Makes one wonder. All of this technology and so-called capabilities and, let's say it is finally cleared for full combat roles who soon will be become obsolete? The story is @ http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/16/f-35-weapons-suite/
The F-35 needs to be canceled. We should have bought the much cheaper Silent Eagle and upgraded our F-16 fleet. We also needed to upgrade the entire A-10 fleet to the C model. The F-35 will be asked to do everything and it will do none of it well.
It will get there. More important than the plane itself is the research and modeling going on under it's budget. All that money isn't going just for the plane itself.
Yea, that would work really well on carriers or amphibious boats however. It always amazes me that so many people stupidly forget that the F-35 (with it's 3 versions) is to serve in multiple roles, not just to replace Air Force Fighters. Upgrade the F-16 fleet, fine. That does not do a damned thing however for the Navy's F-18s, or the Marine Corps Vietnam era Harriers.
The entire A-10 fleet has been PE (Precision Engagement) modified, and carries the A-10C designation. Active force, 187 Reserve, 49 ANG, 107 The DoD wants it gone, and it will be gone. They can't afford single mission aircraft, and under the best of circumstances the A-10 would only last to 2030. Whether people like it or not the F-35 is the multi-mission platform of the future. The point of no return in the investment has been reached.
They have to "afford single mission aircraft". Look, I am a big supporter of all-mission aircraft, but there is also a saying: Jack of all trades, master of none. We need all mission, but we also need specialized. Look, you can throw guns and rocket pods onto a Blackhawk, and have them do both strike and personnel delivery missions. They are then all mission. But does that really make them replacements for the AH-64? We can also throw weapons onto the Osprey, CH-46 and CH-53 craft of the Marines, does that mean they can then dump the AH-1 Sea Cobra? We can throw bombs and even missiles onto our cargo aircraft. Heck, we have even launched ICBMs from our cargo aircraft, does that mean we can dump the bombers to save money by abandoning bombers? And if all mission is so awesome, why are we still working on the Raptor? After all, if the F-35 can really do "all missions", why do we need an intercept fighter? If asked if the majority of our aircraft should be all mission, I would unquestionably say yes. But that does not mean that mission specific aircraft are no longer needed. We still have need for dedicated CAS aircraft, and that need has to be met. Otherwise we might as well just junk 2/3 of the inventory of all equipment that the military uses and only go with multi-role. Yea, every grunt has a "Machine Gun" when they go to the field, so let's just abandon the M-240 and M-249. Waste of money to have a dedicated machine gun in every fire team when every soldier and Marine already has one in their M-16 family weapon, is it not?
During Operation Instant Thunder I saw an A-10 parked in a maintenance bay that had one of it's engine nacelles completely blown off, leaving what was left of a mangled turbo-fan engine dangling in the breeze. The left tail rudder was a stub, there were shrapnel holes in the fuselage you could fit a basketball through. The pilot still managed to return to base, when any other aircraft would have been a smoking hole in the ground. I find it difficult to believe an F-35 could survive a direct hit by a surface-to-air missile and remain airworthy. You don't have to sell me on the A-10s value. It has given the most bang for the least buck of any weapons platform in the history of the U.S. Air Force . It is a $14 million legend. It's going to be retired, there's no way to save it and simultaneously keep the F-35, the KC-46 (tanker) and have enough budget left over to begin working on a B-52 replacement.
To be honest, a B-52 replacement makes me wonder. We have at this time 3 heavy bombers in our inventory. Why? Well, the answer is that the politicians keep cancelling and cutting back programs before they are ever able to achieve their goal. The B-1 was supposed to largely replace the BUFF. Then the B-2 was to replace the penetration missions of the Lancer. But neither the Lancer or Spirit were built in enough numbers to do all of those missions, so we still have real artifacts like the B-52, which are generally on par with the age of the grandfathers of most of their crewmembers. I mean, think about it! The youngest B-52 is over 52 years old! People often think I am kidding when I talk about the antiquity of much of our equipment, but that is a great example. Of course, I am also aware that a great many politicians really do not give a damn about the lives of those in uniform. Simply the fact that the US military is required to operate with such antiquated equipment where no commercial organization is forced to do so says wonders. I have a plan. A new Federal Regulation. We all know that politician pay capping out at military pay will never fly, so how about this. The USAF no longer buys any new VIP aircraft, the SecState and all his or her minions flies the same C-130/135/5 that we all fly. No more limos, they keep their current limo for the next 25 years (the M998 I operate was made in 198. Most of the equipment I have seen and worked with is well over 25 years old, how many civilian companies work with stuff that old? FedEx? UPS? Mayflower Moving? U-Haul? Nope, they replace their fleets regularly, but the military patches things together for decades because they have no choice. Then people want to whine and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) because "The MIC" they claim is ordering us to replace equipment that is older then their parents.
Yes, we have KC-135 tankers flying missions today that were manufactured over 50 years ago. They've been given new engines and other updates, but it is basically a 50 year old airplane. Although the mission itself does not overly stress the airframe the way a combat aircraft is stressed, how many automobiles are on the road today that were built 50 years ago and used as daily drivers? The unsung heroes in all of this are the maintainers. The vast majority of aircraft they are wrenching on today were manufactured before they were born.
I would love to take some of the MIC whiners in here and take them through my old motorpool. The newest launcher in the entire Battalion dated to the Second Reagan Administration (most dated to the First). Almost every HMMWV dated to the Bush Administration (and I am talking Bush 41, not Bush 43). When I got there they were actually finally retiring their old wrecker, which dated to the Ford Administration. The one lowboy trailer in the unit dated to the Kennedy Administration. I loved shocking the boots when I would give them their first tour of the motor pool, simply by having them look at the manufacture dates on the ID plates on every vehicle. Most just could not believe that our vehicles were older then they were.
Every once in a while, I see reports of military actions with equipment that was in use when I retired in 1980!!!
In the civilian world like in Silicon Valley and now in the military community, if it works, it must be obsolete.
