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

Interesting post.

To underscore the info you bring up, most of which I'd not before known, I'd heard that the foreign sales potential of the F-5 wasn't very promising because the decision makers in other Air Forces around the world reasoned that if the US military wasn't interested in flying it why should they fly it?

It only makes sense that the US military might try to make the plane more attractive to our allies by using some of them ourselves, even though the USAF wasn't really committed to it as they were the F-16 and other planes.

By the way, the F-5 IINM was the aggressor force aircraft used at Top Gun (Miramar) and most recognized in the film, Top Gun.

 

We don't even train or exercise with them anymore beside for Nato. Beside for the Commonwealth Games we don't even talk or hear about the bloody commonwealth anymore... Oh that and paying $$$ for the privilege of having a queen... Gawd I hope she kick the bucket soon...

We still buy their crappy subs that can't even cross the atlantic without bursting on fire, Damn Liberal party in Canada. We should've gone with the Germans like Israel did or better yet buy some of yours.

 

Canada would have considered the F-20 if it was still a twin engine like the F-5 but since it wasn't we've waited for the F-18 instead. We even kept the old Voodoo (CF-101) active a few more year because of that for ground support.

The F-35 will be the first Canadian single engine fighter since the old CF-104 was retired.

 

The F-101 / CF-101 was an interesting and very successful fighter. It had an unique history.

180 pages of comments by those who knew the aircraft, -> http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/mcdonnel_voodoo.php

 

Yes it was, they replaced the canadian made fighter the CF-100 "Canuck". The true successor of the CF-100 was supposed to be the CF-105 "Arrow", A mach 2 delta wing interceptor (in 1959!) but the program was cancelled under pressure from our neighbour to the south... hence the CF-101... Stupid politicians...

 

I'm not that familur with the CF-105. (Not to be confused with the Republic F-105.)
Interesting, politics destroys an aerospace company.

I went to the Wikepedia FC-105 talk page and learned something.

 

Is it possible the A10 could be redesigned to fly unmanned and become a drone? It might not be the best ground support aircraft any more but my GOD what a drone it would be

 

I never talked about mach 3... I said mach 2. The test flight clocked at 1.98. Of course our neighbour was gracious enough to sell us the F-104 with similar performances. A big 46% were lost in service...
We should have stay with Avro.

- - - Updated - - -

Why?

You can build a more aerodynamic and more fuel efficient and more maneuvrable drone than an upconvert A-10.

 

Of course it will. It will just take time. I live in a Navy town with a lot of people that work with airplanes. They've been saying that drones are the future for at least 10 years. I buy their viewpoints over armchair warriors any day.

 

I've never heard of any of the above in my 35 years of being a gun nut. I've always read that NATO was against the 5.56mm, and didn't want to change to it. Please show me references.

 

I know you didn't mention "Mach 3," Wiki did.

Lockheed's F-104.

46% lost ? That's worse than the West Germans Luftwaffe 30% loss of F-104's.

From the Aviastar comment section:

 

Again, not what I've read. I've always read that the 5.56mm was a modification of the already existing .222, which was enlarged slightly to make the .223, which became the 5.56mm NATO.

 

Like the Germans, we tried to use it as a fighter bomber, a role it wasn't designed for with its stubby wings, instead of an high altitude interceptor.

 

Here is a site with factual info on the development of the M16.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-history.htm

 

I'm old schooled. My opinion is;

If you want an interceptor you build an interceptor like the F-102

If you want an air superiority fighter, you build an air superiority fighter like the F-15 C and F-22.

If you want a fighter bomber, you build a fighter bomber. The F-4 Phantom was built as a interceptor but ended up doing it all, it wasn't excellent at anything but good at it all including as a fighter bomber.

If you want a deep strike all weather attack aircraft, you build a deep strike all weather attack aircraft like the A-6 and F-111.

If you want a CAS attack aircraft you build a CAS attack aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider and A-4 Skyhawk.

If you want a tank buster you build a tank buster like the Republic P-47 (WW ll) and the Republic A-10. When Republic built the A-10 they were looking back at the P-47 which was the tank buster during WW ll.

 

"Armchair Warrior"?

As an FYI, I am still in uniform. I have served under every President since Reagan, and am proudly still serving.

And my last MOS was Air Defense, so I have an interest and knowledge in this area as well.

So what you live in a "Navy Town". Even though I am in the Army now I actually live on an Air Force base.

 

My statement had almost nothing to do with military platforms and everything to do with McSally's district being home to an A-10 wing. Please try reading for comprehension next time around. Fail.

 

Thank you, that is pretty much what I've read and understood about it.

 

Ughhhhh....
Not sure if these ones are real or not,but DARPA was definitely working on A-10 based UAV. There won't be any problems converting it into a drone, I guess. Afterall, that works with F-4 perfectly well.

 

UAV's aren't suppose to be used for providing CAS. The biggest problem that pilots have when providing CAS they have to have both the target in view and also friendly troops in view.

 

That is when they use Type II CAS I guess.

 

UAV's (drone) work alone, just one UAV in the area. They are useless when you have a large area target like an enemy platoon, company or even a battalion in the open.
UAV's aren't capable of strafing a target with machinegun or cannon fire. They don't carry bombs like a 500 lb. but a Hellfire air to surface missile with a 20 lb. warhead.

It would take 45 UAV's each with two Hellfire missiles (90) to equal the tonnage of one naval 16" gun HE round. It would take 135 UAV's to equal the broadside of an Iowa class battleship.

In one hour an Iowa class BB can put more tonnage of ordnance on target than an entire carrier air wing can in 24 hours. And I don't think our pilots take those little go-go pills anymore.

 

I don't know about the USN, but the USAF referred/refers to them as "go" pills. The technical name is dextroamphetamine, and they are still in use despite being banned in 1992 by General McPeak. He argued you shouldn't need a pill to prepare yourself, and if you do you're in the wrong line of work. Many pilots still carry them as insurance against fatigue.

In the Gulf war many were getting addicted to them. Not so much a physical addiction, but certainly psychological. The problem is a combinatioin of a high ops tempo and chronic sleep loss. They had many aircrews set up in tents a few hundred yards from the flightline.
Jets and turboprops make a lot of noise,, and they operate day and night. You sleep in increments of 45 minutes to an hour before being jolted awake. Once you have to get up, you pop a go pill or two and it gets the heart pumping to compensate for the near constant state of tiredness. You can only sign up to receive six at a time, so they do keep track.

I personally never took them after one use and developing heart palpitations. A combination of Mountain Dew, chocolate brownies and go pills is not so good I found out

In fairness to those combat pilots, a sortie lasting 7 or 8 hours can be fatiguing even with a good night's sleep under your belt.

 

I remember Navy Corpsman in Vietnam use to have some black capsules that contained some kind of amphetamine. Sleep deprivation was the norm and if you got ten minutes to shut your eye's you didn't want some drug preventing you to getting ten minutes of sleep. You had to be pretty tight with the corpsman to get them. You didn't want an entire rifle squad paranoid and grinding their teeth while on uppers.

Many a nights you prey that you didn't fall asleep while on the perimeter watch or while on an ambush at night. For some reason Charley always liked to fight between a little after midnight to just before dawn.

 

Never had to go through any of that, and God bless you for it. The average Vietnam war combat veteran saw 240 days of combat in their one tour of duty. It is amazing guys like you can put that sort of experience behind you and carry on. Anyway, sorry for going off topic.