F-35s Won't Outdo A-10 in Battlefield Capabilities

Which is true, I'm still on the fence with the F-35.

Almost all weapons programs in the beginning have problems. But the bugs are eventually worked out.

Many weapons platforms evolve over time like the F-4 Phantom did, in the beginning only single purpose interceptor and in the end being good at every thing, not excellent but good as an air to air combat fighter, deep strike bomber, CAS, reconnaissance and as a wild weasel anti SAM aircraft and also as a EW aircraft. They also make good target drones.

I'm still on the fence with the Marine Corps V-22 Osprey but it looks like all of the Marine Corps CH-46 squadrons are being replaced with the Osprey. Just seems such a large aircraft for the assault mission that will be it's main mission. They also need a larger LZ than your typical assault helicopter needs.

But when you look at the F-35 it sure looks like a jet powered Curtis F-2 Buffalo.

 

I concur.

But it all comes down to politics and then you have those who say, "if it works, it must be obsolete."

Just not true in the military but also in Silicon Valley. As soon as Windows 7 was perfected, the geeks said it was obsolete.

 

The F-35 is obscenely expensive. I won't argue this. I understand that many new systems have teething problems, but again, a lot of information on the capabilities haven't seen the light of day. Many nations have invested billions into it, and I would venture to say they must know something the rest of us don't. They could have opted out and purchased existing aircraft with proven capabilities. It may very well be a money pit that never pans out; a boondoggle. I don't know enough at this point to make that statement.

 

I concur but I don't see the F-35 B being able to full fill the roll as a CAS aircraft. And CAS is the primary mission of Marine Corps aviation.

Remember the Navy's and Marines A-6 Intruder, it was a deep strike attack aircraft. They are all sitting in the bone yard today and it's replacement was cancelled by SECDEF Dick Cheney because it was too expensive. < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-12.htm >

Today the U.S. Navy doesn't have a deep strike attack aircraft. The FA-18's don't have the range.

The same can be said with the Air Force. The Air Force's deep strike aircraft use to be the F-111 Aardvark. No replacement and the F-15 E now picking up the role as a deep strike aircraft with less range and a smaller weapons load than the F-111.

 

The F-35B can potentially be based closer to the front as it does not require a prepared take-off/landing surface.

It is V/STOL.

The Marines also have the Super Cobra rotary wing asset for close air support and mobile artillery...access to all sorts of unmanned systems as overhead watch with long loiter terms.

The A-10 is significantly more vulnerable in a contested environment.

My job while in the service during Desert Storm was to deliver the daily Air Tasking Order. This was an 800 page document used to task and disseminate to components, subordinate units, and command and control agencies projected sorties, capabilities and/or forces to targets and specific missions...under a joint forces command

Ideally close air support should entail a multitude of assets operating as joint operations combined arms. I don't know why the Marines insist on "going it alone" given the multitude of assets at their disposal. In fact it was the Marines who often didn't "play well with others" and opted out of the ATO. They wanted the flexibility to engage targets at will as the opportunity provided. In theory, not a bad idea as the battlespace is fluid, however...

The full spectrum of airpower could not have been applied against the right targets to avoid casualties and leverage our high-tech advantages. Employing a single Air Tasking Order, CINCCENTCOM selectively employed the best platforms, armed with the most effective munition to attack the target. Every joint and coalition asset is needed to accomplish the war objectives.

If the Marines leave their ass hanging in the wind and need CAS, it isn't because of neglect...they prefer to be "cowboys" often times and it's the cavalry that rescues them.

 

I understand why the Marines keep going with VSTOL aircraft. With the AV-8B it was so they could operate from advance airfields near the front lines. But how many times has the AV-8 done that ?

But the new mission of the F-35 B VSTOL capabilities is to operate from amphibious ships like the LHD's and LHA's and the ships will be used as a small aircraft carriers to fill the gap of the Navy not having enough aircraft carriers to full fill their mission just not during war time but peace time. The Navy needs 15 aircraft carriers to full fill their mission just during peace time and today the Navy can only put two carriers too sea some times three to cover the Navy's five AOR's. Under the Obama administration none of the Navy's seven surge carriers in port are able to surge.

The Navy last month told Congress they are hoping by 2020 that the Navy can surge three carriers. Being able to have five or six carriers at sea during a national emergency. Sounds about right, four years to repair the damage done by the Obama administration. Back when G.W. Bush was CnC and the chi-coms were rattling their sabers, Bush was able to put 8 Carrier Battle Groups to sea, two conducting combat operations in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, four in the vicinity of the Taiwan Straights and the other two some where else in the world. Two more CBG could also been put to sea with in 30 to 60 days. Today Obama's PC Navy can only put three carriers to sea.


One of the problems they had with the F-35 B's engines, the exhaust was setting the flight decks on fire on the amphibious ships that they are suppose to operate from. Don't no if they fixed the problem or not, I haven't heard much after it was revealed.

From what I'm reading and hearing of the three F-35 models A, B, and C the Marines F-35 B is the most expensive and the least capable. Does the F-35 B even have a tail hook ?

 

The F-35 is a better interceptor without a doubt. If you are referring strictly to battle capabilities, then sure, the thunderbolt is a multi-role fighter and the F-35 is not. The F-35 is created for the sole purpose of controlling the skies, while the thunderbolt was created for CAS and strategic bombardment

 

You are correct regarding the engine damaging the ship decks when set up for vertical flight. I suppose time will tell. The Marines have the first operational squadron and won't be afraid to test them in battle unlike the USAF which coddles their F-22s. The true test will be how the F-35B performs in combat. I certainly won't deny the system is rife with technical problems...however given it's complexity some issues are expected.

 

I never said that we need to keep using it indefenitely. I said that modernizing it is preferable to using the F35 which clearly can't do the job as well. What we need is a new plane altogether. As Apachecrat alluded to the A-1 was apparently better because it could be used on the carriers. While I admit that I love the A-10 as a plane I also love the P-51 Mustang but I am not going to advocate that we use that in combat today. The fact is that the A10 right now performs its job better than the F35. The F15 also performs its job better than the F35. they are completely different planes with different mission types and the F35 in its impossible quest to be the do it all of fighters has ended up falling short of current gen fighters. At least we have the F-22 as a stopgap for the F15 we don't have anything for the A10 and we could have had somthing had they not focused so much time and money on this boondoggle instead.

 

Lots of aircraft have performed CAS in Afghanistan. F/A-18, B-1B, AH-64, AH-1, B-52, AC-130, MQ-1, F-16, F-15 and of course the A-10.

Ultimately these are just platforms for weapon systems, each with it's own advantages and disadvantages. The A-10 might be the best in specific situations but it's not the best in all situations. A B-1B, for example, can get on station and deliver a payload of precision guided ordnance much faster than an A-10...it lacks the big gatling gun and ability to fly low and slow,....but the A-10 lacks the ability to carry as big of a payload as the B-1B and is much slower.

As soon as another low and slow armored aircraft like the A-10 is designed and built, I've no doubt there will be a counter to it in the form of advanced surface-to-air missiles. Even the F-117 proved to be vulnerable after a stellar job done during the first Gulf war.

The other low and slow CAS platform is the AC-130 and it must operate at night or risk being shot out of the sky. The future of CAS is stand off...air defense is too advanced to take on a ground target approaching low and slow...at least in broad daylight.

 

I agree. Controlling the skies can win wars, but with the advancement of Anti-Air technology the way we fight in the sky is constantly evolving. There are still ways for aerial vehicles to go on the offensive even when going up against Anti-Air weaponry. It requires teamwork between UAV's, Attack Helicopters, and Bombers/CAS. A squadron of trained pilots can overcome almost any obstacle under the right command and by using the correct air doctrines.

 

Your kind of making my point. You need different types of planes for different situations. They tried to shoe horn the F35 into filling a variety of roles and in the process turned it into a ridiculously expensive jack of all trades.

The future of CAS is drones.

 

The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter. I disagree that drones are the future of CAS. Drones are effective at taking down an individual strategic target, but that is about it. That is if they do not get shot down. Good luck supporting men on the ground in a high intensity tactical situation with drones.

It is much easier for a lighter UAV to mark air defenses and targets for the helicopters. The future of CAS is in the helicopter by the way. Find a way to mark the locations of infantry, tanks, and air defenses for a squadron of Apache's and you will have control of the battlefield in no time. An infantry squad is trying to reinforce the enemy? Gravitate the rotary and have the gunner rain down a hail of bullets! Tanks on the ground posing a threat to advancing troops? Shooting fish in a barrel using new heat seeking misses! AA guns posing a risk to pilots? Blitz them with a well coordinated Apache airstrike!

It is true that the time of complete air supremacy is over. There will be casualties using an airforce on any offensive, but they have not lost the power to vastly impact the course of a battle.

 

Can people stop comparing the A-10 and the F-35 as if they are in the same aerial class? The F-35 is designed exclusively as an interceptor. The A-10 is designed exclusively for close air support. They have different functions. If you are trying to crater a fortified runway, an F-35 squadron will be destroyed without air to ground support , and a Thunderbolt squadron will be destroyed without supporting interceptors

 

Uh......yes it is in fact designed as a multirole fighter.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35.html

You also completely ignored the article. The complaints in the article are specifically about replacing the A10 with the F35. They are in fact trying to stick the F35 into multirole missions.

Ask the Russians how helicopters worked out for them. Helicopters are even more susceptible to AA weaponry than planes. Drones are in fact the future because they can fly high enough to avoid observation from most ground forces, they are stealthy enough or can be designed stealthy enough to avoid radar and they can remain in the battlesphere for several hours.

The Apache is not stealthy by any conceivable standard. Helicopters have also been shot down over Iraq and Afghanistan and are vulnerable to surface to air missles and other ground launched ordinance. The helicopter is NOT the future.

 

Next to a more bleeding edge Linux distro, e.g. Fedora, Windows 7 is indeed obsolete. So is Windows 8.1 by that standard.

 

Isn't this all a little moot, as most planes will be unmanned fairly soon?

 

If you like the P-51 Mustang you might like the P-51 being upgraded to be a close air support aircraft on the modern battlefield, the Piper PA-48. I remember when this aircraft first appeared, it was suppose to be a tank destroyer in the European battlefield. At the time it was said the Air Force didn't want a tail dragger. A lot of politics were involved.

 

I never understood why people dismiss turboprops outright. I watch Redbull racing and they are capable of maneuvers that a jet could never pull off, especially in regards to tight turn radii. There is still the issue of being susceptible to ground to air fire which is why I see drones becoming more prominent.

 

I remember back in the mid and late 1960's you still saw WW ll Jeeps that were sold as surplus. Most were Willey's and a few were manufactured by Ford. What I noticed all still had the original tires on them after over twenty years and with a 1/4 of million miles on them.

Back then on passenger cars you were alwways getting flats and buying new tires every year or two. I asked why don't they put a WW ll military grade tires on today's Fords, Chevy's, Studebaker's, Plymouth's, etc. ? If they did, the tire companies would go out of business.

During WW ll the defense contractors were handed a blank check and only the best would be excepted by the military. It was 100% quality that mattered.

Microsoft, Apple keep coming up with unnecessary bull crap, garbage that people don't need to keep you buying technology that you really don't need.

When was the last time if ever have you used your PC or laptop for what it was designed for ?

When was the last time you used those numeral keys on the right side of your keypad to calculate ?

When was the last time you used a computer to compute ?

They could manufacture a hard drive that could last for fifty years but they wont.

Most people use their computers for just surfing the web and business use them for producing spread sheets and keeping files that smart people back everything up on paper.

I know some engineers and scientist that have PC's, laptops that can actually compute and it's not the kind of laptop you buy at Best Buy.

A few years ago I crossed paths with an old flame and her boyfriend. She tells everyone while looking at me that her boyfriend flies a 757. I looked at her and told her my son flies a FA-18. That burst her bubble.

Then I looked at her boyfriend and told him, "No offense but you don't fly a 757, a computer is flying that 757. Now when I'm flying that old Cessna 172, I'm actually flying it."

 

I never dismissed the turboprops. They are more fuel efficient and which gives them more range. The C-130's and the P-3's (Lockheed Electra's) are all turboprop. Both will serve our country longer than any turbofan jets will. Both the C-130 and P-3 are from the 1950's.

I'm pretty sure that the UH-1 Huey was the first military helicopter that had a turbo shaft engine. Today all helicopter are turbo shaft.

 

I wouldn't be to sure about that. Just mentioned last week, there maybe a international legal issue with unmanned aircraft that carry weapons.

Also it's to easy to defeat UAV's with electronic warfare.

 

The problem here is that you are trying to compare 2 very different aircraft.

The A-10 is a specialized aircraft, designed to primarily do a single role, and it does that excellently.

The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft. Immediately the phrase comes to mind "Jack of all trades - master of none".

If you are talking about air to mud, then yes. No aircraft is going to surpass the A-10 in that role, because that is what it is designed to do.

However, on the other hand, the A-10 is pretty much an unarmed target when faced against aircraft with an air to air capability. In this role the F-35 is vastly superior to the A-10.

You have to realize, I am a fan of both the F-35 and the A-10. I believe in having specialty aircraft to do their specific roles (air to mud, air to air, bombing, etc) as well as multi-role to fill in during the occasions the specialty ones are not available or not realistic for the mission. And expecially for the Navy and Marines (not so much the Air Force), the F-35 will be a great aircraft, allowing the Corps to ditch their 40+ year old VSTOL Harrier.

However, I really do not understand why the AF got into it, other then the need to help justify that the Navy and Marines finally got a new airplane. I really don't understand the need for the AF version of the F-35. That one does seem redundant.

 

Hell, even Iran has been able to bring down our UAVs.

What does anybody in here think Russia or China woulod be able to do?

All to many Technology Wonks praise to the sun-moon and stars the latest technological development, and proclaim that it would be the wave of the future, and the old way of doing things would be obsolete. They said that with the Rocket, that it would replace artillery. And that the Macine Gun would make infantry obsolete. And man portable rockets would make tanks obsolete.

Or even that the Atomic Bomb would make wars obsolete, or that Airborne would be the way wars would be fought in the future.

Anybody who really studies military technology and history sees thousands of examples such as that. Some new technology would render the military as it was known obsolete. And 9 times out of 10 it changed little to nothing, and the ones most praised ended up rapidly being discarded as a failure (Airborne comes immediately to mind).

At the start of WWII, many predicted that Airborne was the wave of the future. Infantry being dropped anywhere it was needed, even behind enemy lines. This was shown to be a failure in 2 different engagements, Operation Market Garden and Operation Mercury. And those lessons were ignored by the French, and the final nail in the coffin was driven in at &#272;i&#7879;n Biên Ph&#7911;.

 

I'm just going to take a wild guess why the USAF had adopted the F-35 A. Not an opinion or fact but I'm just guessing. EXPORTS.

Many of the worlds air forces refuse to buy an American made fighter or any aircraft unless those aircraft are being flown by the air force where the aircraft are being manufactured.

I'm thinking of Northrop's F-5 Freedom Fighter. The USAF had no reason to purchase and fly the F-5, they didn't need them but they did buy a small number of them and they did see action with the USAF in Vietnam.

I grew up in the South Bay of L.A. County where you had Douglas, North American Aviation, Hughes, Northrop, Air Research, TRW, etc. and the Los Angeles Air Force Station and a large percentage of the people who lived in the South Bay worked for these aviation companies and many of them every week got "Aviation Weekly" in the mail every week and every week I would read the magazine. I seem to remember reading that the only reason the USAF purchased the F-5 was so foreign air forces would also purchase and fly the F-5.

Some years later Northrop decided to build an upgraded version of the F-5, the F-20 Tigershark. U.S. Air Force test pilots said that the F-20 was an excellent fighter but this was around when the Air Force decided to go high end, low end. High end being the F-15 and the low end being the F-16. The USAF didn't need to be flying two different low end fighters. The USAF didn't buy any F-20's and neither did any other country. If the USAF would have flown the F-20, so would have other countries air forces.

There are a number of countries who are on board with the F-35 but how many are purchasing the Navy's F-35 C or the Marines F-35 B ? I believe most will be going with the USAF F-35 A which is the cheapest of the three models of the F-35.

I could be wrong.