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

The future of all combat aircraft is drones.

 

Yea, come back in another 10-15 years and try to tell me that, ok?

Heck, with all of the issues with drones right now, they might well be returning to recon use primarily because of the friendly fire and noncombatant casualties. Piloting by remote control like a video game will never replace pilots in the cockpit with actual eyes on the ground.

 

WE know what the A - 10 Warthog does. It does ground support among other low altitude functions.

What does the F - 35 do ? Too much! And how much of it is really as good as what it replaces.
I grant you aerial, plane to plane combat, maybe - prove it.

The Sufferings of the F - 35 reminds me of the McNamara era when he was Secretary of War, oops Defense.
And he decided the Navy, Marines, Air Force etc. all had to purchase the same kind of hardware with minor modifications like for air craft carrier duty.
As I remember there was a generation of military hardware no one really "liked".
Generic, all purpose designs should be abandoned. I can't think of when they ever worked as well as military hardware designed with purpose.


Moi

r > g

View attachment 34935 ​

 

McNamara and his pride and joy the Ford Edsel.

It was McNamara who forced the M-16 upon the Army and Marine Corps that they didn't want, only Air Force General Curtis LeMay wanted the M-16 to replace the M-1 and M-2 carbines. Maybe the M-14 was to much of a rifle for airmen to handle ?

Yep, McNamara was the one who took away the Marines famous sage green cotton herringbone utilities and were forced to adopt the Army's sateen olive drab fatigues. But McNamara no matter how hard he tried, the Marines would still call them utilities. Even today when a soldier, Marine or an airmen is in dress uniform and he looks at those black leather shoes, those are navy oxfords that McNamara forced upon all of the service. Just to (*)(*)(*)(*) with the "Brown Shoe Navy" (Naval Aviators) they also had to wear the black navy oxford.

But the only naval aircraft that the Air Force was forced to fly was the A-7 Corsair ll. But it had more to do with the Army going to McNamara complaining about the Air Force (*)(*)(*)(*) poor close air support, that the Air Force F-100's, F-105's and F-4's were just to fast to get it right when conducting CAS missions.

The Air Force doesn't want to be in the CAS mission, they just want to get in dog fights and shoot down enemy fighters and drop bombs from 30,000 feet, the higher the better.

As for the Navy's F-4 Phantom, the Air Force wanted the F-4 badly from the beginning.

 

May I ask, what platform is that?

The only one that sounds even close to that is the F-4 Phantom II. That aircraft was designed and built for the Navy, but the Marines and Air Force also adopted it. And while it is mostly known for it's Vietnam service (under MacNamara), it was actually an Eisenhower era program. The Air Force called theirs the F-110 Spectre.

So what aircraft are you talking about? It is actually pretty rare for a Navy aircraft to be used by the Air Force (and also the reverse). The demands of each is so different that they are rarely compatible (the Marines do not count, since they are essentially Naval Pilots as well, and their aircraft almost all have to have carrier capabilities as well).

 

The M-14 was always designed to be an interium rifle, updating the M-1 to selective fire (including full automatic and removeable magazine) while the replacement 5.56mm weapon was developed.

The decision to dump 7.62 for 5.56mm was primarily a decision made by NATO. And to comply with the agreements with the US and NATO, the standard battlefield weapon had to be 5.56 for ammunition standardization. The AF, JCS, and Kennedy-Johnson White House really had nothing to do with that. If you want to compplain about that, look to those in NATO which made that decision.

 

I don't know Mushroom, back during the 50's and 60's what ever the USA said, NATO had to follow. The Brits had to go from the .303 to the 7.62. When West Germany was allowed to join NATO they were armed with 8 MM Mausers. The French had no choice they were armed with American 30-06 M-1 after the war.

But for logistical reasons all NATO members had to adopt the same stander cartridge and the USA said it would be the 7.62. But as soon as NATO switched over to the 7.62 you had the FN-FAL's and the G-3's all chambered for the 7.62 the USA changed it's mind, NATO would adopt the 5.56. You had a lot of unhappy campers in NATO.

Eventually the European NATO members said enough of this bull (*)(*)(*)(*). Remember when NATO was suppose to develop one main battle tank to be used by all NATO members ? Everyone was on board with the USA leading the way. The USA and Germany being the ones who would develop the MBT. But there was one problem, Europe was on the metric system while the USA wasn't. Were metric bolts screws and nuts to be used or SAE ? Europe wouldn't budge, it was going to be metric. The USA wasn't going to budge, it was going to be SAE.

It was around the same time when some were trying to convince America to convert to the metric system. Going from road sings saying maximum speed 65 MPH to 100 KPH. Some say it was all a move to save the NATO MBT project. America rejected the metric system. Could you see yourself going to the lumber yard and there were no longer any 2X4's but a 5X10 ?

 

I concede a point: what about to make A-10 stealth?

Great question ...

Little answer: it wouldn't be "multirole" ...

 

The move to the intermediate cartridge was largely moved by Belgium and FN, which was already working on the 7mm platform. And a great many nations were also moving towards this, even the US. The 5.56mm was picked because it was a modification of the already existing .223 cartridge, so it was a good starting point.

You just do not like 5.56mm, I see nothing wrong with it. A grunt can carry more ammunition for it, in larger magazines. Why you keep bringing up decades old arguments that really do not apply simply because you seem to hate anything other then 7.62mm. I myself like being able to carry 180+ rounds with ease and being albe to fire 30 before reloading, something I can not do if we still used 7.62mm as our standard. And in most instances the ranges we engage in simply does not justify the extra range.

If I need to engage a target at longer ranges, then I cal for a M-240, M-2, or some other big gun (if not a mortar or artillery). Grunts engaging targets at ranges greater then 500 meters is simply not effective because of the larger amounts of ammunition spent, and they also can barely hit targets at that range.

There would be no point.

The idea of the A-10 is mostly that it operates in areas where air superiority has already been achieved. It is to slow to outrun fighters, and it flies so low that most surface to air missiles can't touch it (like helicopters it is intended to fly below the engagement range of anti-air missiles). The only real threat to it is MANPAD, and those are countered by other means (flares-chaff) as well as making the aircraft very durable and able to take huge amounts of damage.

Stealth is primarily for use against air to air aircraft, or longer range surface to air missiles.

 

BTW: Do you subscribe to Sgt. Grits grunt.com news letter that comes out every Wednesday evening ?

Did you see that photo of the Marine in the Nam with the 40 round M-14 magazine ?

http://www.grunt.com/corps/uploads/stories/40roundmaghilton.jpg

Is Larry the next Stoner ?

You know that I don't like to use Wikipedia as being a reliable source unless I go to the "Talk Page" of the topic.

I'll just provide a short opening excerpt from the topic page and then I'm going to do what everyone should do when using Wikipedia, going to the Talk Page.

From the talk page:

Excerpts:

Possible inaccurate statement?
I was looking over a recent change to this article and came across the following passage: "During the 1970s, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62 mm NATO. Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56 mm was successful, but not the 5.56 mm loading (3.56 g (55 gr), M193 Ball) as used by the U.S. at that time. The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)[5] and many countries (Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Romania, Samoa, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.)[6] considered the 5.56x45mm cartridge to be inhumane.[7][8]" Now this seems a little odd for a few reasons. Firstly, when this cartridge was introduced, Latvia and Lithuania were under the control of the USSR, so they would obviously not be in a position to make official statements on military matters (comparable to if say, California or Texas were to call the Soviet 7.62x39mm inhumane). Also, Slovenia was not sovereign in this timeframe either, being part of SFRY until 1991. Austria trikes me as surprising as well, as they were one of the earlier countries to adopt 5.56mm weapons in the late '70s (in the form of the Steyr AUG), however, I don't know if the cartridges they originally used were M855 or another version. Sweden on the other hand, is the only one I have read about that expressed such a grievance. I was going to check the sources however, all are print sources, so I was not able to verify the validity of the statement. Could someone else perhaps elaborate further? Thank you.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)...



Nitpick
Once again engaging in nitpicking, the title of this article should be should read cartridge rather than caliber and even that would not be technically correct. Ideally, it should be titled "5.56mm NATO", which designates the specific cartridge. Caliber is a measurement of bore diameter, not a specific round designation. 5.56 mm or .224 inches includes a vast number of cartridges, a very abbreviated list of which would include the .218 Bee; .219 Zipper; .222 Remington; .22-250; and .220 Swift. hipshot49


Relationship to .223 Remington
I am curious as to why the 5.56 NATO is described as being "similar to" the .223 Remington. Isn't it identical, if not perhaps a sentence on the difference would be good since at the moment .223 Remington redirects here. Rkundalini 23:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is important to remember that the .223 Remington came first, albeit not for commercial civilian sales. --D.E. Watters 21:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
More importantly, the .223 Remington design specifications do not allow for as high of operating pressures as the 5.56 NATO specifications do. That's why firing a .223 in a 5.56 gun is safe but firing a 5.56 in a .223 gun is not always safe, unless the .223 gun's chamber was over-built. See [1]. Ari 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute maximum allowable pressure for the .223 Rermington cartridge is 55,000 PSI. This is also the highest listed pressure for any reload in Richard Lee's Modern Reloading, Second Edition. N.B., not all loadings list pressure due to the differences in contributor's permissions. And not every load approaches this maximum pressure because of statistical distributions. The listed pressures are the averages. Loads with greater standards of deviation are typically loaded to lower average pressure to assure safety.
According to TM 43-0001-27, the chamber pressure for NATO M855 is 55,000 PSI. For M193 (which is not a NATO standard), the chamber pressure is 52,000 PSI.
The difference is not primarily in the chamber but in the throat or leade where the bullet seats into and is engraved by the rifling. 5.56 NATO chambers have a significantly longer length of leade, meaning the bullet travels further before engraving in the 5.56. Because the bullet moves further before engraving, the combustion chamber volume is greater, leading to additional lowering of pressure. This is why 5.56 can be loaded with more propellent.


"Varmint gun" is gun-specific jargon!
OK, who keeps changing it back to "vermin gun"??? Stiletto Null
It's American English specific gun jargon,
a) think about non-US readers.
b) don't use jargon if you can aviod doing so. GraemeLeggett 15:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Graeme entirely. Totally US, probably even Southern US specific, and jargon limited to gun-using circles. --Kiand 16:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure the jargon is that avoidable. Most of the gun articles contain gun-specific jargon. "Vermin" does not mean the same thing. I'll see if I can't work out some compromise wording and try that. Perhaps if we had an article on "varmint hunting" this would help, and we could link there for explanation. Friday 17:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Vermin Gun means basically the same thing, and avoids jargon that 90% of the world isn't going to understand. --Kiand 17:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I just googled on "vermin gun". I got only a couple dozen results. (compare to 3000+ for "varmint gun".) It does not look to me like it means the same thing. Do you have a good definition for it somewhere? Friday 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Not to say "I told you so", but that's just how it is. "Varmint gun" is on the level of technical jargon, and if you want to get into semantics, "varmint" is more appropriate than "vermin" anyway, because vermin (generally meaning mice and rats) can be easily dispatched with any firearm. There isn't any point to designing and marketing "vermin guns" because the need is already covered by any variety of .22LR rifles and handguns. Varmint guns fill in the gap between .22LR firearms and small game rifles. Stiletto Null 02:57:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
Vermin guns are not the same as Varmint guns. Vermin are typically mice or rats and can be dispatched with just about any firearm, generally .22lr is used. Varmints are larger (prairie dogs to coyotes) and are usually considered agricultural nuisances. (Jeff the Baptist 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
Wisdom follows, pay attention! The primary difference between varmint and vermin firearm is NOT the type of target game! What has big significance is the distance to the target. Varminter rifles are made for kind of "sniping" activity, firing at rather smallish targets like coyotes, from up to 300 meters distance with .243 barrel or the like. Vermin, like rats are usually shot at room distance, often with airguns or 22LR. Therefore, varmint firearms are mini-sniper rifles and this necessitates a precise construction and should not be confused with vermin dispatchers!


Lead vs. Leade
For the ignorant, "lead" does not mean the same thing as "leade." The latter is correct as used in this article and very appropriate to the discussion of this particluar cartridge as leade is important to wild pressure variations in rifles with divergent leade standards. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


increasingly shorter ranges
This phrasing is problematic: "lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an issue at increasingly shorter ranges (beyond 45m when using an M4 or 140m when using an M16 w/ a 20" barrel)"
It reads as contradictory and is confusing. Is wounding a problem at increasing ranges or shorter ranges? I have heard that overpenetration is an issue, which would argue that short range wounding is compromised, but the lack of wounding when penetrating thick clothing implies the opposite.
Perhaps "lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range decreases (e.g., ranges under 45m when using an M4 or 140m when using an M16 w/ a 20" barrel)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.96.226 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this is referring to the fragmentation threshold. Fragmentation is usually assumed to only occur above a certain velocity. Shorter barrels mean lower muzzle velocities, so the distance traveled by the bullet before it falls below the fragmentation velocity will be shorter. Thus, you have "increasingly shorter" ranges. It could be worded better. What's key is that the problematic range is indeed >=, not <=, some certain number, as a bullet below the fragmentation velocity will obviously never go back above it during the rest of its flight. --65.47.204.98 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


5.56 mm NATO versus 0.223 Remington
The mini 14 is marked ".223 cal" not ".223 remington" the mini14 has always been able to shoot 5.56 and in the manual it says ". &#8212;Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp21010 (talk &#8226; contribs) 13:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC) "Some commercial rifles marked as ".223 Remington" are in fact suited for 5.56 mm NATO, such as many commercial AR-15 variants and the Ruger Mini-14, but the manufacturer should always be consulted to verify that this is acceptable before attempting it, and signs of excessive pressure (such as flattening or gas staining of the primers) should be looked for in the initial testing with 5.56 mm NATO ammunition" &#8212;Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp21010 (talk &#8226; contribs) 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The manual states this:
"AMMUNITION (580 series mini14 and above)
The RUGER® MINI-14® RANCH RIFLES are chambered for the .223
Remington (5.56mm) cartridge. The Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is designed to use either
standardized U.S. military, OR factory loaded sporting .223 (5.56mm) cartridges
manufactured in accordance with U.S. industry practice."
The 180 series Mini 14 States this:
" The Mini14 is designed to use EITHER U.S. Military, Commercial sporting, Or Other .223(5.56mm) caliber ammunition manufactured to U.S. industry standards."
Here are the .pdfs for the 580 series and 180 series mini14s listed above for verification: 180 series: [6] 580 series: [7]
I have a 580 series rifle and I can assure you it is marked .223 cal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5.56×45mm_NATO

 

Clear, there was a bit of irony in that post ... the OP seems to focus the comparison of F35 with existing air units in particular on A-10 planes. And only in a context [battlefield combat]. F35 has been thought to be a multirole platform and it cannot be the best solution available for all [it's multirole ...].

 

Which is why I consistantly call any multi-role platform a "Jack of all trades - master of none".

Such a piece of equipment, be it a ship, an aircraft, a tank, or anything will always be a compromise between the ability to perform multiple missions, and excelling in a single role. And I have long felt there is a need for both, multi-role and specialty equipment. The possession of one does not eliminate the need of the other.

 

And this is why minor powers like Italy, UK and similar [excluding France: because of national interest in aviation industry, they still prefer specialization with their Rafale], with limited capabilities to project power, need such a "jolly". It's a mere operative matter. We cannot deploy enough carriers, just 2, and they are not CATOBAR, so F35B are the future of Italian Navy air fleet, no way.

 

Well, the Naval capabilities of other nations is really something else to be honest. And in my opinion the UK is insane in that aspect, that would be a completely different topic.

 

Oh well, the British plan about two giant CATOBAR carriers [which seems is going to be reduced to more sustainable VSTOL carriers, but it's not sure] sounds actually excessive [to eventually retake Folklands in case of further Argentinian invasion, one never knows ...]

 

What is insane is that they have now built 2 carriers that are almost the size of the Nimitz class, but only capable of using VSTOL aircraft. That is what is insane to me.

And not only that, they currently have no aircraft to operate off of them! Even knowing the F-35 was being delayed, they decided to retire all of their Harriers, leaving them in the same situation as the Chinese. A nice shiny aircraft carrier, with no aircraft.

Sorry, I just do not get that logic. If you are going to build a ship in the "Super Carrier" range, you make it a CATOBAR (and nuclear powered). If you only intend to launch VSTOL, you make a much smaller carrier (say in the range of the America class LHA) more appropriate to the aircraft capable of being launched from it.

Right now the UK could not take back the Malvinas-Falklands even if they wanted to. They have no aircraft capable of operating from their carriers (or even with their stop-gap of last time, converting cargo ships to carriers). If Argentina decided to try again, all they could do is sit back and watch, and maybe plan on a counter-invasion sometime around 2020.

That is because the UK currently has no operational carriers, and no aircraft capable of operating from carriers. 2 of the 3 Incincible class carriers have been scrapped (and the third is in mothballs), and no aircraft capable of operating from it even if they tried to reactivate it (the AV8B has also been scrapped, not enough F-35s are in service yet, and the pilots have no experience in operating from carriers with them, their last carrier is in mothballs after all.

 

Odd it's odd. Anyway I remember I heard about government decisions connected with British naval industry. It was a matter of planning and timing. The original project [as for I know, and this is curious] was STOVL and to make them CATOBAR it took too much time and additional costs.

Anyway, pay attention that, as for I know, UK is going to keep only one unit, they seem to have the intention to sell one [I cannot guess to which power, but I've got a suspect about an Asian country which has already bought old UK carriers ...].

A part this, in Italy we still keep Harrier units in service [on Cavour and Garibaldi], just because without F35B, also our carriers risk to have to go to a battle theater carrying ... helicopters! [!!]

 

Yea, the same as the UK. Helicopters for AWAC capabilities, they have no AWAC airplane capable of working on their carriers. And I think I read at one time that they plan on refueling their fighters the same way, from helicopters.

The US also uses helicopters on their carriers, but only for moving equipment and personnel around, SAR (Search and Rescue) and ASW (Anti-submarine Warfare) purposes. They are not used for things like RADAR coverage or any tactical roles in support of the aircraft (they only operate to protect the ship itself). And I myself do not have a problem with a carrier that only operates VSTOL aircraft, just when a major nation thinks that only 1 or 2 of those is all that they need.

The United Kingdom is really the only other "World Power" when it comes to the number of territories it needs to protect. The US is one, with possessions ranging from Alaska and Hawaii to Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa, and other Pacific territories. The UK has more, from the Carribean and Canada to Australia and New Zealand. If I was a member of the Commonwealth, I might be getting nervous right now, knowing that the Commonwealth could do little to send me aid in the event that help was needed (military or disaster relief).

To me, if the UK intended to go VSTOL only, then they should have built ships for that purpose. The America Class is roughly the same cost as the QE class, but it is not the same ship. It can carry about half the aircraft, but can operate more types because it does not have that "ski jump" on the end which limits the types of airplanes that can take off from it's deck. The America class also can carry almost a Regiment of Marines, and operate as an Amphibious Warfare ship in addition to it's "carrier duties".

It is also better defended. The QE only has PHALANX, .50 cal machine guns and 30mm cannons for defense. The America has PHALANX and the machine guns, but also Rolling Airframe missiles and Sea Sparrow missiles. Which makes it slighly less effective offensively (you do not send a carrier in to fight a surface engagement in the first place), but much more effective defensively.

As I said, I just don't get the reasoning of the UK. Neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring.

 

India, I believe. I thought that deal was already done in 2012? Are these two new deals? In any case, Asian countries are indeed heating up the market for naval units. Few countries there can afford carriers and keep them operational and maintained, though, outside of India and Japan. Well, Australia, but I don't consider it 'Asian'.

It will be interesting to see what the Japan-Korea bloc settles on in the coming couple of decades. Those two will have to get a lot closer. Their combined capacities would barely be adequate, but necessary.

 

Canada is part of Norad and Nato, so in reality we fall under the US umbrella for defense purpose not the commonwealth. Beside the Commonwealth is now mostly a senior club for old and dying royalist. It doesn't have a real purpose anymore.

 

Yes India, the central Asian giant has to face the improvement of Chinese Navy and so, after the introduction of nuclear submarines, they are going to upgrade their aged naval fleet with a new modern carrier [btw, I guess that this QE class carrier is related to the deal you mention, I'm not aware of more than 1 carrier going to be sold by UK to India].

 

Actually, I would not say that really.

Remember, the Commonwealth is mostly a form of self-defense treaty anymore. And quite a few of the smaller nations stay in not because of the Commonwealth, but in spite of it. They know they would not be able to protect themselves, so staying in gives them a large degree of defense for just a little independence.

Consider what happened yesterday. The Marshall Islands have been a free and independent nation for almost 30 years now (1986). Prior to that they were a US Trust Territory (1947-1986), A Japanese Possession, then German before that, and Spanish before the Germans. But being so small, they and other small Pacific Island nations (Micronesia and Palau) have entered agreements with the US. They basically deed over their military protection to the US as a form of protection. And they can even join the US Military (I served with a young lady from Micronesia just a few years ago). We get some small bases out of the deal, they get protection.

Yesterday Iran attacked and seized a ship flagged in the Marshall Islands, and has apparently done nothing about it. And apparently some spokeshole has said that the US had no obligation to defend the ship.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...-obligation-to-protect-marshall-islands-ships

Which means that it would not surprise me if the Marshall Islands pull from their agreement. And without US protection, they will no longer be a good choice as a Flag of Convienence so it will affect their economy as well if the US apparently has no obligation to protect them.

 

Not just exports - its about money. The F-35 is wildly expensive, to make it as "affordable" as possible means getting those sales numbers up as high as possible. The more roles the F-35 can fill, the broader the foreign and domestic market. I'm guessing that at some point, the F-35 bean counters looked at CAS, looked at the numbers of aircraft in the CAS niche, ran the cost numbers, and bumped up a memo along the lines of "If you can make the F-35 do CAS then the unit cost looks better". Voila! The F-35 can suddenly fill the CAS role. How well it fills that role is another issue.

 

Yeah, the F-35 is just the latest Pentagon boondoggle, but I wouldn't be depending on Martha for an objective analysis. Besides having been an A-10 pilot, her entire constituency wants an A-10 wing to remain stationed in Tucson.

 

You and all of our fellow keyboard commandos seem to believe that a person's objectivity is unquestionably compromised because of a person's affiliation with a given military platform.

With that skewed rationale, someone might be able to assail your judgment that Political Forum is one great online forum merely because you are a member.

As if your affiliation with PF couldn't possibly be BECAUSE IT IS a great online forum.

Can't it be true that the reason you post here is BECAUSE it is a great forum???

Yours is a stupid rationale, isn't it?