The Most Technically Advanced . .

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Here's the available specs for the a-10 AND f-35

f-35

a-10

The F-35 may give engineers and the air force brass a hard on, but I'm afraid the A-10 is still far superior in the close air support role. Not the mention its far superior survivability.

Good luck sending an aircraft like the A-10 into a "real" conflict facing sophisticated SAM and enemy fighters.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: ayabe
Here's the available specs for the a-10 AND f-35

f-35

a-10

The F-35 may give engineers and the air force brass a hard on, but I'm afraid the A-10 is still far superior in the close air support role. Not the mention its far superior survivability.

Good luck sending an aircraft like the A-10 into a "real" conflict facing sophisticated SAM and enemy fighters.

The A-10 is not intended for such role.

It is an airborne anti-armour killer. Their is expect to be no enemy A/C opposition or protected by a CAP.

SAMs and Rolands do not move alongside the armour very effectively.

Also, most SAMS are intended for medium/high altitude intercepts.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: ayabe
Here's the available specs for the a-10 AND f-35

f-35

a-10

The F-35 may give engineers and the air force brass a hard on, but I'm afraid the A-10 is still far superior in the close air support role. Not the mention its far superior survivability.

Good luck sending an aircraft like the A-10 into a "real" conflict facing sophisticated SAM and enemy fighters.

Do you know what the definition of "Close Air Support" is?
If not I suggest you look it up.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: ayabe
Here's the available specs for the a-10 AND f-35

f-35

a-10

The F-35 may give engineers and the air force brass a hard on, but I'm afraid the A-10 is still far superior in the close air support role. Not the mention its far superior survivability.

Good luck sending an aircraft like the A-10 into a "real" conflict facing sophisticated SAM and enemy fighters.

Do you know what the definition of "Close Air Support" is?
If not I suggest you look it up.

It's supporting infantry, tanks, etc on the battlefield.

 

[fstime]

I like how the F-22 looks better.

The F-35 has a better price tag though.

Are they equal in performance?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
I like how the F-22 looks better.

The F-35 has a better price tag though.

Are they equal in performance?

No

The F-22 is faster and has better stealth (there are quite a few other things)

The F-35 is capable of a vertical takeoff (I'm not sure if all three versions will have this enabled, since the prices vary by a few million).

There are a lot of other things, but those kind of stick out.

 

[fstime]

F22 FTW then?

Have the F35 for the Navy and we're set.

I don't think we should settle on the F35 for what's supposed to be a next gen plane.

EDIT: Then again, I don't know if we should be considering either with the national debt the way it is and federal spending out of control..

Congress didn't even pass a budget for this entire year!!!

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: ayabe
Here's the available specs for the a-10 AND f-35

f-35

a-10

The F-35 may give engineers and the air force brass a hard on, but I'm afraid the A-10 is still far superior in the close air support role. Not the mention its far superior survivability.

Good luck sending an aircraft like the A-10 into a "real" conflict facing sophisticated SAM and enemy fighters.

Do you know what the definition of "Close Air Support" is?
If not I suggest you look it up.

It's supporting infantry, tanks, etc on the battlefield.

So what does that have to do with SAMs and enemy fighters?

 

[freakflag]

This will be the last generation of manned fighter aircraft. All future weapons platforms will be ROV's. The pilot is now the weak link in the machine. Imagine the maneuvering 40,000 lbs of vectored thrust will allow when there is no meat in the flight seat to black out at the controls. Any nation with a conventional air force will stand zero chance of gaining air superiority.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: ayabe
Here's the available specs for the a-10 AND f-35

f-35

a-10

The F-35 may give engineers and the air force brass a hard on, but I'm afraid the A-10 is still far superior in the close air support role. Not the mention its far superior survivability.

Good luck sending an aircraft like the A-10 into a "real" conflict facing sophisticated SAM and enemy fighters.

Others have already shot you down but I'll add my two cents...

We will have complete air superiority before sending ground troops in, this has been the case since WWII.

Even if there were lingering threats from enemy air power, there will always be a CAP on station protecting the troops and/or A-10's.

Now, there will still be the threat of shoulder launched SAMS and AA's guns, guess what, in that case all that stealth crap is useless, the enemy can actually see with their eyes and therefore these weapons are a threat. The F-35 will be toast against something like a Shilka, it's not going to be able to take AA fire and survive, it still gives off an IR signature and only one engine, it cannot survive the battle damage that an A-10 can.

This is what it boils down to. Close support aircraft need to be tough as nails, not a high performance fighter, ask the Russians they have always made superior aircraft for this purpose starting with the IL-2 and continuing with the SU-25. These are very unsophisticated aircraft that excel in the close support role.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron...


As progress in all these areas strengthens world trust, we could proceed concurrently with the next great work-the reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world. To this end we would welcome and enter into the most solemn agreements. These could properly include:

1. The limitation, by absolute numbers or by an agreed international ratio, of the sizes of the military and security forces of all nations.

2. A commitment by all nations to set an agreed limit upon that proportion of total production of certain strategic materials to be devoted to military purposes.

3. International control of atomic energy to promote its use for peaceful purposes only and to insure the prohibition of atomic weapons.

4. A limitation or prohibition of other categories of weapons of great destructiveness.

5. The enforcement of all these agreed limitations and prohibitions by adequate safeguards,including a practical system of inspection under the United Nations.

The details of such disarmament programs are manifestly critical and complex. Neither theUnited States nor any other nation can properly claim to possess a perfect, immutable formula. But the formula matters less than the faith-the good faith without which no formula can work justly and effectively.

The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.

The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are needs that challenge this world in arms.

- President Eisenhower

:thumbsup:

 

[maluckey]

I've followed this aircraft off and on for awhile. I'm impresed by the smoothness from drawings to flying.

It always makes me happy to see close support improvements. I can say that most on this board have no clue about the military or the weapon systems available for fitment to the F-35 at the moment.

I recently saw literature on the 25mm GAU-12 cannon that could be used for the aircraft. Niiiiiccccce!! Let's hope that it makes the final cut.

 

[palehorse]

The a10 will always be loved by those of us on the ground; but i think the F35 can provide even more support, so i give this thread, and the F35 itself, a big thumbs-up!

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: ayabe
Here's the available specs for the a-10 AND f-35

f-35

a-10

The F-35 may give engineers and the air force brass a hard on, but I'm afraid the A-10 is still far superior in the close air support role. Not the mention its far superior survivability.

Good luck sending an aircraft like the A-10 into a "real" conflict facing sophisticated SAM and enemy fighters.

Do you know what the definition of "Close Air Support" is?
If not I suggest you look it up.

It's supporting infantry, tanks, etc on the battlefield.

So what does that have to do with SAMs and enemy fighters?

Will enemy fighters suddenly stop flying sorties over the battlefield just because ground troops are there? How do you know that the battlefield your A10/F-35 will be on is not contested airspace? Building aircraft on the assumption that you will have total air supremacy is not such a wise idea.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Will enemy fighters suddenly stop flying sorties over the battlefield just because ground troops are there? How do you know that the battlefield your A10/F-35 will be on is not contested airspace?

That's why the F-22 Raptors were invented.
Total airspace domination against enemy fighters.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Building aircraft on the assumption that you will have total air supremacy is not such a wise idea.

I don't understand the logic in your statement here.
So why then did we and are we still wasting money building F-22 Raptors?

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The a10 will always be loved by those of us on the ground; but i think the F35 can provide even more support, so i give this thread, and the F35 itself, a big thumbs-up!

I've already given the F-35 a big :thumbsup: in replacing F-16's, F/A-18 Hornets, and the Marine Harriers.
It still hasn't won me over on the A-10 role just yet.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Will enemy fighters suddenly stop flying sorties over the battlefield just because ground troops are there? How do you know that the battlefield your A10/F-35 will be on is not contested airspace?

That's why the F-22 Raptors were invented.
Total airspace domination against enemy fighters.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Building aircraft on the assumption that you will have total air supremacy is not such a wise idea.

I don't understand the logic in your statement here.
So why then did we and are we still wasting money building F-22 Raptors?

The same camp that says not to build the F-35's says not to build F-22's either. The F-15's and A-10's are enough to them. Therefore, scratch your F-22's off the list.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Will enemy fighters suddenly stop flying sorties over the battlefield just because ground troops are there? How do you know that the battlefield your A10/F-35 will be on is not contested airspace?

That's why the F-22 Raptors were invented.
Total airspace domination against enemy fighters.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Building aircraft on the assumption that you will have total air supremacy is not such a wise idea.

I don't understand the logic in your statement here.
So why then did we and are we still wasting money building F-22 Raptors?

The same camp that says not to build the F-35's says not to build F-22's either. The F-15's and A-10's are enough to them. Therefore, scratch your F-22's off the list.

That's Craig234's camp and I'm not in it.

*EDIT*
And AFAIK, F-22 Raptors are still being produced/delivered to the USAF and I believe there's already at least 1 operational squadron, if not more.
So yes, it's on the list.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Will enemy fighters suddenly stop flying sorties over the battlefield just because ground troops are there? How do you know that the battlefield your A10/F-35 will be on is not contested airspace?

That's why the F-22 Raptors were invented.
Total airspace domination against enemy fighters.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Building aircraft on the assumption that you will have total air supremacy is not such a wise idea.

I don't understand the logic in your statement here.
So why then did we and are we still wasting money building F-22 Raptors?

The logic is if we butt heads with a Russia or China. It will most likely be we dont have total air superiority over the area. Just because we gained air superiority over the Iraqi's twice doesnt mean we will in the future. The F-22 is designed to give us the ability to gain air superiority but it wont gurantee it. To think we will always have it is foolish and shortsighted.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Will enemy fighters suddenly stop flying sorties over the battlefield just because ground troops are there? How do you know that the battlefield your A10/F-35 will be on is not contested airspace?

That's why the F-22 Raptors were invented.
Total airspace domination against enemy fighters.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Building aircraft on the assumption that you will have total air supremacy is not such a wise idea.

I don't understand the logic in your statement here.
So why then did we and are we still wasting money building F-22 Raptors?

The logic is if we butt heads with a Russia or China. It will most likely be we dont have total air superiority over the area. Just because we gained air superiority over the Iraqi's twice doesnt mean we will in the future. The F-22 is designed to give us the ability to gain air superiority but it wont gurantee it. To think we will always have it is foolish and shortsighted.

I don't believe the F-35 will overtake the F-22 in the role air to air combat performance.
Where did I say we will always have air superiority? I don't rememer ever saying that.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Lothar

I don't believe the F-35 will overtake the F-22 in the role air to air combat performance.
Where did I say we will always have air superiority? I don't rememer ever saying that.

The F-22 is degigned for Air Superiority Missions . . period, but may be adapeted to other performance capacities
including a version to perform as a high speed, long range bomber to deliver specific munitions on specially designated targets.

The F-35 is NOT designed to perform i the role of Air Superiority Fighter, but may have the capability to
partially perform in a back-up of assistance role to the F-22 under conditions that may arise within a combat theatre.

Many of the munitions that the F-22 carries can also be carried by the F-35, although in a smaller quantity.
Two F-35's do not equal an F-22 any more than an F-22 being the equivalent of a pair of F-35's - they have different, but overlaping, scopes.

Given the differences between the old reliable A-10 Warthog and the new F-35, the F-35 is a much more capable machine,
designed for survival in the theatre of war - the flight station and pilot area is made of carbon fiber (graphite)
and kevlar composite and can stop 50 cal machine gun bullets cold.
Wings made of composite materials and their embedded internal structures have demonstrated the ability
to take a missle strike and absorb a large amount of damage and retain functionality of the vehicle to where the
aircraft can be safely landed for repairs, or at least to exit the theatre of warfare and reach a destination
where the pilot can evacuate the vehicle safely in an area where he can be recovered away from enemy action.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Lothar

I don't believe the F-35 will overtake the F-22 in the role air to air combat performance.
Where did I say we will always have air superiority? I don't rememer ever saying that.

The F-22 is degigned for Air Superiority Missions . . period, but may be adapeted to other performance capacities
including a version to perform as a high speed, long range bomber to deliver specific munitions on specially designated targets.

The F-35 is NOT designed to perform i the role of Air Superiority Fighter, but may have the capability to
partially perform in a back-up of assistance role to the F-22 under conditions that may arise within a combat theatre.

Many of the munitions that the F-22 carries can also be carried by the F-35, although in a smaller quantity.
Two F-35's do not equal an F-22 any more than an F-22 being the equivalent of a pair of F-35's - they have different, but overlaping, scopes.

I agree.
I was in no way trying to say 1 F-22 = 2 F-35's.

I was simply saying F-22 fills the "air to air" role better than an F-35.
F-35 fills the "air to ground" role better than an F-22.
I said this in previous pages on this thread.

They may both have the capability to do both roles, but one does it better than the other.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Given the differences between the old reliable A-10 Warthog and the new F-35, the F-35 is a much more capable machine,
designed for survival in the theatre of war - the flight station and pilot area is made of carbon fiber (graphite)
and kevlar composite and can stop 50 cal machine gun bullets cold.
Wings made of composite materials and their embedded internal structures have demonstrated the ability
to take a missle strike and absorb a large amount of damage and retain functionality of the vehicle to where the
aircraft can be safely landed for repairs, or at least to exit the theatre of warfare and reach a destination
where the pilot can evacuate the vehicle safely in an area where he can be recovered away from enemy action.

I certainly hope you're right about that and the USAF proves me wrong.
A-10 Warthogs are only $10 million a piece.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Lothar


I certainly hope you're right about that and the USAF proves me wrong.
A-10 Warthogs are only $10 million a piece.

Hog, baby

What's going against the A-10 is that the design is nearly 40 years old, the first one flew in 1972, and production ended in 1987 -
the 'newest' airframes are 20 years old, and since '87 it's been mods & retrofits to maintain an aging fleet.
The Air Force tried to mothball them before, but at the time there was nothing on the table that could do the job
so they were re-activated, updated and kept in service. You're still looking at an aging airframe and a galloping technology that
makes the A-10 an outdated platfrom, no matter how much 'updates' you try to bury into the beast.
It still has to continue service for another 5 to 8 years before enough F-35's are produced and deployed to replace them.

The role of the A-10 was just one of many service specific activities that were scoped into the development of the F-35.