let a fishing boat launch a significant number of drones without getting perforated by its MK-45 is a non-starter.
Additionally, the SAM locked on while the F-117 was coming off target, with the weapon bay doors open.
Though, I understand much of it is composites so it might sound better than it actually works.
How about I just hoist 100,000 ball bearings into the air and drop them in front of the F35?
But if you're committed to the fast drone idea then get one. I think they're going about 450 mph now which ought to give you enough time to maneuver in front of the f35.
So again, how are you going to get these 100k ball bearings up to 20k AGI? Your slow, cheap drones are just going to loiter up there and hope an F-35 flies into their web?
It's not like the air forces of the worlds would be ignorant of this "surprise" tactic. And the methodology of targeting an F-35 with a cascade of ball bearings is conveniently left out of your scenario.
Yeah, so, what's your point?
It's obviously not a well developed plan. Nevertheless, considering the costs of repair, sortie interval, loiter time, all of the other limits imposed by having so few very units of expensive aircraft opens them up to novel attacks. As to how to get the things to stay up there? Balloons are one way, large solar panel wings which could be jettisoned is another. Such a plan might not even have to work well, it might be enough to cause decision makers to keep the fighters grounded.
Just what do you think a SAM is? There's a hell of a lot of volume in the atmosphere.
It cannot avoid an engagement, nor press the attack.
It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms. Try that with a 4th gen aircraft.
Yes. It's slower, and less agile. Than other fighter aircraft.
It can't win a dogfight. Period.
>It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms.
Which the Chinese will surely counter, since they stole the blueprints. That stealth is mostly worthless.
And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle, and "mostly worthless."
Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential. Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.
You're right, almost none of it is.
>Most A2A kills in the last 30 years have been BVR shots. Which the F-35 will excel at.
Negative, Ghostrider. It still has to be able to catch its prey, which it's not fast enough to do. And faster aircraft can still prevent it from disengaging. Speed is life in air combat.
>And I'm glad you know the truth about stealth. It is useless you know. That's why the Russians, the Chinese and now the Germans are starting to build 5th Gen stealth aircraft. All to prop up the illusion that it's just a boondoggle, and "mostly worthless."
What are we, on reddit? You're purposely being snide and also purposely misinterpreting what I've written. Stealth itself, as a concept, is not worthless. The F-35's stealth technology has been compromised, therefore it is of little value against an adversary such as China or Russia.
>Back to reality. Stealth is very useful, that's why countries work tirelessly to find countermeasures. Some of these work to a degree, some have potential. Stealth isn't magic, it's just a useful tool; like jamming, like AWACs, like OPFOR training. But to deny its merits is just ignorant.
I'm now convinced you are trolling. Enjoy your evening.
I think @greedo self-outed with the "quit reading the press" comment... posturing some secret source of information more authorititive than the damning reports from test pilots, pentagon office of testing, etc... Lockheed's PR dept maybe.
TROLOLOLOLL... your ploy to miss the point doesn't fool me :)
Thing is, everyone has an axe to grind with the F-35. Despite its shortcomings, its all we have in the pipeline, until the 6th gen fighters come online in a decade or so. Without something like the F-35 paired with the F-22, we have no chance of penetrating a modern IAD.
The idea that the Chinese can just steal some autocad drawings and crank out competitive aircraft isn't realistic. They lack the experience in engine design and manufacturing for starters. Much of their military technology is either licensed from Russia, and then reverse engineered. Yet they still can't produce an engine even close to the PWF135.
And speed isn't life in air combat. Situational awareness is. And someone flying a POS MIG/Sukhoi will get slapped by a slower aircraft if the MIG is unable to detect, track and engage the F-35. Ask the Iraqi's how well they did running away to Iran? Ask them how their MIG-25s did against slower F-15s? Or ask the Syrians why they stopped flying Foxbats over Israel once the Israelis got the slower F-15. The reason is because top end speed isn't the be all and end all of fighter performance.
And thanks for the ad hominem at the end. Nice to know that you've run out of logic and facts for your arguments.
Yeah those silly Chinks aren't smart enough. Huaaaah, America!
Look how they're pursuing a carrier fleet. Are they trying to build a CVN immediately? Nope, they're taking incremental steps with a secondhand refurbished conventional carrier. Iterating towards a long term goal, because they know war isn't Starcraft.
It's why when they wanted to develop a modern 4th gen fighter, they partnered with the Israelis to leverage the Lavi designs that became the J10.
You can be snide and set up strawmen, or you can back up your statements with facts, not ill-informed opinions.
The idea is to win before the dogfight.
And having the blueprints for a stealth plane is not the same thing as being able to counter it.
You're still better off winning most of your battles BVR and relying on your wingman in a dogfight than going toe to toe in every battle.
And a $10M drone attempting to engage in A2A combat is called a target. Not a threat. Drones are a long ways away from engaging in A2A combat.
Drones may take on a larger role in the future, if we decide to truly let them function autonomously. But the tech isn't there yet. And even if you create a magical swarm, it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
I wish you went on to back that statement, because I'm going to have to use context clues to guess that you've either failed at reading comprehension or basic abstract thought. The article discusses a well known example of the failure of an inflexible monolithic defense system faced with an enemy schooled in asymmetric warfare. The J-35 is to the naval fleet C2 net as the drone swarm is to the armada of small suicide boats.
> Cheap drones are not going to be carrying...
Solid rocket boosters and pointy nose cones? The drones are the missiles. As far as targeting, anti-tank missiles have had a great deal of success without fancy radar arrays - just object recognition in extremely noisy environments. I see no reason why that would be impossible for this application.
> How are your "light comms" going to work at night...
Better
> ...or in inclement weather...
Ask the Navy, they managed to make it work for a long time without computer aided signal processing.
> Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K?
LOL, the Germans managed to get a range of 4KM (13K feet) in WWI, in broad daylight, with handheld light signals [0]. So yeah, I think you can see a spotlight in daylight from 20 thousand feet in the year 2016.
> ...if we decide to truly let them function autonomously...
When you say we, do you mean every nation? Because it will only take one to disrupt the whole game.
> ...it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
What? If you want to park an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific, are you going to choose a fighter jet or a drone?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communicati...
Flight time/range - if the wings are large enough drones can be powered by solar panels and run forever [1] but we can safely assume that combat drones will be heavier and be capable of high acceleration and maneuverability so they would probably be powered by battery packs charged before take-off. You might think that's a limitation but battery tech is improving to the point where this will be viable by the the next conflict.
You're thinking of them wrong. They're not meant to compete with $100m planes. They're so cheap that they could be used as cheap guided missiles. They only need to collide with the enemy plane to achieve the win condition. Considering how light and maneuverable they will be, that should be simple.
[1] - http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/solar-powered-drone...
Batteries don't have the energy density for powering high performance aircraft. They can't even power something along the lines of a Cessna 172. Assuming battery tech will take off is just handwaving.
What everyone seems to be espousing is already in place: SAMs. SAMs can be autonomous, have the performance and range to shoot down any aircraft. The current generation of Western and Russian SAMs are all excellent. The question is whether they'll be good enough to defeat stealth technology. The jury is still out on it.
A good example of the "cheap" fighter is the Korean F/A-50. This jet has some of the Beyond Visual Range capability of the F-16, at 1/3 the cost. It doesn't have the range or the weapons capacity.
A well trained T-38/F-5 aggressor pilot can nail an F-16 or F-22 in a dogfight, within visual range. The Stealth F-35 will have the ability to engage an enemy aircraft without ever being detected, and that "minor" detail justifies the cost. In previous conflicts, once the opposing aircraft locate each other on radar, the adversaries would be forced into the merge, or risk being shot down at long range.
Kind of unfair example, the Israelis had a lot of time to prepare for that battle. On top of that the Syrians knew they didn't stand a chance given their resources.
Given any situation you have to fit the resource to meet the need. The United States deploys the EMB 314 Super Tucano to great effect, which is a WW2 style fighter fitted with modern electronics. The F35 in the modern context simply doesn't make sense, as it's simply over engineered and doesn't fit current individual needs.
And the Super Tucano? WTH. The USAF accepted 20, temporarily, before transferring them to the Afghan AF. The USAF has no squadrons that utilize this airframe, and no intentions to. It has no survivability in a contested airspace at all.
Seeing as how the last time the USAF operated in seriously contested airspace was forty years ago, this is perhaps not as big a problem as it would seem.
What makes you think anyone wants it?
Buyers of things like this don't buy because they want to, they buy because they're told to.
My friend at DMO (Defense Materials Organization) in Australia spent 2 years of his life on a huge team that recommended the Australian Defense Force don't buy any Abrams tanks for a whole bunch of very valid reasons.
Australia bought a bunch of them anyway, in direct contradiction to the organization who's very purpose it is to make these kinds of purchasing decisions.
Who are the suckers?
Atleast Japan is trying to actually have a viable solution:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-steal...
Even in WW2, all the major nations had aircraft that were multipurpose. Even the famous P-51 was built to be multipurpose. The difference between then and now is process/planning to build those aircraft hasn't kept up with their complexity. Also there's a lot more consideration of pilot safety and environmental extremes than the typical propeller fighter/bomber of WW2.
Edit: See grecy's comment for a perfect example. They're a vehicle to siphon taxpayer dollars, not a vehicle to fight wars.
(Although Israel, one of the very largest recipients of U.S. military aid, actually has an exemption to this rule, we actually give them cash they're allowed to spend on their own local military industry. I bet they don't buy any F-35s)
Oh, and the IAF has already contracted to buy the F-35...
And I'm surprised they're not smart enough to avoid the F-35, but I guess it's just OPM and keeps their benefactor happy.
I read this in a great PDF doc a while back written by I think an ex Russian officer who talked about this and other strategies like their officer heavy army to allow quick expansion through bringing in civilians. I've not been able to find it again if anyone is familiar.
I have no idea what the next major conflict might look like, and nobody else does, either. (WW1 and WW2 both showed large swings in fortunes with even minor technological improvements.) But it's hard to see how the F-35 could play a role in it.
Drones.
Now the RuAF has a fantastic multirole fighter that rivals the F35 but years before the F35 sees a combat debut.
The F-35 is buggy, because its unprecedented, I honestly don't think it gets a fair shake, and I wish people would look at the long term cost savings vs the short term boondoggle (and it is certainly that.) Fleet maintenance is astronomical, the F-35 is build to address that; if you spread costs out of 30 years, the plane doesn't look quite as expensive. Since the government doesn't use GAAP accounting, all costs are realized up front instead of being depreciated out.
I really don't buy your story about being able to hear the jet a minute before it hits you. By the time you hear a jet flying directly to your position you are either already dead, or the plane is just about to pass over you. In your instance it sounds like the plane was no zeroing in on your position, but was just incidentally passing by...which is entirely different.
I don't believe it. Sure, that's how they sold it, and I understand the supply chain problems they want to avoid, but I don't believe a word of it.
Most anyone who heard an F35 and is posting publicly about it must have heard the plane in transit over land where they aren't permitted to cause sonic booms, and could have even been traveling very slowly.
Any cost savings have been annihilated by hideous budget overruns. The F-35 will be a money-loser without exception.
All this is aside from the fact that saving money on something that doesn't fucking work is pretty asinine.
Can they fire the gun yet without crashing the system?
Can the pilots actually use the VR helmet without getting motion sickness?
Has a smaller helmet been made so that the pilot doesn't get stuck against the inside of the canopy trying to look over his/her shoulder?
The F-35 program is the biggest scam in history. The people in charge of it need to be put in jail.
coughSpaceShuttlecough
[okay this was glib, but there are some real parallels there, including trying to be all things to all people]
Aircraft (and aircraft carriers) were devastatingly effective in the WWII Pacific theatre. (Okay, this wasn't the Air Force, but I'm focusing on the aircraft part.)
It's true for both sides. Japan nearly destroyed the US's ability to contend at all in that theatre. The US turned the tide at Midway.
You're right they don't win wars "by themselves", but I think you're undervaluing their strategic value in wars fought on certain geographies.
The more war goes 'remote control' the more this will cease to be an issue, and this is a dangerous trend precisely because it removes one of the last impediments to scaling up the export of war. As soon as the losses to own troops drop to near zero because all of it is done through robotic means all bets are off, and it does not even require a 'skynet' in order to achieve it. All it takes is some more telepresence and that's pretty much a solved problem at this stage. The difference is that in the air we now have this and for other branches it is still being worked on but within a decade or two we should see robotic infantry.
If the US tries to fight a near-peer opponent like China or Russia, GPS will be jammed, satellites will be either blinded or destroyed, and both UHF and VHF comms will be either jammed or severely degraded. Just recently a US Army General was bitching about how advanced the Russians were with their ECM/ECCM in Ukraine. The Russians are extremely good at this.
If that would happen it would most likely be by proxy.
That's a pretty loaded perspective on the nature of war. Occupation of territory isn't necessarily the objective and it's a crude sort of "victory" which is not appropriate for many current conflicts.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html
> The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8
And how many F-14s were lost as a result of single-engine handling performance issues? F-14s have departed from controlled flight after one engine stalls, and entered a flat spin. Yes, the scene in Top Gun was somewhat based on real events.
A few F/A-18s have been lost due to issues with single-engine performance. The F/A-18 doesn't have as much issues with asymmetric thrust, single engine flight isn't always possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_cra...
F-22 was a mess with it's oxygen system.
F-15s mysteriously broke apart in mid-air, though this was unexpected wingbox fatigue late in their lives.
The Navy had the "Gutless Cutlass" Vought F7.
The USAF had the F104 nicknamed the Widowmaker; IIRC, more Luftwaffe pilots died flying this type than any other aircraft.
This sentence made no sense until I realized the German air force is still called the Luftwaffe.
For decades the US has pursued a high-low strategy, meaning a small number of very expensive, very high performance aircraft and a large number of inexpensive (but still good) aircraft. Where the F-35 went off the rails is on the "inexpensive" part. We would have been better off buying more F-22s for air superiority and keeping the F-16 for strike missions.
[1] http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/20...
Probably through a lot of box-ticking.
F-35A test aircraft AF-02 has completed initial test firings of the internal gun on the F-35A variant, both on the ground [1] and in flight [2]. The F-35B and F-35C carry their gun externally, in a centerline gun pod [3]. The gun pod has been tested over the past several years [4] on the ground, and will be tested on those variants later this year.
The 2017 date in that article you posted refers to when the cannon on all variants will be integrated with the mission systems software.
So just as it is disingenuous to say "the F-35 cannon testing is complete" it's also not completely accurate to say "it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet." The engineering reality is more nuanced than that.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M
[3]: http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222...
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have cost significantly less (1/4 the total?) if the military hadn’t forced square fighter jets into the round hole of CAS (add up $10k / hr vs $600, plus airborne tankers, plus carriers, plus increased supply costs). Not only did this cost multiples more, provide less effective support to Americans risking their lives on the ground, it damaged the fleet of fighters for other tasks in the future. How many flight hours where burned “in country” on already aging platforms? I know I got some.
Senior military aviation leadership boxed themselves into a corner burning up the fleet in ways it shouldn’t have and betting on a do-it-all turd called the F-35. The cannon could fall of this thing and it would be better for everyone. Dog-fighting is dead and people will scream F-4 / Vietnam, but I’d rather have an extra aim-9x than a fucking gun pod in this day and age [3, 4]. So the plane sucks for CAS and the gun pod is irrelevant for BFM. But don’t worry, the plane is so magical who knows. Just know you’re being sold a bill of goods when leadership talks about CAS and the F-35.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_...
We can't plan on having air supremacy. It's nice that we've had it since Nam, but counting on it isn't always going to be an option, and we'll need to provide CAS to troops when it's necessary.
I still don’t believe F-35 is the right platform for CAS. In a medium to high threat environment, I would prefer bombers (perhaps stealthy) or drones (expendable) at altitude with a payload of JDAM and LGBs, than a fighter with just a couple. And rolling in with the gun in a fighter is silly. If the environment is that high threat, limiting collateral damage with gun runs isn’t a concern.
I feel like we are building platforms that can beat up medium threats (Iraq/Iran), won’t work against big threats (China), and bankrupt the country against small threats (counter insurgency operations). I’d favor a more diversified set of assets for specific roles and don’t think the F-35 fits the bill.
But when architecting the military, the #1 consideration has to be the deterrence of existential threats. That means planning for contested air space (contested everything, really).
The U.S. is the uncontested strongest military in the world. It would probably be a mistake to take that for granted, though, by making all our decisions in the context of expeditions to the Middle East.
Destabilize the region to ensure petro-dollar existence, replace leadership who don't want to bow, sell weapons and infrastructure.
But regarding CAS, I feel we should focus on low threat primarily and shouldn’t be using expensive jets to fill the roll. In fact, I would fund low intensity conflicts through SOCOM and let them choose the assets they want, not what big military wants to provide (i.e. the super tacano vs fighter jets).
In the event that we find ourselves in an existential threat war (really only two countries I can think of), other factors such as Nuclear, Space, Cyber, and Air Supremacy are so much more important than high threat CAS. In my mind, high threat CAS and manned Strike aren’t the best use of resources to fight this war
One could argue that today's combat landscape is not ideal for the A-10 and that it wouldn't survive against modern air defenses. Which is a very good point. But, if you are going against modern defenses, what do you need a cannon for? Specially an external one which will ruin your radar signature.
But no, it doesn't matter whether or not the cannon works. It's not what you'd use to engage targets on the ground. Or the air, for that matter.
The most efficient way to destroy things on the ground is with guided missiles and bombs. An F-35 with a brace of SDBs is going to do a lot more damage than an A-10, both because smart bombs are much more effective on a pound-for-pound basis and because it can get on station much more quickly. A strike aircraft with modern optics it can fly above AAA and shoulder launched SAM range and still engage moving targets on the ground.
The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel like they haven't been forgotten.
Politicians like the A-10, too, because by staving off the ax once again they can make it look like they're doing something to support the little guy on the ground.
The Army brass likes the A-10 because they suspect when the shit hits the fan the Air Force will decide the multi-role aircraft all belong in some other role and abandon the Army altogether.
But none of that has any bearing on the effectiveness of the air frame itself. Not many people realize the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan. The A-10 was the bee's knees when it was new and we were worried about thousands of Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap. But it's not 1985 any more.
Even if this is entirely true, moral goes a hell of a long way on in the army as does the fear this creates with the enemy.
That said I was of the understanding the A-10 was very effective for supporting troops in areas like Afghanistan and similar low tech ground wars. The real issue the Air Force are tasked with protecting the country in the case of a 'real war' with more modernized opponents like China or Russia. In this case and A-10 is old tech and wont deliver much in terms of defense capability hence their lack of interest in maintaining/upgrading it.
And there's no reason to keep it around for low tech wars - if we need a dedicated aircraft to destroy mud huts we'd be better off with something cheap and easy to maintain, like Embraer's Super Tucano II.
Afghanistan is a hard nut to crack due to being landlocked, surrounded by enemies, and with primitive facilities. B-1s do well in this situation since they can fly out of Diego Garcia, carry a shit ton of fuel, and munitions, and have a crew that is used to long duration flights. Once it was equipped with the AN/AAQ-28 Litening pod, it really came into its own for providing CAS.
People also misunderstand what CAS is. CAS stands for Close Air Support, but doesn't mean the aircraft providing it has to be close, but that the munitions are hitting close to the FEBA (where our troops are).
But keeping all that old hardware flying...
The A10 is still good at CAS that's what it was designed to do. 1 A10 caries a much, much larger bomb load than an F35. If you have air superiority you need a good bomb truck a lot more useful than a stealth fighter.
What were the other 80% of CAS missions carried out by? What % of aircraft deployed were A10s? That 20% figure needs more to back it up.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10... https://web.archive.org/web/20110317113904/http://www.lockhe...
That's not really true. The A-10 was designed to destroy tanks in Europe. CAS was always a secondary role.
>If you have air superiority you need a good bomb truck a lot more useful than a stealth fighter.
If that's the argument then the right thing to do is retire the A-10 and reactivate some B-1s.
>What were the other 80% of CAS missions carried out by? What % of aircraft deployed were A10s? That 20% figure needs more to back it up.
>Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted not by the A-10, but by an array of other aircraft, including AC-130’s, F-15E’s, F-16’s, MQ-1’, B-52’s, and yes, the B-1.
http://blogs.cfr.org/davidson/2014/05/20/if-the-air-force-ha...
The thrust of the article is correct. The reason people don't want to see the A-10 retired is the Air Force doesn't have a lot of credibility when it comes to CAS.
I used to have a link to a chart with percentages, but I can't find it.
Nobody in Chair Force command ever liked the A10. And the A10 is performing CAS as a secondary role, not the one it was originally intended for; and it is worn out and obsolete, and does need replacement. The F35 just isn't the tool for the job and it won't ever be. The Super Tucano is much closer, but I'm still skeptical of it too.
Gulf war 1: Destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces for the loss of four A-10s
Syria 2015: Single A-10 takes out 116 ISIS fuel trucks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ37y0yeSgc&feature=youtu.be...
It still has it's uses. Also consider the costs - if you're using a high flying F-35 and laser guided bombs they'll cost I don't know $20k each and it can only carry a few so the cost of taking out fuel trucks would quite likely be more than the value of the trucks. A big old cannon can probably do it quicker and much cheaper.
In Syria... well, we could have used just about anything, from the AC-130 to the gun on the F-16. Fuel trucks are a pretty soft target.
“Each new version of software, while adding some new capability, failed to resolve all the deficiencies identified in earlier releases,”
Doesn't that describe every software update ever released for any system?
Much of the complexity in the craft is centered around keeping the poor bastard flying it, alive. Then there are pretty tight limits on how much acceleration the human body can receive. Pilot-less craft don't have those limitions, so I figure they should be much more maneuverable and less expensive.
Conventional fighter jets have more speed, travel and strike range, and more maneuverability. They will outflank drones every time -- I'm not kidding, they stand absolutely zero chance against fighter jets.
You could send a couple dozen Reaper drones out and a pair of Su27/F15s would shoot them out of the sky before you can say "Hellfire."
Not to mention modern anti-air defense systems would chew through them like candy.
What are they good for then? Cheap, high-altitude, medium-range (~1500KM), endurance (>24hr) missions.
I'm sure they might ultimately get to fighter-jet performance, but at a much greater cost and reduction in mission time.
And you are not quite correct on who the people involved on the government side are. There are management paper pushers, but every engineering team has government engineers working side by side with their contractor counterparts, and the program has been run that way from the start. They do far more than just "check boxes". They have helped with the design and testing all the way through the program.
I'm curious about the government engineers and their roles: Do you mean aeronautical and other engineers who do the core development and design work? Or do they monitor, provide customer input, ensure quality, and do other oversight of the contractor's engineers? Or something else?
Also, whose payroll are they on? Defense Contract Management Agency? Some other Dept of Defense group? Air Force?
With a program this big and that has already lasted over 15 years, the answer is going to be "yes".
But I don't see how trying to compare the F35 to a project from 70 years ago is relevant.
Perhaps a posting to the Joint Chiefs is out for Gen. Bogdan, but fortunately Lockheed is keeping a senior VP's chair warm for him. One expects we'll see this luminary on the political bloviation shows in five years' time explaining why we must support our brave allies in ISIS against the savage onslaught of the Tehran-backed Zoroastrians, and oh-by-the-way buy a couple hundred more of these flying coffins.