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

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by APACHERAT, Apr 22, 2015.

  1. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First Version of F-35s (aka Brewster F-2A Buffalo)Won't Outdo A-10 in Battlefield Capabilities


    What's the Brewster F-2A Buffalo connection to the F-35 ?

    This is the Brewster F-2A -> http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/brewster_buffalo.php

    Connection -> http://news.usni.org/2014/05/14/can-chinas-new-destroyer-find-u-s-stealth-fighters

    Excerpt from comments:
     
  2. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Loiter time - I'd imagine it could stay up so long as its got enough fuel and bomb's. Perhaps his calculations are for internal fuel only and no aerial refuelling.... is the reporting unbiased, because it sounds bent to push an agenda?
     
  3. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The F-35 a miserable, expensive flop all around, isn't it? No one should be talking about having this pile of junk replace any existing plane, including the wonderful A-10.

    I see no reason not to keep the A-10 up to date internally but retain the basic design that has worked so well for so long. If it could be further refined, then do it, but don't try to replace that plan with the stupid F-35. I'm thinking Lockheed is just desperate to sell the thing and some morons buy into their sales pitches, probably in exchange for $$$$.
     
  4. whatukno

    whatukno New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey the F-35 is a wonderf...Buh hu ha ha ha ha ha, sorry I couldn't say that with a straight face.

    You have the A-10, versatile, mean, so ugly it's beautiful, ass kicking plane from hell.

    Then, whatever that piece of crap is supposed to be.

    Ah the wonderful military industrial complex, fixing what's not broken again.
     
  5. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As all for-profit businesses attempt to do. They're all in it for obscene profits, and that means selling crap that people don't necessarily need or want.
     
  6. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Folks are missing the boat on the purpose of the F-35.

    The purpose of the F-35 is as a single airframe for the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C, which will all be used in different branches of the US military.

    The theory behind the strategy was economies of scale.

    Reviews have been mixed from both pilots and engineers in terms of performance. It is safe to assume that from what we do know, this is a very expensive system, but to write it off completely at this stage of it's project life is pure conjecture.

    As with any newer defense projects there are a lot of hidden information and experiments that will probably never see daylight. Of course every Armchair General will have an opinion on it, regardless of their level of knowledge and expertise on this particular aircraft system.

    It is expensive, but it is too early to call it a boondoggle.
     
  7. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't just refuel randomly. We only have so many fuel tankers and they don't hang around in enemy airspace just to wait for a plane to stop by like a gas station. Refueling not only exposes the tankers but it also takes several minutes to perform. Even if you put the tankers outside of the battlezone that means that the F35 has to fly all the way back out and refuel and then back in again.
     
  8. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its a boondoggle because they are trying to make a plane that excels at dogfighting, payload, air to air and air to surface and distance and that is impossible to do. It completely ignores the laws of aerodynamics and physics. What you end up with is a fighter that is average at everything but not particularly good at anything. There is a reason that some aircraft are bombers and some are fighters.

    What they should have done is have different air frames for mission specific purposes and then have the guts of the aircraft be as modular and interchangeable as possible.
     
  9. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The problem the Marine Corps is facing, they are in the Close Air Support (CAS) business, they are the best at the job in the world. But the last aircraft that the Marine Corps flew that was good at CAS was the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. What makes the Marines the best at CAS is that every Marine aviator is qualified and has been trained to lead a Marine rifle platoon into combat. Basically every Marine aircraft has a grunt in the cockpit. Also Marines use FAC's, fighter pilots on the ground to talk in the aircraft to provide CAS for the grunts.

    The A-10 may be the best CAS aircraft flying today but it isn't the best CAS aircraft to ever fly, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider holds that claim. The Marine Corps dumped the A-1 during the early 60's because the A-1 used nav-gas, highly flammable, high octain aviation gasoline. The U.S. Navy would soon do the same for the same reasons because they had to get that nav-gas off their aircraft carriers. The Navy turned over their A-1's to the Air Force during the Vietnam War and replaced them with Douglas A-4 Skyhawks.

    The Air Force A-10 has an awful record of killing friendlies on the battlefield. The problem isn't the A-10 but who's in the cockpit and who's on the ground calling in the CAS mission.

    It was suggested that all Air Force A-10 pilots serve a year with a Army grunt unit before providing CAS missions in the A-10. The same could be said for Air Force F-16 pilots. Only FAC's on the ground should be allowed to call in a danger close CAS mission.

    Why not give the A-10's to the Army, that a no brainer ? Because the law says that the Army can't fly fixed wing attack aircraft. So why not change the law ?

    Marine grunts say that if the Air Force don't want the A-10's give them to the Marine Corps. But Marine grunts don't realize that all Marine fighter and attack aircraft have to be carrier base, able to operate from navy ships. The A-10 landing gear can't withstand the landing on an aircraft carrier and the fuselage frame couldn't handle having a tail hook attached to the aircraft. Also the wings on the A-10 don't fold up. They would take up to much space on a carrier.

    I have a feeling that the F-35 Lightening will have to be renamed the F-35 Buffalo. It doesn't have the range, the loiter time over the battlefield or able to carry a large bomb/weapons load.

    What is the purpose of the F-35 ?
     
  10. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And you're an aerospace engineer I assume to make this sort of assessment. The majority of what has been written about the F-35, certainly on the internet, is from sources with limited intel.

    On a good day, the best A-10 in the active fleet will be exceeding it's useful life past 2030.

    That's only 15 years away.

    The powers that be decided it is best to develop a single airframe, multi-mission platform, rather than specialize and invest in a single mission platform.

    Economies of scale: The cost advantage that arises with increased output of a product. The price gets lower with the increased number of aircraft.

    The F-35 was designed as a multirole jet that can be used for a big variety of missions.

    After the A-10 goes belly up, what then? Design a single mission airframe strictly for close air support?
     
  11. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The F-4 Phantom started out as a Navy interceptor to defend Navy Carrier Battle Groups. It wasn't even an air to air fighter, it didn't even have a gun. It was designed to shoot down Soviet maritime bombers with air to air missiles. It evolved into an all purpose aircraft, not excellent at any thing but good at them all.
     
  12. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the F35 can only stay up for 30 minutes then yes. I don't have to be an engineer. Early critics of the program pointed these FACTS out long ago but were ignored. This isn't the first time they tried this they have tried this repeatedly and it always fails. If you want long range and a big payload you have to have a larger and heavier air frame which in turn sacrifices manueverability. There is no way to get around it unless they figure out how to rewrite the laws of aerodynamics and physics.

    The most expensive parts of fighters is the technology that makes up the guts, not the air frame. They could have made different air frames for different missions and still standardized most of the technology that operates them. The Russians are doing that with their new tanks which will share components with several different vehicles in their mechanized division. Each vehicle will still be mission specific but they will share enough technology between them that they will see cost saving.

    Economies of scale has nothing to do with performance of the aircraft, that is just cost analysis. Getting cheaper doesn't make it fly any faster of improves its capabilities.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The second gen was good, the only thing that saved our buts was that our pilots were so much better than theirs. Also, the Mig had engine issues if I remember. So if we assume that the new fighters from China or wherever are going to have engine problems and their pilots will all suck then I guess we have nothing to worry about with the F-35.
     
  13. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The F-35 can get on station much faster than an A-10.

    It's supersonic. Say an enemy fighter is in the area, is the A-10 going to engage?

    At the risk of repeating myself...I'll say again.

    Let's do a hypothetical, say we scrap the F-35, write it off and keep the A-10.
    The A-10 in the best flying condition at this very moment, will be pushing the limits of it's service life in another 15 years.

    So we go back to the drawing board and design something similar to an A-10...invest millons more in an aircraft that can only do one thing, close air support.

    You seem to think that's the best strategy?

    Again, I'll ask what is your area of expertise to make this assessment?

    An A-10 is highly vulnerable, even with longer loiter times, in an area with more modern air defense systems. It is 1970s technology going against 21st Century air defenses. It has ony performed well in airspace that has already been cleared of more modern air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. Desert Storm...do you think they sent in the A-10s before the fighters and SEAD aircraft cleared the area?

    30 minutes is an eternity in a modern battlespace.

    Going against goat herders in Afghanistan is one thing...going against a capable surface-to-air or air-to-air threat is another.
     
  14. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lots of good info here.

    Regarding A-10 and carriers, I wonder what stops the A-10 from being modified to be more carrier-compatible? Could it not be redesigned conservatively to have those needed features? Actually, if there's a major issue I see there, it's that they may not be able to take off from a carrier deck the way faster Navy fighters do. A-10s don't have afterburners, do they? They're relatively slow and bulky, so I can see how that might present an insurmountable problem for carrier use.

    Oh well. It sounds like improving pilot training as you suggest and improving integration between air and ground forces is the ticket. And yeah, the Army might as well have the ability to operate fixed-wing aircraft if the other branches can. Seems a silly restriction.
     
  15. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem with Americans is that they are always fighting the last war.

    Go ahead mold the military to fight goat herders well into mid-Century never mind the A-10 would not make it past 2028 even if the Army kept it.
     
  16. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't need afterburners the hook launches you at speed.
     
  17. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,020
    Likes Received:
    5,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. It's like the El Camino of military airplanes. Crappy as a car, crappy as a truck. You can paint flames on it and put on mag wheels, but it still sucks.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    30 minutes is not long. You would literally be switching out different aircraft every 15 minutes to allow the previous aircraft enough fuel to fly back and get refueled. You also have to account for overlap because you can't just schedule aircraft to pop in at the exact minute that the other aircraft has to leave. War is never that predictable.

    I have repeatedly answered your question and you just want to willfully ignore it. There was nothing stopping them from standardazing the avionics, fuel systems, targeting and all the internal components used in the various planes. Those are the expensive parts. The air frame itself is relatively cheap compared to what actually makes the plane fly. They should have designed different air frames for different missions instead of this obnoxious one size fits all design with only minor variations between the branches. That is the LAST time I will answer the question because at this point you are just being willfully obtuse.

    The fact that you asked "What is my area of expertise" means you have lost the argument. I have read and studied both arguments and the proponents argument boils down to "Trust us, it will work in time" That is not an argument any more than you talking about cost controls and economies of scale which have NOTHING to do with the performance of the aircraft.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I am curious what prevents them from bringing back a modern version of the A-1 and just use a different fuel system?
     
  19. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whatever Mr. "expert."
    You're not even linking to anything.

    Modular components? What part of your ass are you talking from....?

    no link?

    The engine is the most expensive part. It must go from hover to supersonic back to hover..and in fact the engine, the most advanced in the World, will be the common element of the A, B and C variants.

    The internet is full of know it alls who read an article or two.

    It is by and large a waste of my time anyway. Don't bother to reply.

    I've never said the F-35 is a success, however it is too soon to call the project a dismal failure aside from being VERY expensive...which I have never denied. As I've previously alluded, testing and capabilities typically don't see the light of day for newer projects. Personally, I'll hold off before declaring "bring back the A-10" or even more comedic, make it "carrier capable." I enjoy the Armchair Generals reading an article and declaring their "expertise" in the field. It's good for a laugh.

    Good day.
     
  20. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It would be just to expensive to design, and test a new landing gear for the A-10 to be able to land and be launched from an aircraft carrier. Also the A-10's fuselage framing would have to be completely reinforced to handle a tail hook. Then the wings have to be able to fold up so they A-10 doesn't take up so much place while on a carrier.

    Have you ever stood next to a F-14 Tomcat fighter ? It a big plane. It's based upon the Air Force's F-111. One of the biggest problems they had with developing the F-14 was coming up with a landing gear that could take the impact of landing on a carrier.

    Just think if the Air Force's F-15 was able to operate from an aircraft carrier. There would have been no need for a FA-18 or F-35 B or C.
     
  21. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Says the guy who has not linked to anything either. Google multirole aircraft and learn about their limitations. They looked at replacing the F15 with the F-35 but it doesn't have the range or the payload capability so currently outside of the F-22 we have nothing to replace it down the road. So basically the F35 isn't good enough to replace the A10 or the F15 both of which are aging fighters.
     
  22. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suppose today's pilots want a jet engine to get them out of Dodge after releasing their ordnance over the battlefield. One reason why the A-1 was able to take a beating and keep on flying was that big 18 cylinder avgas guzzling engine, that you can spend all day shooting at that engine with a 30-06 and it keeps spinning the propeller. The A-1 can take the hits that the A-10 can.

     
  23. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Come on, I like the Chevy El Camino. It's a wannabe pick up truck for those who preferred the Chevy Impalas. :smile:

    You have to admit, you could put more shopping bags of groceries in the back of an El Camino than inside a Chevy Impala.
     
  24. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Couldn't cost more than the F-35 has, though :D
     
  25. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't link to anything because I am making no claim other than cost overruns which have plagued the F-35 project for nearly a decade. Others are making substantial claims based upon limited information...unless of course you think Big Foot is real, because lots of internet sites purport facts on that too.

    It is weary constantly hearing about "bring back the almighty A-10" when it is in fact an aircraft platform nearing obsolescence.

    We have plenty of rotary wing and fixed wing assets in the inventory to perform close air support rather than design, from the drawing board, a single mission CAS aircraft.

    As I've said, Americans tend to fight the last war. The A-10 excelled in uncontested airspace...even during Desert Storm, the A-10 was rarely operated in contested airspace, certainly no air-to-air threats were present.

    The A-10s days are numbered regardless.
    F-15s, F-16s, and many F-18s, also approaching obsolescence.

    The U.S. could retrofit a small turbo-prop airplane, like the AT-6 and use that as a dedicated COIN close air support aircraft..[​IMG] but to design one from the ground up, able to survive modern threats? This would be a very expensive proposition for a single mission platform.

    Multi-mission is the future.

    Most of you are still thinking in terms of the U.S. only being involved in small wars with asymmetrical threats. Do you honestly think an A-10 would survive long in a modern battlespace against a technologically advanced enemy?

    I beg to differ.

    So why pretend the future is going to be nothing but small wars against asymmetrical threats.

    Even if the solution is not the F-35, it certainly isn't the A-10 either.
     

Share This Page