Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[SchizophrenicMC]

Yeah, dropping guided weapons, the most advanced radar and sensor package currently installed on any fighter in the world: not worth mentioning at all.

The main power of that radar and sensor package being its ability to coordinate the data from multiple aircraft, that system not being operational on currently active F-35Bs is kind of disappointing. And by kind of, I mean very. Not to mention they've noted certain kinds of ordinance are still not compatible yet, including the small diameter bombs the jet was supposed to carry for maximum on-target damage what with its stealth penetrations.

It's just PR. It's still cheaper (and probably more effective) to fly a loaded-for-bear F-18 and an E-3 into an area you want to blow up. Without the sensor fusion, night vision HMD, or the types of bombs ideal for taking out small insurgent targets (which are our only enemies at this stage) it's just a single-engine STOVL-capable half-stealth Gen4.5 fighter without enough payload capacity. I mean. At least the STOVL works. Otherwise, the a-hole in the Marines who demanded the F-35B even have STOVL, one of the main things that held back development, would probably be lynched at this point.

[mickyg]

Hey guys, FYI: It's Ordnance without the 'i' in it. Ordinance is something entirely different.

Ordinance

Ordnance

[SchizophrenicMC]

Certain laws are also incompatible with the F-35B. I stand by my typo.

[Vifam7]

The main power of that radar and sensor package being its ability to coordinate the data from multiple aircraft, that system not being operational on currently active F-35Bs is kind of disappointing. And by kind of, I mean very. Not to mention they've noted certain kinds of ordinance are still not compatible yet, including the small diameter bombs the jet was supposed to carry for maximum on-target damage what with its stealth penetrations.

It's just PR. It's still cheaper (and probably more effective) to fly a loaded-for-bear F-18 and an E-3 into an area you want to blow up. Without the sensor fusion, night vision HMD, or the types of bombs ideal for taking out small insurgent targets (which are our only enemies at this stage) it's just a single-engine STOVL-capable half-stealth Gen4.5 fighter without enough payload capacity. I mean. At least the STOVL works. Otherwise, the a-hole in the Marines who demanded the F-35B even have STOVL, one of the main things that held back development, would probably be lynched at this point.

I'm pretty sure those Marines know more about what the F-35 is capable of and why they want/need it for future conflicts than most of the critics out there.

In anycase, all of the currently missing capabilities will eventually be worked in. Advanced fighter jets don't happen overnight.

[mickyg]

Nice one, Schizo!

[F-ZeroOne]

An interesting comparison that I saw on another forum: The Tornado F2/3. Radar had major development problems, to the extent that the first ones were known as "Blue Circle" due to the cement they carried as ballast in the nose in place of the radar. Couldn't dogfight as it was an interceptor (more accurately, perceived as such). There were various issues/bugs that were gradually cleared over time after the aircraft entered service...

Also, regards payload, as has been pointed out by others, fuel can count as a payload. The F-35s is all internal. Thats possibly not taken into account enough...

[grigolosi]

A lot of the aircraft we have used have had issues of some type. Some worse than other's. The F-100 had major CG problems that killed several test pilots including our leading Korean War ace Joseph McConnell. It also had issues with its exhaust nozzle which weren't remedied until it was almost retired (they fitted the exhaust nozzle from an F-102 to the engine). The F-105 was discovered to have major frame issues when it first went into service. An F-105B being used by the Thunderbirds literally broke in half during a loop during an airshow. The problem was fixed in the the F-105D by strengthening the frame. The F-16 had major wire chafing issues when it was put into service, so much so that even to this day all F-16 maintainers do yearly block training that includes wire chafing awareness. What doesn't help the F-35 though is the heavy landing gear installed for naval use. it is one of the prices the design has paid for in its multi service use design. If it had normal sized gear for AF use a large amount of weight could be saved. The weight issue is a major factor in its payload capability. It will take some time to clear the problems it has as F-ZeroOne said. One big mistake made by the government was the fact they bought it before the plane was even thoroughly tested. In the past the manufacturer was always responsible for testing the bird and making necessary changes for performance before the government even purchased one production model.

[Valkyrie Driver]

It may have been mentioned, but has anyone looked at the Textron Airland Scorpion, as a possible replacement aircraft for the US Air National Guard? That would free up some more F-15's, F-16's, and A-10's for the active duty guys to use, and the Active Duty components could use it to supplement their ground based CAS missions...

[grigolosi]

Yeah i have been watching that in the news feeds. COIN birds are starting to become very popular now due to the shrinking of a lot of military budgets. Over here in the UAE they are using militarized crop dusters for border patrol aircraft. It is called the Archangel. They are being produced by Iomax. That Scorpion looks very promising though. I don't know a whole lot about it though.

[Thom]

The mistake was trying to do a multi-service bird in the first place. It will probably be a good plane. But that's it. Just good, when our military really deserves the best in all respects for each service.

[Noyhauser]

The main power of that radar and sensor package being its ability to coordinate the data from multiple aircraft, that system not being operational on currently active F-35Bs is kind of disappointing. And by kind of, I mean very.

Which is a capability no aircraft in the world today save for the F-22 has: the F-35 can do raw data correlation between two aircraft currently, up to four or more in the coming months. It also has Link-16 for communications, which is the basic system used by all other aircraft. Nevertheless, the Radar, Electro Optical and IR systems are far beyond anything currently in service.

Not to mention they've noted certain kinds of ordinance are still not compatible yet, including the small diameter bombs the jet was supposed to carry for maximum on-target damage what with its stealth penetrations.

I don't know what "maximum on-target damage" means, to you or anyone else. SDB is designed to have very low collateral damage and (in block II, just now coming into service) moving target hit to kill capabilities. GBU-16 or 38 are not as capable, but have been doing that very job for over 15 years, with thousands being expended over Iraq and Afghanistan. The plan since 2012 has always been to only have a small number of weapons available for the block 2B standard. The marines accepted this years ago, as the package of capabilities, far outstripped anything they could field.

It's just PR. It's still cheaper (and probably more effective) to fly a loaded-for-bear F-18 and an E-3 into an area you want to blow up. Without the sensor fusion, night vision HMD, or the types of bombs ideal for taking out small insurgent targets (which are our only enemies at this stage) it's just a single-engine STOVL-capable half-stealth Gen4.5 fighter without enough payload capacity. I mean. At least the STOVL works. Otherwise, the a-hole in the Marines who demanded the F-35B even have STOVL, one of the main things that held back development, would probably be lynched at this point.

The aircraft has partial sensor fusion, full night vision HMD, and can employ the weapons (GBU-16, 38 and 32) which have accounted for the majority of weapon drops in afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. The most common combat loadout on combat aircraft has been two 1000lbs or 500lbs class weapons and fuel tanks... which is what the F-35B carried internally today, as well as a full load of fuel. So claiming the aircraft is somehow deficient or not a major advancement over current aircraft designs, is just factually incorrect.

What doesn't help the F-35 though is the heavy landing gear installed for naval use. it is one of the prices the design has paid for in its multi service use design. If it had normal sized gear for AF use a large amount of weight could be saved. The weight issue is a major factor in its payload capability.

No, the CTOL and STOVL version's landing gear is different from the CATOBAR version.... as is the structural reinforcement around the entire aircraft. In reality the STOVL version was one of the best things to happen to the F-35A: it enjoyed a huge amount of weight saving that might not have happened otherwise. If anything commonality with the F-35C has had more of an effect on the aircraft' performance.

It will take some time to clear the problems it has as F-ZeroOne said. One big mistake made by the government was the fact they bought it before the plane was even thoroughly tested. In the past the manufacturer was always responsible for testing the bird and making necessary changes for performance before the government even purchased one production model.

With some very obscure examples (F-5/20 come to mind)prior to the 1980s, the government has ALWAYS paid for the development and testing of an aircraft. No company would invest their money with no guarantee of success: That's why they negotiate cancellation clauses. Even the Textron Scorpion requires billions in development from the USG to get it to a combat ready configuration: its something the company is not willing to spend without any guarantee of funding.

If you're talking about concurrency, which is purchasing of aircraft while still in development, then the F-35 is no different from any other aircraft. there are currently 340 LRIP aircraft planned, I believe 150 or so build.

Moreover there were over 290 F-16A Block 1 and 5s built before the 10 appeared. And we're getting F-35s now that are combat capable, and will be upgraded to full standard by 2022.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Noyhauser

[F-ZeroOne]

Thats a good point about early versions of aircraft, actually - you can go back all the way to the P-51A (or early Me-109s with British Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines...!).

Also, in images, the F-35Cs landing gear is noticeably different to the Bs, especially the front wheel which has a towbar and what appears to be an additional hydraulic (?) attachment strut.

Edit: for clarity, only a prototype Me-109 had a Kestrel. For some reason I thought it was more than that...

Edited August 5, 2015 by F-ZeroOne

[dizman]

Poor Tigershark, if I was a 3rd world dictator I would have bought you .

[grigolosi]

The Scorpion was self funded by Textron, Bell and Cessna. They built it without any procurement contract or requirements. Yes the USG has always given the manufacturers the design requirements and money to develop a prototype. Usually certain number of prototypes were funded for evaluation by the USAF or USN but never have we paid for not only the prototypes but also the full production run until all the kinks have been worked out. You think no internal gun, weapons load and added weight due to the engine rotation gear is the best thing that could have happened to the F-35B. I have been around the F-35's and talked with the maintainers. it has a laundry list of issues, to save weight they use plastic cannon plugs (really have you ever had to disconnect one that was extremely tight) they told me they break very easily with cannon plug pliers . The panel to pull an oil sample (JOAP) has 30 small bolts all the around it since no one at LM bothered to think the way the USAF does when it comes to engine maintenance. The idea by LM was that one sample a day was all that would be needed on the F-135 engine. Well the USAF like it always has demanded a sample be taken every flight to watch engine wear on a new engine series (which I din't blame them) the F-16 has only gone from pulling sample every flight to one every 10 hrs in the past 5 yrs after 30 yrs of service. By the way all the aircraft you listed on that chart were not "precursor" aircraft. They are the definitive models or highest produced model of those series. Their development was part of the continued life of the frames. Of course the government paid for the modifications. The USG always pays for modifications to extend or advance a frame. The F-4E was reaction to the lack of an internal gun mounted in the F-4, yes they did upgrade the other systems but these were seen as the continued development of a frame that was already in service and in full production. The 290 F-16A's and B's were not ordered into production until changes were made to the YF-16 after its test flying were done (addition of a larger radar, a change in the nose gear door, changing the positioning of the EPU ground safety pin to save money on wiring). Also if the current F-35's are combat capable why hasn't the USAF declared the F-35A operationally ready? Because they are still clearing the frame to drop and use the munitions in the inventory. Yeah it has lots of great systems in it but it is still far away from being a "great" aircraft.

[Phyrox]

Thats a good point about early versions of aircraft, actually - you can go back all the way to the P-51A (or early Me-109s with British Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines...!).

Also, in images, the F-35Cs landing gear is noticeably different to the Bs, especially the front wheel which has a towbar and what appears to be an additional hydraulic (?) attachment strut.

Edit: for clarity, only a prototype Me-109 had a Kestrel. For some reason I thought it was more than that...

If we want super clarity, 109s are Bf-109s. Some German documents referred to them later as Me-109, but Bf is officially correct. Particularly if referring to an early Bf-109 prototype which was produced before the company changed its name to Messerschmitt.

[F-ZeroOne]

I had a feeling this would pop up. I nearly went for Bf-109 myself and I'm not really sure why I didn't, though at least going by books I've read there doesn't seem to be an exact consensus, though many do point out that Bf-109 is more technically correct.

[spanner]

Poor Tigershark, if I was a 3rd world dictator I would have bought you .

Yep! I would have probably done the same! Always loved this little beauty! Shame it never saw production..

[grigolosi]

Phyrox is right on correct. BF or Bayerische Flugzuegwerke (Bavarian Aircraft Works) was taken over by Willy in 1938 officially and any designs after that were officially referred to as ME. But since the design was Willy Messerschmitts, whose name was so well known to the allies as well they just referred to anything built by the company as ME.

One thing I have noticed working here in the Middle East is the factor that didn't help the F-20. Basically in this area of the world where money is rampant, its who has the newest and fastest toy syndrome. They do this with cars and they do it with aircraft. The Block 60 F-16 was completely funded by the UAE to initially replace their Mirage 2000's (which they are still flying). They basically wanted the most advance and expensive F-16 to showoff to all the other Arab countries here. It is an advance aircraft but whoever the salesman for LM was made a hell of a deal. He got them to buy systems they didn't really need (600 gal wing tanks) and they left off an important feature. With all the advance systems in it they didn't include the digital brake control in it. So when they have flown the the jet with the loadout including the conformals and 600 gal tanks they burned up the brakes on landing. It didn't help the F-20 also that the government didn't advertise it like they were supposed to as part of the FX fighter export program since it was in direct competition with the F-16. Basically the more F-16's built pushed the price per frame down. So it helped the USAF and US government to not sell the F-20 even to small countries. It was a sad outcome for such a successful design.

Edited August 7, 2015 by grigolosi

[Valkyrie Driver]

My dad and I are huge proponents of supplying the Air National Guard with inexpensive aircraft for several reasons;

1) The Air Guard doesn't should be for defending the homeland so they don't need to have the same aircraft that the REGAF does.

2) Proper national Air Defense requires numbers, you can't do that with expensive aircraft.

3) Drones are great for Dangerous, Dull, and Dirty missions, but they cannot and should not fly Air Combat, the operator is not invested in the fight, and doesn't have the situational awareness because of the camera.

4) The National Guard (Army and Air) are second line troops, they need the best equipment for the job, but that doesn't mean it has to be the most advanced, second line doesn't mean second rate.

I'm not sold on the F-35, at all. I think we need to replacing the F-15, F-16, and A-10's with aircraft designed to replace them individually. The F-15 is a big, fast, maneuverable dogfighter, designed to kill enemy aircraft. The F-15E was optimized to drop bombs, but is still a capable F-15. The F-16 was purchased to supplement the F-15 with a more numerous and less expensive fighter, that could outperform any other aircraft of similar type. The A-10 was purchased and designed to kill tanks and provide Close Air Support, something it does exceedingly well. The F-35 was supposed to be able to do all of this, but I know it lacks the payload to perform adequate CAS duties like the A-10. The F-15/F-16 can't do CAS quite like the A-10 either, because of their speed and lighter payload. While the F-35 has the capability to carry external stores, I highly doubt they will ever equip it in such a manner, because that will spoil the stealth characteristics. Internal bays necessitate a larger aircraft, and the F-35 certainly is larger than the F-16 it's supposed to replace, which means with all that expensive material it costs way more than it would if it was the same size as an F-16.

I'm not saying we shouldn't buy it, I agree with Grig on his point about us purchasing a less than finished product, but first it needs to work. From what I understand it's a maintenance nightmare. It's not reliable yet, since I've also heard it's plagued with problems, that have driven cost per unit up.

You cannot build an air force around stealth fighters. You can't, it costs way too much, and the return on investment is very low. We need to focus on making Generation 4.5 type aircraft to fill the gaps in our fighter fleet. Honestly, I'd love to see the Air Force buy the F/A-18E/F, because it's still in production, it should stay in production, and it's a great and versatile aircraft.

[Noyhauser]

The Scorpion was self funded by Textron, Bell and Cessna. They built it without any procurement contract or requirements.

Yes, but as you very well know, airframe isn't what's the cost driver on aircraft: its the avionics. Comms, sensors ect. That stuff hasn't been developed, because its what's going to cost Textron the real money to develop. That means adding at very least Link 16, ROVER Compatibility, among systems, plus some level of sensor integration. I did overstate the potential cost, but its not going to be cheap to make it conform to the USAF's needs. Otherwise it makes more sense for the USAF to either buy more Reapers, or continue with its current force structure. The reason why the A-10 is being removed from service is that it basically does what the F-16 does now and at the same cost. Eliminating a whole class of aircraft and its logistical and training pipeline is a major cost savings. Adding a new one, even if it is cheaper, creates an entirely new one. If this is an actual need be to take the eventual winner of the upcoming T/X program, intended to replace the T-33 and other training aircraft, and then offer a side contract for upgrading it to a light CAS aircraft. Remember, the USAF already had a light fighter program, operated at the behest of the Afghan Government, which it then cancelled.

Frankly, the Scorpion is wading into a market that has vast overcapacity, and there are structural reasons why its going to have a difficult time gaining orders. Currently, There are over a half dozen aircraft that operate in a roughly similar space, often at a far lower potential cost. L-139, M-349, T-50, HJT-136, Yak-130, L-15, JL-8, among others.

For Second or third world countries, cost and geo-political considerations are critical. While the Scorpion may boast better performance in many or most areas, its not going to be cheaper than the other options or get the same financing. China and Russia are willing to support states with generous loans or cut rate prices. With the Scorpion unlikely to win contracts even in the United States, it can't rely on that support. So it is unlikely to ever be a world beater in terms of contracts.

Yes the USG has always given the manufacturers the design requirements and money to develop a prototype. Usually certain number of prototypes were funded for evaluation by the USAF or USN but never have we paid for not only the prototypes but also the full production run until all the kinks have been worked out.

Well, first off, we haven't paid for the "full production run" of F-35s. Its purchased lot by lot, through the usual contracting process. DoD is considering a "batch buy" which is a form of Multiyear procurement for FY18~21, but that's not the same as a full lifetime procurement. We've indicated what our requirements for production are, and the Industrial partnership has developed the industrial base for it. That's pretty basic stuff that happens for all projects. I'm not sure how you think the F-35 is somehow unique in this regards.

Second, DoD has in the past purchased items sight unseen. Back in the 1950s they attempted an approach called Cook-Craigie approach, where they did buy entire programs without a prototype... you had early production models that they paid for and attempted to enter into service.

You think no internal gun, weapons load and added weight due to the engine rotation gear is the best thing that could have happened to the F-35B.

Could you point me to where I said that? Because I didn't...

To expand on what I said: the STOVL Version imposed a series of specifications that would help the CTOL F-35A. The weight reduction efforts did significantly improve the F-35A's performance. This is a chart of the F-35A's Weight. See how the program

See that massive drop in weight in 2004? that's SWAT, a major weight reduction effort implemented in order to improve the F-35B's performance. The F-35C never saw the same effort, and it's weight has remained largely constant during that period. In speaking with some Lockheed Engineers, they point to some of the requirements of the C version that caused greater technical challenges, such as the levels of redundancy due to Navy requirements.

I have been around the F-35's and talked with the maintainers. it has a laundry list of issues, to save weight they use plastic cannon plugs (really have you ever had to disconnect one that was extremely tight) they told me they break very easily with cannon plug pliers.

Sure. I've spoken to a number of them too, and yes there are issues... I never claimed otherwise. I can go on about the ALIS problems, since that's an area that I study.

The panel to pull an oil sample (JOAP) has 30 small bolts all the around it since no one at LM bothered to think the way the USAF does when it comes to engine maintenance. The idea by LM was that one sample a day was all that would be needed on the F-135 engine. Well the USAF like it always has demanded a sample be taken every flight to watch engine wear on a new engine series (which I din't blame them) the F-16 has only gone from pulling sample every flight to one every 10 hrs in the past 5 yrs after 30 yrs of service.

Certainly contractors can and do make bad decisions: I can identify a number of ones with the F-35's health management that they actually repeated from the F-22 program. In this case however,there is a reason why the F-35's oil sample panel is not easy to check: because it was never intended to be used heavily. I'm not a maintainer (so forgive my inexactness), but this was what I've learned, partly thought another F-16 and now F-35 jet engine mechanic, with over 20 years of experience on the F-16. He worked on the flight line, intermediate, module and test cell.

So, I think its important to understand how the F135 is supposed to operate. Rather than traditional oil sampling, borescopes, inspections, the F-35 features more onboard sensors to identify potential problems earlier. The oil sampler is actually built by a Canadian company called Gastops, and its starting to be installed on a lot more aircraft, including the F-22. Here's a scientific paper on it:

http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2006/EP/Aids/Papers/Figueroa-Rodriguez/Miller.pdf

This is not intended to be a replacement for traditional sampling. Rather the realtime system alerts maintainers of the presence of foreign particulates in the oil system, at which time they would open up the engine to take a regular sample. I suspect that the procedures you're referring to were implemented in the wake of last year's engine failure, where there was no advanced warning of a problem though the onboard systems (and later diagnosed to be due to excessive rubbing on the stator, which would not have shown up in the oil system). Whether or not the USAF continues with this practice I'm not really privy to, as its outside my area of work.

Regardless, This system is part of a greater effort to move away from regular checks and life determined parts. Will it work? Well we're already seeing this trend occur in the Civil aviation world. The A380 has over 150,000 sensors on it, which drive the health management system. This is the military's attempt to incorporate some of these technologies in order to streamline maintenance on the F-35.

By the way all the aircraft you listed on that chart were not "precursor" aircraft. They are the definitive models or highest produced model of those series. Their development was part of the continued life of the frames. Of course the government paid for the modifications.

I think you're misreading the chart: Its the number of aircraft before the definitive type listed. The F/P-80C was the definitive type, with over 500 P-80As being put into production... which were later heavily modified to the F-80C standard.

The USG always pays for modifications to extend or advance a frame. The F-4E was reaction to the lack of an internal gun mounted in the F-4, yes they did upgrade the other systems but these were seen as the continued development of a frame that was already in service and in full production. The 290 F-16A's and B's were not ordered into production until changes were made to the YF-16 after its test flying were done (addition of a larger radar, a change in the nose gear door, changing the positioning of the EPU ground safety pin to save money on wiring).

Sure, but the 290 Block 1s, 5 and 10s were not nearly as capable as the Block-15: they were quickly upgraded to that standard by the mid-1980s. The difference is that the current F-35B and LRIP aircraft have an established upgrade path to full capability, while the Block 1,5 and 10 F-16s upgrades were undertaken after deficiencies were identified.

Also if the current F-35's are combat capable why hasn't the USAF declared the F-35A operationally ready? Because they are still clearing the frame to drop and use the munitions in the inventory. Yeah it has lots of great systems in it but it is still far away from being a "great" aircraft.

Sure, but it doesn't mean the B version is not combat ready: two different services have different requirements... that's not really much of a surprise. The Air Force already has the F-22 and a number of aircraft, and it envisions using the F-35 in a wide variety of roles. The Marines are more focused on CAS, so their requirements are more limited: that means they can get away with 2000lbs of ordnance, which is still much more than what the AV-8 and the F/A-18 could do for them. Nevertheless, when you look at the package of capabilities that the F-35B offers compared to any other fighter out there, it is a significant improvement: that still does not mean its fully developed, nor would I claim that is the case.

As a final note, please understand that basically you're taking a number of my responses out of context when I'm responding to an individual who basically thinks the F-35 is the functional aircraft equivalent of the devil spawn. Its easy to say that I'm overstating a position or lack nuance, when the original comment I'm responding to lacks any of that completely.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Noyhauser

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yes, but as you very well know, airframe isn't what's the cost driver on aircraft: its the avionics. Comms, sensors ect. That stuff hasn't been developed, because its what's going to cost Textron the real money to develop. That means adding at very least Link 16, ROVER Compatibility, among systems, plus some level of sensor integration. I did overstate the potential cost, but its not going to be cheap to make it conform to the USAF's needs. Otherwise it makes more sense for the USAF to either buy more Reapers, or continue with its current force structure. The reason why the A-10 is being removed from service is that it basically does what the F-16 does now and at the same cost.

True, avionics do drive the cost up. I think you're missing the point though. Textron has built a fully mission capable aircraft capable of performing the same mission that the reaper drone performs, but with a better safety rating (i.e. it'll crash less, meaning we won't have to buy as many, as often), and thus cheaper overall operating costs (It's only 3 million dollars more per unit). It would be a perfect for airborne FAC, and low threat close air support. The other benefit is that Textron built it with off the shelf parts, and made its capabilities expandable.

Also, you need to check again on the A-10, last I heard the latest attempt to remove it from service was shot down. The F-16 and F-15 do not do the CAS mission better than the dedicated A-10. They never will. The F-16, and F-15 are satisfactory, but the A-10 is superb. When given a choice the boots on the ground want the A-10, because it scares the hell out of the enemy. It's also one of the few aircraft in the inventory that can be rebuilt. It can be taken back to zero time, A-10 mechanics have told me this. I'm sorry but your argument is flawed.

The F-35 was designed by committee, it has far too many design compromises to make it effective at all the roles. I'm not saying that the F-35 isn't a valuable addition to the inventory, but it is not something you can build an air force on.

An update of the F-20 tigershark would make a great replacement for the F-16 in the national guard inventory, while the Textron Scorpion would be a great replacement for the A-10 in the same way. Both airframes would make valuable additions to the Regular Air Force inventory supplementing the current aircraft. I'm not sold on the necessity of a main stealth fighter, beyond the first week of conflict. After that it pretty much becomes a conventional fight, and you don't fight BVR anyway, so stealth will get you inside visual range, and then it's useless, because the enemy can still see you.

I'm not sold on drones for anything other than dangerous, dull, and dirty missions. I will tell you that I think the procurement process really screwed the pooch on the F-35 and F-22. They are plagued by problems, and are egregiously over-budget. I'm sorry they could be the greatest planes in the world mechanically, but their cost, is too high to make them viable. Noyhauser, you're advocating a position that is part of why DoD funding is always on the chopping block, because you're advocating the latest and greatest shiny new toys, when good enough is more than adequate to fill our needs.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[Sildani]

What happens when China has enough ​of Taiwan/Vietnam/Japan and starts shooting? They have some very capable aircraft like the J-10, possibly J-20, the various SU-27/30 copies, and a reasonable ADF setup. They're also on the other side of the world.

Let's assume they attack, roll over the ROC, make an amphib landing from Manchuria to the west coast of Japan, or at least launch many missiles and drop many bombs on Nippon. Let's also assume no one's nuked anyone yet. Ten hours have elapsed.

What do we do, with what, and would the 35, in all its incarnations, make any of that easier?

[Valkyrie Driver]

What happens when China has enough ​of Taiwan/Vietnam/Japan and starts shooting? They have some very capable aircraft like the J-10, possibly J-20, the various SU-27/30 copies, and a reasonable ADF setup. They're also on the other side of the world.

Let's assume they attack, roll over the ROC, make an amphib landing from Manchuria to the west coast of Japan, or at least launch many missiles and drop many bombs on Nippon. Let's also assume no one's nuked anyone yet. Ten hours have elapsed.

What do we do, with what, and would the 35, in all its incarnations, make any of that easier?

What we do, is sit on our hands, because the American people don't want another war, because they have been fooled into thinking that peace is the natural order of things...

What we should do, is roll our entire bomber fleet out through Guam, loaded with conventional weapons, and all limitations removed, and turn Beijing into a parking lot. Then with precision air strikes, using our F-15's and F-16's (because the F-35 isn't combat ready yet and the F-22 fleet will be grounded because of some issue or other), we eliminate factories producing war material. Then we land forces in the Chinese mainland and using A-10's to clear the way, roll our forces right into the major cities and proceed to kill every last pocket of resistance the PLA can muster. We then occupy the country, and subjugate the people and make sure the country belongs to us, then we can go about setting up a new government. Again though only after we own the country. We don't defeat the enemy, we crush him, by destroying his will and ability to resist.

That's what we do...

[SchizophrenicMC]

What we do is we don't worry about it, because the quickest way to a powerful, globalized country's heart isn't by deploying ordnance, it's by enacting ordinance. Impose economic sanctions and trade embargoes in response to hostile action. The pen, truly, is mightier than the sword. Hit your opponent right in the economy. Especially when that opponent is like China, and relies entirely upon exporting goods to generate enough money in their economy to provide even the most basic needs. China has passed the tipping point, where they're no longer agriculturally self-sufficient. Cut off their ability to pay for food imports and, well, look at North Korea. For that matter, China is investing heavily in Western (particularly American) designs for nuclear power generation, to provide the absolutely enormous amount of energy their country needs as they wean themselves off the coal that is killing their environment and their people, slowly and expensively. They still have to grandstand so other nations (and their own people) take them seriously, but they really cannot afford to piss off the West. They might make some power plays with boats in a couple of local seas, but don't expect an outright attack or invasion. They'd get cut off from the teat so quickly it'd squirt them in the eye.

This is a very different world from the 1940s, and overwhelming force is in all likelihood not the best option, especially when facing a nuclear armed nation that needs your cash more than you need its junk.

I don't worry about China. I worry a little bit about Russia. I definitely worry about adversaries who don't fly a national flag. Borderless groups who cluster around an idea- those are the dangerous ones. You can ruin a nation in too many ways to count, but ideas are pervasive. And the people who subscribe to those ideas such that they would carry out violent acts in the name thereof can be anybody, nondescript, hiding in plain sight until the moment of the attack. Even more worrisome than that is the impossibility of finding a balance between securing a nation against those adversaries, and maintaining the freedom and liberty that makes a nation worth existing. Ever wonder how the Orwellian Nightmare starts? With the words, "Well, I've got nothing to hide."

[Valkyrie Driver]

Schizo, you have a good point. Peaceful solutions are the best solutions. As for the Orwellian Nightmare, just because I've got nothing to hide, doesn't mean I'm gonna show everyone... How do you secure a nation of free people? An armed and vigilant populace that's how. No restrictions on protected speech (hate speech and advocating the violent overthrow of the government, are not protected), acceptance that people are fundamentally flawed, and the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Free the market, better our education, and reduce government interference in the lives of citizens. That's how you do it. More troops under arms, and mandatory military service for everyone (doesn't have to be active duty, it doesn't even have to be long, 2 years active duty, or 4 years guard or reserve minimum). A relatively fit, trained, armed, and vigilant society, is what we used to be, we should be again.

[Shadow]

Depends how far the PRC would go if it carried out a military expansion. We would be obligated militarily to protect Japan and ROK. I don't see the PRC doing this anytime in the near future. China and Russia are still significant threats, especially on the cyber front with state-sponsored hacker groups like APT28 or China's Unit 61398. While I'm not worried about Putin going after NATO border countries, I think he'll continue to poke and prod the West and sew instability among his neighbors who seek to align more with Western powers.

I agree with Schizo that radicalized ideology is a threat and will continue to be for a long time. I still think that at some point however, we will be faced with a technology sophisticated adversary. I want us to be prepared for that.

Alittle more on topic regarding an upgraded F-20. I mentioned this before, throw in the latest avionics, an F414 powerplant and AIM-9X capability; you have the best QRF aircraft in existence.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Shadow

[Valkyrie Driver]

I think we should just buy more F-16's, LM is still building them for the export market...

[Thom]

F-16 XLs... Then double the production of F-22s and resurrect the YF-23 for naval service while you're at it. Then let's get to building a series of aircraft, individual frames, that would answer the actual need of the service involved rather than just a mushy shrug as an answer for them all.

THEN hold the aircraft company's collective feet to the fire in order to keep them to their projected cost!

[spanner]

F-16 XLs... Then double the production of F-22s and resurrect the YF-23 for naval service while you're at it. Then let's get to building a series of aircraft, individual frames, that would answer the actual need of the service involved rather than just a mushy shrug as an answer for them all.

THEN hold the aircraft company's collective feet to the fire in order to keep them to their projected cost!

what a dream come true this would be!

[505thAirborne]

Yep! I would have probably done the same! Always loved this little beauty! Shame it never saw production..

Shin Kazama proved the F-20 was a deadly foe in the desert skies!

[Valkyrie Driver]

F-16 XLs... Then double the production of F-22s and resurrect the YF-23 for naval service while you're at it. Then let's get to building a series of aircraft, individual frames, that would answer the actual need of the service involved rather than just a mushy shrug as an answer for them all.

THEN hold the aircraft company's collective feet to the fire in order to keep them to their projected cost!

The problem with this is, the tooling probably no longer exists to make the F-16XL, and it lost out to the F-15E. Also, the F-16 is still in production for the export market, we could simply buy F-16E/F models that are being built for export. Boeing still has the tooling for F-15's so it wouldn't be too much issue to crank up the lines and make more F-15's. And if we need to supplement the F-22 we can buy the F-15SE, and then we have some stealthy fighters to go with our stealth fighters.

News about the F-35, it's too heavy, so it's underpowered. The thing can't dogfight as well as the F-16, which it's supposed to replace. Hmm...

[Noyhauser]

True, avionics do drive the cost up. I think you're missing the point though. Textron has built a fully mission capable aircraft capable of performing the same mission that the reaper drone performs, but with a better safety rating (i.e. it'll crash less, meaning we won't have to buy as many, as often), and thus cheaper overall operating costs (It's only 3 million dollars more per unit). It would be a perfect for airborne FAC, and low threat close air support. The other benefit is that Textron built it with off the shelf parts, and made its capabilities expandable.

I think I understand the dynamics of this problem quite well. FAC is carried out in a very different way than you suggest. Support aircraft don't fly low and slow to undertake this mission anymore. They generally fly medium to high altitudes, utilizing LANTIRN, LITENING, as well as their eyes, to identify or correlate target data. The last part is important: its now critical that units carrying out air support can integrate into existing battlefield networks to receive and share data. Boots on the grounds can designate targets, often by looking at real time aerial feeds and orienting themselves within it spatially (ROVER).

This is the problem: to operate in these areas you need these systems. ITs considered the basic level of capabilities. Otherwise, you're basically running a two level system: you get poorer results, both in the timeliness and accuracy of weapons. That costs lives. The reality is that the Scorpion has none of these systems: they cost millions, if not tens of millions to integrate and deploy. The USAF isn't going to deploy a second tier aircraft to undertake these operations, nor spend the money to get it upgraded to that level. If it wanted to, it would keep the A-10 in service, not spend more money to buy a new aircraft

The problem also isn't wholly with the capital cost of getting new aircraft. Its a manpower issue of having two completely unique airframe pipelines to support. That's what the USAF is facing right now with the A-10 retirement

Also, you need to check again on the A-10, last I heard the latest attempt to remove it from service was shot down.

The discussions are ongoing about the A-10... though there will be a phased drawdown from the looks of it. Basically the main reason why the A-10 still is in the USAF's inventory is that two of its bases sit in Arizona, where Senators John McCain and Martha McSally need to keep votes, so they tout its capabilities. Yet they also tread a fine line in their statements because Yuma (the F-35B's training base) is also in Arizona. So they on the one hand say that the F-35B is a great investment (and it only does CAS), yet claim that no other aircraft other than the A-10 can do that mission.

The F-16 and F-15 do not do the CAS mission better than the dedicated A-10. They never will. The F-16, and F-15 are satisfactory, but the A-10 is superb. When given a choice the boots on the ground want the A-10, because it scares the hell out of the enemy.

All aircraft scare the enemies. B-52s do, F/A-18s do. That's why they often do shows of force.

The reality is that the A-10 was falling behind other aircraft which conducted CAS prior to 2007. It lacked a modern targeting pod, it suffered with a poor cockpit layout, and was limited in its precision guided weapon selection. It had to go low and slow, and do visual identification of targets. That was a factor in a number of serious friendly fire incidents.

Consequently, the USAF paid for an upgrade known as Precision Engagement. It enabled the A-10 to fight the same way as the F-16 and F-15: mid to high altitude weapon delivery profiles (15~20k AGL). ITs very good at that altitude, but the airframe has serious limitations. Its still slow, so it often takes time for it to get to a target area, though it has advantages in loiter time once it gets there. Suggesting its superb is not an accurate description of the aircraft's relative utility to other capabilities. There has been unbelievable mythologizing by people outside of the military about the A-10, which blows its capabilities all out of proportion. Is it a good CAS aircraft? Yes. Is it a marked improvement over other aircraft? Not really.

It's also one of the few aircraft in the inventory that can be rebuilt. It can be taken back to zero time, A-10 mechanics have told me this. I'm sorry but your argument is flawed.

In reality all aircraft can be "rebuilt." We remanufacture CF-18s in Montreal Quebec to bring them to zero hours quite frequently through the centre barrel replacement program. The A-10's wing structural replacement program was launched because their expected life was much lower than originally estimated. Its a costly program in general, which is why states don't like doing it.

The F-35 was designed by committee, it has far too many design compromises to make it effective at all the roles. I'm not saying that the F-35 isn't a valuable addition to the inventory, but it is not something you can build an air force on.

What does this even mean? Its a empty slogan of a statement made by people who don't really understand how aircraft development occurs. All aircraft are "designed by committees." You have a requirements board (a committee), then you have a decision board (several different services, and departments coming together), then the engineers within the company who sit on a design committee (often from different backgrounds that blends the requirements into a single design), then you have the integrated project team (which is an industry-government committee). Its all done though "committees." They are key for both success and victory in difference circumstances.

An update of the F-20 tigershark would make a great replacement for the F-16 in the national guard inventory, while the Textron Scorpion would be a great replacement for the A-10 in the same way. Both airframes would make valuable additions to the Regular Air Force inventory supplementing the current aircraft. I'm not sold on the necessity of a main stealth fighter, beyond the first week of conflict. After that it pretty much becomes a conventional fight, and you don't fight BVR anyway, so stealth will get you inside visual range, and then it's useless, because the enemy can still see you.

During the Kosovo conflict, in what weeks of the intervention were the F-117 and F-16s shot down? And in Vietnam, could you tell me when the USAF and USN "pacified" the NVA Air defence systems?

The constant threat of counter air is the rule, rather than the exception in a conflict with a state with any level of economic development (unless you're Iraq and think you're going to take on the allies in a straight up fight with a massive qualitative and quantitate disadvantage). If you look at all of the newer Russian AD systems and they are all designed to be road mobile and operate in "shoot and scoot" type operations that make them extremely difficult to counter.

I'm not sold on drones for anything other than dangerous, dull, and dirty missions. I will tell you that I think the procurement process really screwed the pooch on the F-35 and F-22. They are plagued by problems, and are egregiously over-budget. I'm sorry they could be the greatest planes in the world mechanically, but their cost, is too high to make them viable. Noyhauser, you're advocating a position that is part of why DoD funding is always on the chopping block, because you're advocating the latest and greatest shiny new toys, when good enough is more than adequate to fill our needs.

Except that it isn't. We're facing serious threats all around. Earlier you posted a scenario where we would fight china and somehow use A-10s to take them down. Its fanciful to say the least. We recently sent CF-18s as a show of force to Russia over their aggression in the Ukraine. What we saw was sobering: powerful SAM systems and advanced fighters: and these were aircraft modernized to the current USN/USMC standards. While our pilots had tactics that would have help mitigate some of the risk, our fighters were still at a major disadvantage.

The A-10 is not a survivable aircraft on a modern battlefield. As far back as the Gulf War the aircraft suffered grievous losses from low level SAMs: it was bad enough that the combatant commander had them pulled from theater. The titanium bathtub and other systems were designed in an age before low level SAMs, they were primarily intended to ward off 23mm cannon strikes, but do much less well vs directed energy/annular blast warheads that are common with MANDPADs. The lack of survivability is a reason why the USAF pursued Precision Engagement, and now, the reason why they want to retire the platform.

I'm not sold on the F-35, at all. I think we need to replacing the F-15, F-16, and A-10's with aircraft designed to replace them individually. The F-15 is a big, fast, maneuverable dogfighter, designed to kill enemy aircraft. The F-15E was optimized to drop bombs, but is still a capable F-15. The F-16 was purchased to supplement the F-15 with a more numerous and less expensive fighter, that could outperform any other aircraft of similar type. The A-10 was purchased and designed to kill tanks and provide Close Air Support, something it does exceedingly well. The F-35 was supposed to be able to do all of this, but I know it lacks the payload to perform adequate CAS duties like the A-10.

The vast majority of CAS Strikes over the past 15 years, A-10 or otherwise, involved less than 2000lbs of ordnance.Here's a website that tracks A-10 sorties in OEF. Most of those sorties are under 2000lbs of bombs. That's basically 1/2 of the F-35's internal bay capacity, while other aircraft do that quite easily.

The F-15/F-16 can't do CAS quite like the A-10 either, because of their speed and lighter payload. While the F-35 has the capability to carry external stores, I highly doubt they will ever equip it in such a manner, because that will spoil the stealth characteristics.

They test it on a daily basis. Its really not an issue. You're likely thinking of problems with the B-2 or the early F-22 experience.

.

Internal bays necessitate a larger aircraft, and the F-35 certainly is larger than the F-16 it's supposed to replace, which means with all that expensive material it costs way more than it would if it was the same size as an F-16.

I'm not saying we shouldn't buy it, I agree with Grig on his point about us purchasing a less than finished product, but first it needs to work. From what I understand it's a maintenance nightmare. It's not reliable yet, since I've also heard it's plagued with problems, that have driven cost per unit up.

You cannot build an air force around stealth fighters. You can't, it costs way too much, and the return on investment is very low. We need to focus on making Generation 4.5 type aircraft to fill the gaps in our fighter fleet. Honestly, I'd love to see the Air Force buy the F/A-18E/F, because it's still in production, it should stay in production, and it's a great and versatile aircraft.

Currently the F/A-18E cost more on a single unit basis right now than a F-35 (about 90 million right now vs $85 for the F-35). the cost difference is because the LM will produce the F-35 at a rate of 10 or more a month in two years' time. Currently they produce one F/A-18 a month. IT would take a massive investment to bring the cost down, and even then you're investing in 1990s technology. Just to make the aircraft survivable the US Navy also has to buy a set of Growlers, because it can't operate near hostile defence sites. The Rhino will increasingly just be a bomb truck, employing costly stand off weapons, behind the front line F-35 and (in the longer future) UCLASS team.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Noyhauser, I will concede that you have some valid points, however, your entire argument is pushing the use of more advanced technology to win wars. Better technology is important to aid in minimizing friendly casualties and collateral damage, but it's not the ultimate solution. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, we've been throwing technology at the problem since we started, and it's still not solved.

My comment about the F-35 being designed by committee, was not meant as literal as you seemed to take it. I'm well aware of how the procurement process works, but that's not design. Was it a dig at the design, yes. It's not what was advertised, it's horribly over cost, and we're still discovering problems. It's suffering a very similar situation as the F-111. By the time all is said and done, no one will want it, because it no longer suits anyone's purposes.

You pointed out that 2000lbs is about half of the internal capacity of the F-35's bays, which I believe. You also pointed out that a majority of A-10 sorties are carrying ~2000lbs or less of ordnance, which I also believe. This begs the question, can the F-35 carry the quantity of ordnance in it's internal bay, as the A-10 can carry on it's wings, at 2000lbs?

Let's also talk about some of the characteristics that make the A-10 better at CAS. It's tough, It's combat survivability has been proven. They have returned to base missing wings, and looking like swiss cheese. Are low level SAMs and MANPADS a threat, you bet, but no aircraft is going to be entirely safe from a missile. You take evasive action, pop countermeasures, and hope for the best. It's simple, which means maintenance is easy and less manpower intensive (theoretically). Because of the simplicity there is less to go wrong, and it has a lot of redundancy built in, meaning it has good reliability. The gun, that 30mm cannon is the most powerful airborne gun system we have (outside the AC-130U's 105mm). True, the A-10 was designed to counter a threat that no longer exists (Russian Tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap), but it has proven itself a versatile and capable aircraft. There are more than political pressures keeping the A-10 in service, the Army want's that capability to stay around.

Could the F-35 be a valuable addition to the inventory, yes. Will it replace the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, and AV-8B? The AV-8B, sure because the F-35B is the only thing in development that even attempts to replicate it's capabilities. The rest? No. It can't, nor should it.

Stealth fighters completely replacing our current fleet of conventional aircraft, is not adding value to our forces. You cannot win a war with a handful stealth fighters and a bunch of drones. Airpower is a component to victory, a force multiplier. Wars are won by crushing your enemy's will and ability to fight. And sometimes that means inflicting lots of collateral damage. You have to make war too costly for your enemy to resist.

We have all of this great technology, but do you know how many times I touched a GPS unit on a land navigation course? Once. I spent all of my time doing it the old fashioned way with a map and compass. Why? Because technology can, and will at the most inopportune time, fail.

I'm not going to say that the F-35 is a bad aircraft, I'm sure it's a very good aircraft. I just don't believe that it's going to be all it was advertised. As such, replacing a very capable aircraft with something inferior at that task is not sound military thinking. Quote all the numbers you'd like, you can't apply economics and accounting to something that isn't economical. War is wasteful, and expensive, and horrifying.

As for you comments about shows of force, that's as stupid as firing warning shots. I don't want to show the enemy how strong we are, I want the enemy to experience how strong we are. Speak softly and carry a big stick, the louder you proclaim your strength, the weaker you appear. A show of force is an empty gesture.

I'm not going to lie, I'm not an expert on aircraft, or their capabilities. I'm not an expert on business, or on politics. I've never been to war, but I know how to fight, I know the theory behind it. I've read a lot on the subject, and I know human nature. I also know that certain techniques have changed, but that doesn't mean they need to stay that way.

In regards to airborne FAC and the Textron Scorpion, the idea is, you have a manned aircraft, with fully aware pilots in the mix, doing the exact same thing a reaper is doing, only pilots can look in directions other than where the camera is pointed. They can make the JTACs and ROMADs aware of incoming threats that they can't see on their video uplink.

It also gives another set of eyes, to assist in avoiding friendly fire, and making sure that ordnance goes where it's supposed to. The whole thing can go just as smoothly, and as fast, as a drone assisted strike, but the extra situational awareness in the mix can keep good guys from getting killed.

[Valkyrie Driver]

We also have one other thing to consider. No one really knows what the true capabilities of the F-35 are and are not, except the guys who are dealing with it every day. Any information we have regarding such in the public domain, is all hearsay or taken out of context, because we don't know the variables introduced in the test.

[SchizophrenicMC]

DISREGARD OTHER AIRCRAFT, ALL GLORY TO CONCORDE