F35 thread

[desura]

So there have been renewed calls for cancelling the program recently. From the looks of it, most of the issues really stem from all of the various gizmos and electronic technologies that they are trying to install in the aircraft. The airframe itself has always been compromised because of VTOL (stupid, stubborn marines), though on a slight upside the VTOL version probably helps the many US allies who operate miniature carriers.

But reports have it that manuverability is about on-par with F18 jets. The increased interior bays means it can carry more fuel and armaments internally. The sensors should allow it to detect and kill the enemy well before the enemy knows what hits him.

I've never quite understood calls to cancel the program. Again, much of the cost are in the electronics and computer stuff. Retrofitting new versions of F18 fighters with these components would be quite expensive as well, and imperfect since it will be a retrofit.

 

[Brainonska511]

This thread contains a lot of information on the program, if people don't want to hash it out all over again: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/the-f-35-is-a-piece-of-garbage.2437746/

 

[Puffnstuff]

The 25mm main Gatling gun for it will not be ready for another two years which is required for close air ground support missions so the A-10 can be retired.

 

[Blackjack200]

So there have been renewed calls for cancelling the program recently.

Link?

 

[alcoholbob]

At its current unit cost the F35 is at parity or more expensive than the F-22. If they arent going to cancel the program they should restart the F22 production so these flying turkeys have some escorts during missions. :-D

 

[brycejones]

The 25mm main Gatling gun for it will not be ready for another two years which is required for close air ground support missions so the A-10 can be retired.

Less than 200 rounds vs 1200 rounds seems like a really bad trade off in the cas mission.

 

[Blackjack200]

At its current unit cost the F35 is at parity or more expensive than the F-22. If they arent going to cancel the program they should restart the F22 production so these flying turkeys have some escorts during missions. :-D

F-22s were roughly twice the price of an f-35, and required two engines, each of which required more maintenance than an f-135. The f-22 is a no-compromise gold-plated system, the f-35 is very efficient in comparison.

 

[Blackjack200]

Less than 200 rounds vs 1200 rounds seems like a really bad trade off in the cas mission.

The f-35 is not a gun ship. It's strength over the a-10 will be to use its advanced sensors to locate the enemy and destroy them with PGMs.

 

[PottedMeat]

If they arent going to cancel the program they should restart the F22 production so these flying turkeys have some escorts during missions.

<somehow f35 program gets shut down>
Lockheed: oh shit guess what, restarting the F22 line will cost <insert f35 losses>

 

[Brainonska511]

The f-35 is not a gun ship. It's strength over the a-10 will be to use its advanced sensors to locate the enemy and destroy them with PGMs.

In an era of precision guided munitions that can be dropped tens of thousands of feet above the ground, is this even a concern? Aren't most CAS missions handled by non-A-10 aircraft anyway?

Edit:
In answer to my last question, yes, it seems like A-10s are not the primary means of CAS.

 

[pauldun170]

Was the other thread not suitable?
Are we really going to rehash every damn myth from the internet again all over again?

 

[desura]

Rea

In an era of precision guided munitions that can be dropped tens of thousands of feet above the ground, is this even a concern? Aren't most CAS missions handled by non-A-10 aircraft anyway?

Edit:
In answer to my last question, yes, it seems like A-10s are not the primary means of CAS.

Read the link. It doesn't make a convincing case for retiring the A10 IMO. F35 is too fast and too fragile to do CAS well. Going that speed and that altitude, you cannot be as precise in laying down fire. This raises the risk of friendly fire.

Given how our wars have actually been these past twenty years, retiring the A10 is foolish IMO. I'd rather that they modernize the A10 and give it some new systems, maybe new alloys to make it more reliable.

 

[Darwin333]

The 25mm main Gatling gun for it will not be ready for another two years which is required for close air ground support missions so the A-10 can be retired.

Yeah because the 120 rounds of 25MM ammo the F-35 can carry will totally be equal to the 1,350 rounds of 30MM ammo the A-10 can carry.

 

[Brainonska511]

Rea


Read the link. It doesn't make a convincing case for retiring the A10 IMO. F35 is too fast and too fragile to do CAS well. Going that speed and that altitude, you cannot be as precise in laying down fire. This raises the risk of friendly fire.

Given how our wars have actually been these past twenty years, retiring the A10 is foolish IMO. I'd rather that they modernize the A10 and give it some new systems, maybe new alloys to make it more reliable.

Read the link. It's quite clear that you don't need the tactics of yesterday for the CAS of today, considering that 75% of CAS missions were flown by non-A10 aircraft. The big issue for the AF is one of budgeting - they're spending hundreds of millions of dollar supporting a single-mission aircraft for a mission that can be (and has been) capably performed by other platforms.

 

[Blackjack200]

Read the link. It's quite clear that you don't need the tactics of yesterday for the CAS of today, considering that 75% of CAS missions were flown by non-A10 aircraft. The big issue for the AF is one of budgeting - they're spending hundreds of millions of dollar supporting a single-mission aircraft for a mission that can be (and has been) capably performed by other platforms.

It's also a myth that the A-10 is a purpose build CAS aircraft. It's not. The platform was designed to shred Soviet armor in the Fulda Gap. The 30mm cannon is not an ideal weapon against the soft targets that CAS missions are called for. We also have other platforms for providing low and slow firepower in permissive environments.

 

[theeedude]

How much of the cost is just keeping the pilot safe? We should replace all these planes with cheaper drones.

 

[desura]

From my look at it, the biggest problem from the VTOL design

How much of the cost is just keeping the pilot safe? We should replace all these planes with cheaper drones.

Drones really suck at air to air combat. One human pilot could take out dozens of drones by himself.

 

[desura]

It's also a myth that the A-10 is a purpose build CAS aircraft. It's not. The platform was designed to shred Soviet armor in the Fulda Gap. The 30mm cannon is not an ideal weapon against the soft targets that CAS missions are called for. We also have other platforms for providing low and slow firepower in permissive environments.

Uh, it is a purpose-built CAS aircraft. It might be overkill against hajis wearing flip flops and tshirts in Afghanistan, but it is purpose built for CAS.

There have been talks of making some training craft into CAS. Like, prop planes and such.

 

[pauldun170]

How much of the cost is just keeping the pilot safe? We should replace all these planes with cheaper drones.

Problem with drones is that they lack payload. If you want to build a drone with greater payload, then you need bigger drones. Big drones = big money. Drones are great until you start upsizing then they get pricey.
They also become useless when faced electronic warfare.

The problem is that the A-10 does not keep pilots any safer than any other platform being used in the CAS role

In GWI, they discovered pretty quickly that low and slow is a good way to lose pilots and shot up airplanes. So they adapted by flying them medium altitude and more missions at night. The legend of the A-10 flying low and slow shooting up Iraqi tanks is a myth. Combat record is A-10's flying at the same altitude as F-16's and Harriers and the primary weapons were Mavericks and rockets.

The established fact is that when anti air threat is present, A-10's are pulled unless there is extensive SEAD support.



A-10's are a niche air frame nowadays that specialize in COIN operations. Gun runs against civilians\insurgents\pickups may seem cool and plenty have memories of A-10's coming in lighting up militants but there are cheaper options. There are better options. AirForce, Marines, Navy and Army have dozens of existing platforms that can get there faster. Hit harder. Stay longer. Operate closer to the front lines.
A-10 has been kept around because the base in Arizona brings money to the economy. Planes are paid for and its cheap to operate but overall its a waste of money to keep it around.

For the niche mission the A-10 actually does, A-10's are expensive overkill.
Does it make sense for F-35's or F-16's or F-15e's or Super Hornets or B-1's or B-52 handle counter insurgency ops where we own the sky?
From a capability perspective...why not? JTAC being able to talk to the B-1b that can circle above for hours (immediate response) or a call in other jets that can get there quickly.

From a cost perspective, no.
However, for COIN ops even A-10's are pricey for the work they do. From a cost perceptive, A-10's don't make the cut either.
The Air Force and Marines have already added capability to lot of airframes and we have CAS covered by all sorts of airframes. The area we need to address is counter insurgency.
Beechcraft AT-6's and Super Tucanos and a bunch of other cheaper aircraft make more sense. The other thread covered this in more detail.


edit: If you really like drones.... https://www.dvidshub.net/video/504622/perdix-swarm-demo-oct-2016

 

[pauldun170]

Lets turn this thread into a 300 post thread until posters decide it is not the circle jerk they were hoping for and then start a new thread.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Yeah because the 120 rounds of 25MM ammo the F-35 can carry will totally be equal to the 1,350 rounds of 30MM ammo the A-10 can carry.

I scoff at it as well and after watching some test footage cannot believe that they would even attempt to sell it as capable in the same mission areas. Even the Russians know better and have mounted a 30mm on their new fighter. Yes it carries standoff weapons but when it comes down to good old armor penetrating ammo it just doesn't pack the same punch as the A-10.

 

[Darwin333]

From my look at it, the biggest problem from the VTOL design

Well the Navy version evidently has a problem with the front landing gear that combined with the really heavy helmet jars the shit out of pilots and causes most to not be able to see critical data during takeoff.

Drones really suck at air to air combat. One human pilot could take out dozens of drones by himself.

As I understand it, most CAS in our recent wars have been in relatively uncontested airspace.

 

[pauldun170]

Well the Navy version evidently has a problem with the front landing gear that combined with the really heavy helmet jars the shit out of pilots and causes most to not be able to see critical data during takeoff.

"During a catapult launch the nose landing gear strut is compressed as the catapult pulls on the nose landing gear, with the hold back bar restraining the aircraft from forward movement due to engine thrust," according to a Dec. 28 Navy information paper viewed by Inside Defense. "Upon release of the hold back bar, the nose landing gear strut unloads and vertically oscillates as the aircraft accelerates towards take-off."
...
F-35C takeoff problems only occur when the planes takeoff with low weight load outs, saying " you don't see this problem at all" when the plane is more laden with ordnance or fuel.

They are taking their time to tweak the gear because it is a low priority item that goes away in real world operations.
The helmet used is likely the earlier revision heavier Gen III helmet which will not be going into mass production. they are switching materials and next revision will be comparable in weight to the average helmets current used today.

 

[brycejones]

From my look at it, the biggest problem from the VTOL design


Drones really suck at air to air combat. One human pilot could take out dozens of drones by himself.

2 things.

1. Drones are rapidly evolving, don't assume ACM is something they will continue to suck at. It is already possible to build airframes that exceed the capabilities of the human body for sustained high-g maneuvering. Removing latency in communications links would also go a long to enabling the kind of reactions needed for ACM.
2. No human pilot can take out dozens of drones. Modern weapons load-outs make that impossible. 4-8 air to air missiles and guns that at most have 15-20 seconds of ammo.

 

[MongGrel]

Lockheed shares sink further on Trump's F-35 threat

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-defense-idUSL1N1EI0TE

I'm far from a Trump fan of course, but not much of an F-35 fan either.

Of course Trump always said he was going to make the military "Great Again" and might be driving down prices intentionally to scoop shares up 😛

His non-divested sons can just buy em up.

It's gonna be the second coming of Halliburton, Yee Haaaaaaa!