Slashdot Mirror
F-35 Might Be Outperformed By Fourth-Generation Fighters
savuporo writes: Defensetech.org posted a story relaying a report from National Security Network titled "Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program". According to the story, F-35 is outperformed or showing only slight advantages in simulations and limited real-life tests by decades old 4th-generation fighters like F-16 and F18, but also MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, that are of course made by Russia and latter also produced in China.
The story also refers back to earlier report last month of F-35 performing poorly in dogfights. "In one simulation subcontracted by the RAND Corporation, the F-35 incurred a loss exchange ratio of 2.4–1 against Chinese Su-35s. That is, more than two F-35s were lost for each Su-35 shot down."
America surely has a better fighter jet up its sleeve!!!1! The pentagon must be secretly spending the money elsewhere!
'Prophets of War' by Hartung.
This is old news to anyone that works in the industry. The F35 JSF was nothing more than a cash grab. The execs from Northrop and Lockheed should be in prison.
First of all, we just fight shitty nations who have equipment from the 70s at best. Secondly, for the most part we bomb ground targets anyway. Thirdly and most importantly, these flying limos are good job creators in many states. That's how our economy works. The pros outweigh the cons.
Why is dogfight a parameter in assessing 5th generation plane?
It's like saying my car sucks because I can't use a crank to start the engine like the old cars could.
"Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
When reading articles about the F-35, you have to remember that the term "Fourth Generation" and "Fifth Generation" are terms that Lockheed Martin came up with to provide some marketing cachet for the F-22 and F-35.
There is no strong definition for the term and the best description that I seen is that "Fifth Generation" fighters employ stealth and undetectable communications. This definition is used with the F-35 to indicate that it will sneak up to enemy aircraft and launch missiles before the enemy aircraft know that it is there - the F-35 doesn't have the dog fighting capabilities of the F-22 or that of other fighters.
People seem to forget that the F-35's capabilities were first defined after the first Gulf War in which F-16s and other fighter-bombers could not detect Scud missile launchers or approach ones that were detected by other platforms before being detected and the launchers moved out of harm's way or camouflaged in such a way that they couldn't be detected. Then deciding that the basic platform could be extended to a SVTOL for the Marines and a carrier aircraft further doomed it's ability to maneuver effectively against other aircraft that were designed for air-air combat.
Unfortunately, the US(AF) has put all its eggs into the F-35 basket. I don't see there being a lot of opportunities to order more F-16s or F-15s (with the F-22 line shut down).
This means that in future conflicts, the US may lose the "air dominance" that has been used in war planning over the last fifty years.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Imagine the extra challenge for combat simulators!
The F-35 (program) generates FAR more pork than competing fighter jets. That's the only performance that matters. This is just like the NASA projects that are legally required to be completed, then mothballed because they're already obsolete, only with a hint of 'design by committee' to help sink it.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Clearly this can only be solved by immediately investing in a multi-trillion dollar program to develop the next generation of stealthy dogfighting fighter jets.
I'm not sure the Joint Strike Fighter is designed for dog fights in the first place. I think they're conceived to engage enemy aircraft beyond visible range and function more as a networked fighter platform. In a lecture on flying the F-35, David Berke made the point that to be tactically successful in an F-35 he had to change his approach to combat flying versus his previous experience flying Hornets. He described the learning curve as: 1 month loving it because it was new, followed by 6 months hating it because he felt like he didn't know what he was doing anymore, followed by another 6 months during which he got the hang of the new approach.
There's also talk that the F-35 could be getting a new engine in the 2020s which will improve its performance.
The future's probably in souped-up drones anyhow. You don't have to worry about pilot safety etc. and can gamble more in a dog-fight. Manned planes will not go away, but will become a niche.
Table-ized A.I.
They're just selling their junk to other nations. Like us. In Australia. Who not that long ago (despite mass criticism) signed up to purchase 58 F-35's to the tune of around $12-13b. This was in addition to the estimated $12b maintenance bill inherited to keep them operational (also criticised heavily). It's amazing how much fighting goes on in the government over infrastructure spending (hospitals, roads, schools, communications, etc.) and yet that $30b investment into a plane which was reported as the fighter that can’t turn, can’t run, can’t climb ....
The F-35 may have impressive tech, stealth, electronics and advanced missiles, but the Thunderbolt II is literally a flying tank that is able to take a lot of abuse and still keep flying. It also delivers an incredible amount of damage and its operating history is stellar. It's a great morale booster for ground troops, but the US air force wants to get rid of it.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
There is no "might" about this plane - it is fubar, and hugely expensive fubar. Good save the poor pilots who are ordered to take this death trap into combat.
They used this strategy before - claiming the Russ was armed to the teeth and god so powerful... We should not underestimate the Russ or Chinese but we shall also never underestimate the desire of the (ever more words)-mililtary-complex to transfer public money into the private pockets. It is for public good,prosperity and we defend democracy this way too!
Just buy some Su's. We buy everything else from China.
Table-ized A.I.
You might want to look into RAFAGA (Robust Autonomous Flight of unmanned aerial vehicles in GPS-denied outdoor areas) and similar technologies. Think of GPS dependent drones as Mark 1.
It's hard to jam every frequency, short of EMP weapons, which only affect stuff for a limited time, and your own fighters.
But drones may require more autonomous fighting when bandwidth is limited by jamming. In other words, AI. Sky Net :-)
Table-ized A.I.
you actually NEED a better fighter i.e. a war where you need a fighter plane. WW1 and WW2 rapidly advanced the war machines of the era because they were needed now a fighter is easily shot down by Surface to Air missiles. and are simply not needed Drones are far better fit for purpose these days but its not as cool to pilot drones. Now can someone remember the prototype plane that performed extremely well but was canned due to being so ugly http://www.aviastar.org/air/us... see if you can name it without hovering on the link
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
F-35 Might Be Outperformed By Fourth-Generation Fighters
I have no idea what generation the F-35 is considered to be, so I had no idea what the headline was trying to say. Couldn't you have just said "older"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
sue anyone who builds a jet that could threaten it
There is a problem here, apparently this list includes aircraft makers as far back as 1970. Not to mention the people you are going to be suing are the countries that hold most of the liability on your debts.
...
So they did their thrust/weight and wing loading comparison by loading all jets with 50% of internal fuel.
This comparison favours planes with small internal fuel tanks.
F-35 has huge internal fuel tanks, it can fly much longer with internal fuel than most other jet fighters (which need external fuel tanks, which are NOT calculated in these numbers) to fly as far.
Load all jets with amount of fuel that makes them fly about equally far and the numbers switch considerably, on favour of F-35.
Its interesting to see how 99% of the population are jet experts having directly worked on the F35.
None of the things you hear in the press are cold hard facts - none. One says it explodes midflight, doesnt work in the rain, whatever. I mean, you'd think one would see how far the joke have been pushed - but nope, random people take this seriously, as if these were facts.
The reality is quite a bit more complicated - and the F35 is actually a pretty decent 5th gen plane. It doesn't even cost more than most other programs, we're always comparing F35's TOC for all variant over its total lifetime vs initial purchase cost of a single variant of other fighters. How retarded is that?
Fucking media war machines.
Australia wanted to buy the F-22 the whole time, but the US government wouldn't allow Lockheed to export it. The F-35 was supposed to be just-bad-enough for the give it to the vassals in return for tribute, without threatening Washington's superiority, but just-good-enough to lessen the amount of protection Washington must give its vassals and make it look like a legitimate arms purchase.
It's obvious that Australia should have gone for the Typhoon as soon as export permission for F-22 was denied, but if Australia really had some balls, it would have started openly courting Sukhoi, buying one fighter at a time until the overlord at least gives us the reach-around. Either way the F-22 is a land based fighter, so if the US wants to cross the Pacific to discipline us, they'll be doing it without air support.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
It's like those multitools or Swiss army knives - they get the job done, but not very efficient. The difference is that there's no prize for second place when it comes to fighter jets.
And neither the F-22 nor F-35 are really good replacements for the A-10. You can probably send a MMA fighter (A-10) to do ballet dancing, but you can sure not send a ballet dancer to do MMA fighting.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
FFS, man, have you been living under a rock? Every arms manufacturing nation in the world has been designing and manufacturing aircraft to outperform the F-35 since the F-35 was announced. The difference between the US and all those other airframe builders is, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY BUILT THEIRS!!
The rest of the world is already designing the NEXT GENERATION, meant to defeat their own aircraft, all of which can already defeat the F-35.
It's tough to stay in the lead, when we have our heads up our asses.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The problem is they didn't build enough F-22s for that to be a viable strategy. There are only 184 of them, which is a pitifully small number when you spread them over all the potential hotspots. If even a handful are shot down it'll be catastrophic to any plan that depends on them.
... to be fair the US seem to have great success with their drones.
Sure it may not be as "fair" and may also be "terrorism" to hang them above people bombing them at will. And maybe it may also not work that great against a technical advanced enemy ("Ukrainian" rebels with Russian equipment (such as Borisoglebsk 2? has managed to shut down GPS, mobile systems and communication in Ukraine: http://www.svd.se/putins-nya-s...)
But yeah. If the current jets don't cut it will we really see new designs with humans in them? Guess higher resistance against electronic warfare would be the one reason for that to happen?
The drones seem to work so well and one don't seem to want to have humans killed unnecessarily.
Droideka.
Lasers? What are efficient ways to disturb light/lasers? Most efficient mirror?
And there-in lies the flaw in the justification for its existence - what happens *after* the missiles have been fired? It's a stealth aircraft so any ordnance needs to be internal to minimise the radar cross-section and that instantly limits the number of missiles is can carry compared to non-stealth aircraft with external hardpoints. Even assuming the stealth works and the F-35 gets to fire its missiles without being seen, the very act of firing its missiles is going to negate the stealth, only now it has no missiles so any additional/surviving hostile aircraft entering the combat area are going to be engaging it when it's down to guns and running. If it can't fight or run, and at some point the stealth is almost certainly going to be negated just as the previous generations of stealth have been as well (if not already), then what's the point? Well, other than the pork, of course.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The whole anti-F35 argument rests on the report that one (1) F117 was shot down by Serbian forces using VHF technology. Otherwise, they are only talking about the possibility of long range tracking... not fire control radar. And in the case of that F117, there was no mention of the effective RCS.
The arguments about dependency on forward bases is destroyed by VTOL capability, a fact that was not even touched on in the discussion. Similarly, while it was mentioned that the F18 could drop external fuel tanks in combat, no mention was made of the fact that the F35 could drop (or fire) external munitions in a similar situation.
Overall, the review seems shallow and slanted against the F35. Personally, I think the military has far too many toys and their budget should be cut in half. But that does not make me blind to the sloppy arguments of this review.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
The problem is they didn't build enough F-22s for that to be a viable strategy. There are only 184 of them, which is a pitifully small number when you spread them over all the potential hotspots. If even a handful are shot down it'll be catastrophic to any plan that depends on them.
Yes, but those 184 could each shoot down a dozen lesser jets pretty easily. You don't need them at every potential hotspot--you need to be able to deploy them.
The JSF is designed for more roles and we haven't had serious dogfights for decades. By the time we do it will be all drones.
That's what apt-get is for. Or CURL... You already got X running... It's sure to have a terminal installed somewhere.
Not that that detracts from your idea or anything but, really, I think we'd be okay. Imma installing Lynx first. sudo apt-get install lynx! I can slashdot while I figure out what next to install. I mean, come on now, I have like countless distros here. I'll just toss in a live DVD on another box if I have to. I'd almost find it an affront if I did.
I'd also recommend sudo apt-get update... You might want to try adding a PPA by editing the config, that's stuffed in there somewhere. Buggered if I know where but I am sure it is in there somewhere. I did add PPA manually with Mint to enable me to update to the new LibreOffice. It was trivial and I had not even noticed I wasn't at the newest packages. Sheesh...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
According to the report http://nsnetwork.org/cms/asset... the F35 is outperformed on at least range, internal payload and maneuverability, compared to current-gen planes like the F/A 18.
In short, for every task there's a better alternative flying already.
Pile them high ,
lots of cheap [ish] drones will outperform 1 very expensive Aircraft
who where what when now?
Last but not least: http://breakingdefense.com/201...
"“a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.
“Let’s see how it [the F-35] does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do [sic] against guys with similar amounts experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.”
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
That is pretty cheap considering the number we would send there for free if there were ever a chance you needed to use them in defense. They won't help you against us, much, but that's not really the topic of discussion.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You know we refuel them in the air these days, right? We can also bring a whole bunch of floating airports with other planes to the region. More importantly, that has a zero percent chance of happening. If it does? Well, let me offer my apologies in advance.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Because someone in Europe bombs themselves into oblivion every generation, maybe? Just a thought...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I dunno... You *can* send a ballet dancer to an MMA fight if you want. It might make an interesting match, at some level.
Yes, yes... I know. I will go sit in the corner.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The pork-barrels were filled to the brim and everyone got his share, why do you bad mouth the project? It performed just as it should and made everyone fat.
Oh. You mean its military performance. Who gives a shit about that? It's not like we're going to have a war where this thing actually has to fly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
F-35 is not meant to be a mission-specific airplane. It's meant to do many different things, and do each one of them very poorly in the name of saving cost.
Oh wait... it doesn't save cost either. In fact it is orders of magnitude more expensive than 4th gen fighters. But, look at the bright said, at least it's an economic boon for certain well-connected congressional districts.
I recall another (optional) check-box for the fifth generation fighter jets to meet is the "super cruise" capability (supersonic flight without afterburner).
I personally don't believe that conventional all-out warfare between USA and a big player, like China or Russia, is likely to happen. Just imagine the impact on the world economy. Russia is armed with nukes and nuke delivery platforms up to teeth, while any conflict with China will create a financial panic, seriously harm the world economy, etc. Say hello to a new great depression.
But perhaps we could see proxy conflict and wars, possibly involving "hybrid" warfare. Possible focal points: Taiwan, Ukraine, Moldova, South East Asia, or some place in middle-east, with at least one big opponent operating through proxies rather than directly involved (just like it used to be since WWII).
I don't think anybody in the AF believes that F-35 seriously replaces the A-10. It was just an excuse to get rid of A-10. The Air Force simply wants out of CAS business, hoping that the Army helicopters and precision strike from fighter-bomber jets will be good enough.
Even though AF's main job for the last 20 years was about trucking the American troops and equipment back and forth to the site of deployment as well as providing CAS operations, the Air Force generals hate to be seen that way. Their minds are flying in the blue skies, where the non-existing glorious dog fights will be happening between super duper high tech fighter jets. That's why they spend their brain power so much on procuring those fighter jets, even though those are the least likely AF aircraft to see any real action.
Exactly. F16 are Second Strike fighters/bombers. They can't be used used in a First Strike operation. Any half-assed rogue state already has the capabilities to detect and take down F16s. So if you want to use F16s, you need the big boys to go in first and take down all mobile radar and ground-air missile machinery.
I want my money back!
Well, even with in-air refueling, you're still going to have to bring them the long way around, since I'm told they don't particularly like crossing the international date line.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Not to mention that the A-10 is also comparatively inexpensive to both build and maintain. An A-10 costs about $20 million per plane whereas the F-35 looks like it is going to be at least $150 million to $400 million per plane depending on variation. The A-10's operational cost per-hour is somewhere between $10,000-$20,000/hour. The number is still in the air for F-35, but current projections are over $30,000. (If history is a guide, expect that number to go up dramatically). Pilots and mechanics love this plane because it rarely has technical problems and is easy to fix and keep flying.
And the A-10 is one of the youngest planes in the fleet. B-52 (1955) is still in use.
You are stepping close to the "dirty little secret" of the USAF, that the F15 on up they have had to put limiters on the planes lower than its real abilities because the simple fact is the planes can pull off moves that will kill the pilot, the meatsack behind the stick just can't handle what the plane is actually capable of.
Which is only relevant during some types of air combat maneuvering and you may be putting a bit too fine a point on it. There is a LOT more to it than that. The F15 can pull more Gs in *some* maneuvers than pilots can handle but not all of them.
This is why building new planes (instead of simply building more of the teen series) is not only wasteful its pointless, the planes we have now can already do more than any human body can take.
There is more to the success of a fighter or bomber than maneuverability in a dog fight. How good is the radar and targeting? How fast and how well can it identify targets? How fast can the plane accelerate? What is it's service ceiling? How does it perform at various altitudes? How fuel efficient is it? How expensive is it to service? How good is the pilot's situational awareness? What sort of support infrastructure does it need? What sort of runway is required? How detectible is it by radar or other targeting systems?
Even if the plane isn't a step up in maneuverability there is PLENTY of room to improve fighters and attack aircraft in a multitude of other ways. I don't pretend to know if the F35 is better or worse than previous generations of jets but saying that humans are already at their G-load limits isn't a sufficient argument against it.
The enemy will always outnumber them by dozens if not hundreds to one. We have gotten lucky that the only ones we have been fighting are goat herders, because if we fought somebody like Russia or China with an abundance of fourth gen fighters? Our new toys would be facing 20+ to 1 odds and probably get spanked right out of the sky.
The battle doctrine of the US military takes this explicitly into account. Remember that during the Cold War they had to deal with the fact that the US might be asked to defend Western Europe from an invasion from the Soviet Union. The Soviets had more tanks they could put into the theater of combat than the US could so the only real option when you are outnumbered is to have better gear and better training. You HAVE to be able to win engagements at a better than 1:1 ratio. At least in recent days the US has proven more than capable of doing that in conventional warfare. Unless the US were so stupid as to attack China or Russia directly I don't think any country in the world would want to tangle directly with the US military.
Saying the US would be facing 20:1 odds simply isn't supported by the facts. The US has FAR more combat aircraft than any other country and the US has exactly half (11/22) of the world's supply of aircraft carriers.
And that's the point that's being missed in this discussion, the fact that the US hasn't really gone up against anyone in head-to-head air combat since the Vietnam War
You mean except for the first Gulf War? While it was a huge mismatch the Iraqi air force had plenty of Mig-29, Mig-25, Mig-23 and Mirage F1 fighters which were reasonably modern at the time of the conflict. 36 Iraqi aircraft were shot down in aerial combat. That counts as going head to head even if the outcome was decidedly lopsided.
Honestly there are only a handful of countries that really could go head to head with US airpower and have a prayer of not getting massacred and even then it would really only be over their home country or close to it. The US has more planes, (generally) better planes and pilots as well trained as any in the world PLUS better infrastructure like AWACS and refueling, not to mention exactly half the worlds supply of aircraft carriers.
Is that the UK Military satellite network ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
It created employment for millions, and was a nice excuse to justify an increase in taxes, which, I think, was its main purpose. The whole fighter jet was a fun side effect of the project
Northrop built the F-20 back in the late 70's. It had better dogfighting performance than the F-16, and was cheaper and simpler. To some extent, it's dogfighting performance was too good; of the three that were built two were lost due to the pilots losing consciousness during high-G maneuvers.
They built it because the US government had said that they wouldn't sell F-16's to the rest of the world, as it was too good. Unfortunately for Northrop, they changed their mind -- and as the F-16 was so well known it won out.
The remaining F-20 is hanging in the California Science Center in LA, it's a beautiful plane.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
If I remember the numbers correctly, the USSR had 10:1 in their favor versus the entire NATO alliance when it came to MBTs. That is why the A-10 was built. The US was expecting to encounter an overwhelming ground force and needed the air superiority roles and close air support to slow down Russian armor. I could be mistaken, though.
You pretty much have it correct. The USSR had a very large numerical advantage in ground forces, particularly tanks and artillery and Russia still does to this day. That is exactly why the A10 was built and what informed US and NATO doctrine to this day. The US based their strategy on winning the air battle but backed up by tactical nukes if necessary.
I saw an A10 take off near my office the other day. I know a lot of people think it isn't a "pretty" plane but I've always thought it was super cool looking. Honestly I think the Air Force should hand it over to the Army though I know they never will. Close Air Support should be handled by the service that actually needs it. The Marines can do their own so the Army should be able to as well even if it involves a fixed wing aircraft. I don't really get why the air force is so down on the A10. It seems like one of the more cost effective pieces of equipment we've ever developed.
Oh look another F-35 hatchet job.
First, they compare the Su-27/35 which was designed specifically for air to air combat. While the F-35 was designed as a strike aircraft, with air-to-air as a secondary role. Then they limit the comparison to dogfighting, where the Su-27 family is legendary, and the F-35 is known to be weak. They do this despite dogfighting being extremely rare in recent history. They discount the use of high off bore missiles, despite both planes having it and the technology being decades old. And the conclusion is that the F-35 is garbage?
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 with high off-bore missiles (which they both have)? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 on BVR combat? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 on ground attack missions? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 when operating under threat of SAMs? Because the F-35 would win.
Why didn't they compare the Su-27/35 and the F-35 as an electronic warfare platform? Because the F-35 would win.
They've they chosen to compare aircraft designed for dissimilar roles in an extremely unlikely scenario that just so happens to give every possible advantage to the F-35 adversary. And make the jump that since the F-35 doesn't compare well on this one contrived situation that the whole F-35 program is a disaster.
How can anyone take these people seriously?
The same website that was pushing the "F-35 defeated by F-16 in dogfight" story that hit Slashdot a few weeks ago took another look in a maybe more appropriate wargaming scenario. This is an off-the-shelf commercial software simulation done by dedicated non-government folks based on educated guesses about classified aircraft, so I wouldn't dream of saying it's a realistic simulation, but it does show you a different view of the F-35.
From the enemy fighter's perspective, you're cruising around looking for trouble, and the first sign of it you see is incoming long-range missiles. Your amazing maneuverability comes in to play as you try to dodge hypersonic missiles, but in the end you and all your friends get blown up before the F-35s appear on your radar screen. Through countless simulations, the Russian jets were invariably wiped out with negligible losses on the American side.
Like I said, that's not the real world. But it demonstrates that comparing the maneuverability of a stealth aircraft against a non-stealth fighter is kind of an empty hypothetical.
I guess the question is what the role of the A-10 is in a world of drones.
It's definitely one of the most successful airframes in military history though.
Pork aside, empires have been lost because politicians couldn't reverse previous bad decisions. The world is not all safe and cosy, Putin is invading Eastern Europe, China is threatening the Phillipines and Japans boundary, even building artificial islands and landing strips in their territorial waters.
Fix it or dump it, but don't pretends it ok.
Build more F-22's then restart the F-18 production line... This F-35 thing needs to die because it is sucking the life blood ($$) out of the Pentagon and is likely to produce a less than ideal aircraft. I've said from the beginning of this boondoggle, the F-35 has too many requirements and will keep over-running it's costs and under delivering its capabilities because they are trying to stuff 10 lbs of garbage in a 2 lb box.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
actually the costs of planes go up as they get older. there are no new replacement parts for the A10. all 'new' parts come from mothballed birds in the boneyard at Davis-Motham. the cost of restarting or retooling a line for the A10 is nearly as much as for a new jet.
I was about to disagree with you, but then I thought.... The cost of restarting or retooling a line for the A10 is probably just about exactly the amount it would cost to build a single new F-35.
You are stepping close to the "dirty little secret" of the USAF, that the F15 on up they have had to put limiters on the planes lower than its real abilities because the simple fact is the planes can pull off moves that will kill the pilot, the meatsack behind the stick just can't handle what the plane is actually capable of.
This is why building new planes (instead of simply building more of the teen series) is not only wasteful its pointless, the planes we have now can already do more than any human body can take. instead of pissing more money down a rathole for the F35 we should simply buy more of the teen series and if the fighter jocks still want their 1980s "stealth" tech? Just buy the F15 Silent Eagle which the last numbers I saw showed you could buy 3 of them for less than the cost of a single F35 and still have change left over.
And am I the only one who feels like we are taking pages from the playbook of the Axis in WWII and making the same dumb moves? Instead of building affordable planes we keep sinking billions into "wonder weapons" that have the exact same outcome as the 262 and Panther in that they 1.- Cost too much per unit, 2.- Are VERY prone to breakdown so 3.- They spend more time in the shop than they do in battle so 4.- The enemy will always outnumber them by dozens if not hundreds to one. We have gotten lucky that the only ones we have been fighting are goat herders, because if we fought somebody like Russia or China with an abundance of fourth gen fighters? Our new toys would be facing 20+ to 1 odds and probably get spanked right out of the sky.
With modern combat the way it is, it is very difficult for rising brass to make a name for themselves. In WWII, Korea, even Vietnam, very heavy air- to air combat and massive bombing campaigns allowed officers to build reputations and further their careers. Commanding a squadron with a couple aces in it will fasttrack you for promotion, so will orchestrating the logistics of a 6-month bombing campaign. Hell, even running a bunch of successful Wild Weasel type attacks will get you medals and promotions real quick. But strafing missions against a convoy of technicals or dropping a couple bombs on some mortar or rocket positions, what does that get you? These days, the only way to boost a career and get your name out there is to get it attached to a major acquisition program. What's a couple billion dollars in tax payer money wasted if it gets you an extra star on your collar, makes you powerful friends on Capital Hill, and secures you a good consulting job after you retire?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The A-10 is quickly reaching the end of it's useful life. They are suffering serious problems with metal fatigue as most of the airframes have been flying well beyond their intended lifespan. These need to be rebuilt or junked, likely junked.
Also, nobody has built an A-10 in a few decades. Where we could stand up the tooling and a production line to build them again, that costs serious money. So the cost pre unit you are looking at would be considerably higher than before.. All you'd really be saving is the NRE (Non Recurring Engineering) costs, but I'm guessing that if we decided to go down this path, there are parts of the aircraft we'd really like to revamp as we retool.
I'm not saying that buying a few hundred A-10's wouldn't be a good deal and keep us in close air support aircraft for decades, I'm just saying that it's not the cheap alternative that it may seem up front.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The F-35 may have impressive tech, stealth, electronics and advanced missiles, but the Thunderbolt II is literally a flying tank that is able to take a lot of abuse and still keep flying. It also delivers an incredible amount of damage and its operating history is stellar. It's a great morale booster for ground troops, but the US air force wants to get rid of it.
The backstory is the USAF said they were going to kill it, and army Aviation stepped up and said "we'll take the..." and started to ID Apache pilots to transition to the Warthog. The USAF decided they'd keep them after all rather than let the Army add to its air wing.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The problem with the A-10 is that the airframes are all about done. Due to the types of missions they fly, metal fatigue is setting in and it's time to either replace the airframes or start watching the wings fall off. They are great aircraft, it's just worn out and not easily refurbished.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The F-4's advantage was speed, and that it had in spades. It was horrible at anything that required maneuverability. Roll rate was OK, but turn rate was pretty low. It was HEAVY and had high wing loading so it turned like a pig. It was pressed into service to do multiple roles, but only because that's all they had, not because it was well suited for being anything other than a radar guided missile platform.
You didn't want to dog fight in the thing, dropping bombs was a chore, but you could get there and back quickly.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you had followed closely the whole debate about the F-35, you'd know that the 20:1 figure is indeed supported by facts. It has to do with the ability of the US to wage war against distant enemies, e.g. China. In an hypothetical war with China
So you are basically talking about a purely hypothetical worst case scenario.
In an hypothetical war with China, the US would have a bunch of scattered air bases on small islands in the Pacific Ocean, with very limited aircraft capacities, only a fraction of those thousands of aircraft could be operated from there.
You mean small islands like Japan? Or Hawaii? Or Taiwan? Or Guam? You also appear to have forgotten about US aircraft carriers. Each carrier can park the better part of 100 planes off the coast of any country. That sounds like anti-F35 propaganda. It's hardly a difficult exercise to come up with highly unlikely scenarios with bad outcomes for US forces. Not very useful though for discussing doctrine or procurement. I have no problem with the notion that the F35 is a badly run program wasting a lot of money
The result would be that the US air force would be outnumbered: it doesn't matter the total number of your forces, it matters how scattered or concentrated they are.
It is HIGHLY unlikely the US Air Force + US Navy would find themselves in a situation where their aircraft were outnumbered 20:1 or even 10:1 for more than a brief time. The most likely such scenarios would involve some sort of sudden invasion from China or Russia on a US ally like Korea, Taiwan or western Europe. The ONLY countries with air forces numerically large enough to stress the US are China, Russia, India and some of the NATO countries banded together. If China suddenly surprise attacked Taiwan for example then sure the nearby US forces would be outnumbered badly for a time.
It does matter how large your force is because the larger it is the less scattered it has to be. Furthermore the US typically has 3-4 carrier battle groups deployed at any given time and military bases scattered around the world. The US has active bases in Hawaii, Korea, Japan, Guam, Singapore, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, and quite a few others. The US can have substantial aircraft assets anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours.
That's alright, we have a pile of stupid people. We'll just go the other way around.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Actually, as I recall from the 80's, the US never renounced the first use of tactical nuclear weapons due to the numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact forces over NATO in Europe -- that was the NATO ultimate force multiplier.
That is more or less correct. Even if they did "renounce" such tactics it wouldn't have meant anything really. A promise by a nation state can be revoked at any time.
And I recall the plans of how the USAF was going to beat the Russian Air Force by having each F-15 shoot down 5 (or was it 10?) MIG-21s. No one know how that would have really turned out.
Basically correct I think. The US would have had to use their superior airpower combined with available NATO ground forces to slow the Soviets until they could get reinforcements across the Atlantic ocean. They would have been outnumbered for a time - how long would be a question of effectiveness and how fast reinforcements could be brought up. It would be pretty desperate for a while - trading territory for time.
But if it were a full out Soviet tank invasion there is a HIGH probability that tactical nukes would have come into play. That was the real deterrent. If the soviets massed their tanks they would be vulnerable to nukes. If they didn't they would be operationally ineffective and vulnerable to US air power.
Though the Cold War has ended this situation still technically exists since Russia still has substantial ground forces. The problem is lessened with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union but I'm sure the US military and NATO still plans for it - just in case.
The A10 is a beautiful solution to a forty year old problem.
A problem which still exists and for which the A10 is still apparently quite effective.
Unfortunately, the Russians figured out that since the Americans built a flying tank killer, they'd have to start putting decent armour on top of their tanks.
I've seen no evidence that the Russians have a tank that is immune to the gun on the A10. Perhaps you are aware of something I am not?
As for SAMs, that is not a new problem for the A10 either. In fact the A10 is arguably better equipped against SAMs than many of the faster sexier aircraft out there since it was actually designed to take a hit and keep flying.
I am not trying to say the F-35 is good, I have no idea, but from what I understand about the jet is it's designed to not get into dog fights in the first place. A similar line of logic of someone gaining physical access to your server, all bets are off. F-35 has advanced stealth and targeting tech that also allows the jets to communicate with each other to integrate targeting information from multiple systems.
Instead of a car analogy, an RPG analogy. If you're a hunter and you're getting into melee range with a rogue, you're doing it wrong.
Stealth was a great idea. It was conceived to provide first strike capability to nuclear bombers in the face of comprehensive air defence networks. That niche was short term, until ballistic missiles took over, the stealth tech didn't have to face a drawn out war where the enemy could innovate (he got one look at the bombers on radar, then boom) and it didn't have to be perfect, it just had to increase the number of planes that could get through.
It's not a horrible idea for an interceptor like the F-22, or a specialized first strike attack jet like the F117. Making serious compromises for stealth in your workhorse fighter? That doesn't seem so smart.
You've stated the point but also completely missed it. The main advantage of stealth (both historically and currently) is not that you are invisible, but that you are harder to detect. Another way of looking at it is to say that the main advantage of stealth is that it shrinks the effective range of your enemies' detection and targetting systems.
This allows you more latitude to act near "enemy" installations and platforms. Alternately, you can say that it raises the bar for any opponent wishing to interdict your operations.
Both of these are (and always will be) highly desirable features.
Geez folks, the F22/F35 one main reason these planes are limited in performance is the pilot in the seat--too many G's too fast.
Just put a AHRS on it, drone-ify it, and call it a day---will likely out dogfight anything out there as a drone.... since the main debate here is about dogfighting.
Not unless they sell a lot of jets. It's way over-priced and not necessary. Stop trolling for Lock-Head Martin.
actually the costs of planes go up as they get older.
there are no new replacement parts for the A10.
all 'new' parts come from mothballed birds in the boneyard at Davis-Motham.
the cost of restarting or retooling a line for the A10 is nearly as much as for a new jet.
I was about to disagree with you, but then I thought.... The cost of restarting or retooling a line for the A10 is probably just about exactly the amount it would cost to build a single new F-35.
This post deserves more upvotes. Brilliant.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Sucks to be the poor pilot who has to fly that thing all the way across the pacific and back, plus conduct combat operations in the middle.
The bringing F-18s on a carrier is a legitimate threat.
Program the drones that if they get jammed, fly towards and crash into whatever is jamming them.
Most fly-by-wire programs are conducted over the course of years and the life cycle of the hardware. The instrumentation undergoes years of tweaking as the pilots input upon any of the control systems actually change the shape of more than one of the surface features of the wings, fuselage, ailerons etc and are based upon an envelope derived from the jet`s current velocity, acceleration and G forces acting upon the jet. It takes years of flight and performance data to perfect the software and the parameters that affect the control of a jet. The initial programs of the F-111, the F14, the F117, and the F16 all underwent the same process. The F-16 actually underwent a series of upgrades and changes since its first deployment that has subsequently improved its performance over the course of years of its life. Even the F14 program ran into similar snags before it became one of the most agile fighters and weapons platforms. In truth if you look over the time to maturity of the F-16 (a relatively simple but jet by comparison) the F-16 has had years to mature over the course of its program receiving several modifications and upgrades along the way. The F35 is still at the very beginning of that curve. The F-16 had handling snags that initially had the first pilots calling it a "hog in flight without wings". Keep in mind that was experienced test pilots commenting on an advanced technology jet fight/bomber of its day. Remember that developing a jet involves developing the hardware and software. Tweaking it and the fly-by-wire system from the performance data over generations of such tests. Evaluating its flight envelope, one of the most closely guarded secrets about a jet initially. Developing a training program for the pilots who will be flying that jet so that they may use the flight envelope data, the fly-by-wire systems all to their best advantage in flight or combat. The F35 is still in the "tweaking it" phase and is almost ready for the envelope and training program phase. Look back at the history of the F16 if you don't believe me. A lot of test pilots had a lot of bad to say about it. Likewise with the F117 and even the F14 and F15. Fly-by-wire is not a simple case of move a control, watch the flaps or ailerons on the appropriate wing respond. Its move a control, watch fifteen or twenty different parts of the jet change shape all according to how fast its moving and the forces acting upon it. The F35 is still in its infancy. Wait until the program matures. It has a much different role than its cousin the F22 and that's a bad comparison not to mention that the F22 is a bit further along in its program. Check out the history of those jets and what some of the greatest pilots had to say about them at first including Chuck Yeager, perhaps one of the greatest test pilots of all time. Brian Joseph Johns
One aircraft for multiple missions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. It didn't go well for the F-4 during the Vietnam war, nor did it for the F-105 all designed with missions that never came. The F-35 is repeating those mistakes.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
It's hard to jam every frequency, short of EMP weapons, which only affect stuff for a limited time, and your own fighters.
But drones may require more autonomous fighting when bandwidth is limited by jamming. In other words, AI. Sky Net :-)
Why would you bother to jam them in the first place? In order to send data back to the operator, the drone is constantly broadcasting, which means it should be a sitting duck for any number of homing ordinances. (Not like you can tell the drone to go silent, because then the operator is blind)
The point I was making is that tanks alone are not a tool to solve every problem. I gave an example which you then later accepted despite a vicious attack when I presented it.
I really can't understand why you found that so challenging and got so personal over something so trivial that you even agree with.
"That is, more than two F-35s were lost for each Su-35 shot down."
Wow thanks for explaining that :-)
@peetm
Yes - you insulted me for stating something you later asserted yourself.
Consider what such an action means.
It's not about you setting me up as a sophist strawman and you pretending to be a stoic - far more simple, it's about being an immature insulting little piece of shit instead of there being any reason involved at all
Why is it that my statement was considered incorrect enough to attract an insult when I wrote it but you consider it correct when you do?
There is an obvious answer that does not depend on distractions of high school level lectures to readers. Just because your education was so fucked that reading a book on philosophy allows you to dazzle others does not mean that all others here are as unfortunate as yourself.
I'm sure you can work it out.
By quoting my original post? Wow - so I'm either an epic hacker, invented time travel or you are lying. How petty.
I did.
A couple of posts up
Why do you need it a third time?
Epic fail.
You still haven't worked out the simple answer - here's a clue - use a mirror.
LOL! You seem to value it far too much to use it here!
Which of course showed you didn't read it then either.
You asked me to put up - I did. Now show some of the integrity or just admit that you are doing nothing but playing a worthless little game here and this making me feel utterly smug and far superior to you. Let's see the human being instead of something an "Eliza" script could do better.