F-35 to do the job of the A-10?

[Graham]

Now, the interesting thing I just read on Lockheed-Martin's webpage is that the F-35A (the air-force version) includes an internal gun. The USMC version can be equipped with an external gun, to which you'll probably say "external = not stealthy", but if the plane is using an external gun to perform CAS, that means you're already quite low to the ground, and at this point stealth will do you diddley.

Hmm........interesting, that's the first reference I've seen to the F-35B (STOVL ver) having an optional external gun. Previously, I'd read that it could be fitted with an optional gunpack in the internal weapons bay, which replaced one of the two bombs. In order to ba able to fire this gun pack, I'd presumed the bay doors would have to open and the gunpack extend out to be able to fire. Looks like I was wrong about this.

Anyway, I just found this very interesting page about the F-35 Weapons Capacity.

Didn't know it would have a 25mm gun like the Harrier rather than the 20mm standard on most US fighters.....interesting.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Yup, F-35 has 25mm gun. (Don't know why, F-22 didn't get it, and USAF isn't going to use it for CAS)

The original plan was for Navy and USMC ones to have the internal gunpod, but it seems the "stealthy" (we'll see) external pod is the new idea. At least for the Marines. Navy may still go with the internal, for the Navy wants stealth more than the other 2 forces. (Since there's no other stealthy Navy planes--the F-35 MUST be stealthy, or its pointless)

Shin---F-15E's are just as good as F-15C's for fighting. CFT's are removable, I've posted pics of CFT-less F-15E's on this board in the past. They're almost always attached, but they are NOT permanent. A late-model F-15E, with CFT's and LANTIRN removed, and no back-seater, would actually out-perform an early F-15C, for though the F-15E is inherently heavier, the later ones have noticeably more powerful engines, more than making up the weight difference. F-15C's aren't being retrofitted, since the improvement is marginal and very costly. (It's effectively "free" to order new planes with that engine, but WAY too expensive to order new engines for planes already built) F-15E's do carry fewer bullets though. Like 75% of an F-15C's.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

To be hoenst graham that gun is external and ton the smae effect might be the same that imode was talking about,. I read the articale nad I can only hope there really is 2 ourtboard stations with sidewinders. If i were a navy pilot i would say screw the bombs give me some winders!

This gives me the impression that this plane is more lieka stealth A-4 skyhawk with advanced stores. Think about it,..maybe not as manueverable but weaponloads are similar.

[David Hingtgen]

I was checking out some sites, and found that the UK plans on making 4x ASRAAM the standard load on theirs. INTERESTING.

Combined with the ASRAAM's BVR potential, maybe the UK wants a mid-range fighter?

Edited February 27, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

thats awesome..NOW this plane is taking shape as a MULTIrole FIGHTER! i may not like a lot of things on it but this si a stepm in teh right direction.

screw stealth make mined armed to the teeth!

[Graham]

I wonder how effective (if at all) the 25mm ammo is against the top, side and rear armor of T-80 and T-84 tanks?

Graham

[ewilen]

While I can't deny that the F/A-22 is a rather expensive plane (with fewer and fewer to be ordered, each fighter gets more and more expensive), unnecessary?  While we could probably upgrade a bunch of F-15s for the price of an F/A-22, it's better to have a few of the best than a lot of the second best.  With upgrades, the F-15 is a very capable dogfighter, and for that reason, will probably remain in service along with the F/A-22.  However, the F-15 is outmatched by some of the newer fighters, including the Eurofighter and the Rafale.

And like I pointed out before, France/Dassault seems less selective about who they sell fighters too.  It is not unreasonable to assume that US fighters could tangle with Rafale's.  The F/A-22 is supposed to be able to take on all comers... if it couldn't, we'd be talking about the F/A-23 Black Widow II today.

First, I doubt the F-15 is outmatched by the EF or especially the Rafale, especially if it's given upgrades. Second, what we're talking about here is rather like a successful auto racer feeling that he needs buy the latest and greatest formula one car, because he sees some greenhorn out there with a nice car. But the thing is, the greenhorn only gets to practice driving in his car once a year because he can barely afford the gas, and he works two jobs just to afford maintenance. Oh, and by the way, the successful racer will have to cut back on maintenance and training himself to afford the new car.

[Graham]

The F15 would have to be seriously upgraded to outmatch the Eurofighter. The Eurofighter is regarded by many people as being the 2nd best Western fighter by a very wide margin, being only outclassed by the much more expensive F-22.

Among the features the Eurofighter has (or will soon have) are supercruise, reportedly very low RCS, excellent automated defensive aids system, voice direct input, excellent agility, data link, excellent radar, good payload and range, helmet mounted sight, offboresight targetting, extremely ergonomic cockpit, very advanced IRST system.

Graham

[imode]

thats awesome..NOW this plane is taking shape as a MULTIrole FIGHTER! i may not like a lot of things on it but this si a stepm in teh right direction.

screw stealth make mined armed to the teeth!

Haha, man, stop typing so fast. Your posts are starting to look like Ali Sama's!

Okay, we can arm your plane to the teeth but that'd be like showing up to the party without a date. We'll slap a shitload of missiles on your bird, only for you to fly over enemy territory and be greeted by a million missiles. Sure, we've got countermeasures, radar jammers and other craft launching HARM after HARM at anything that turns on its radar, but personally, just between you and me, I'd feel a lot more secure in a gunless, slow flying F-117 than an F-15 armed to the teeth.

>>F-117 quick independent strike, first day bomber -> F-35 same role 

Isn't it supposed to be first day for AMRAAM's, then non-stealthy bomber later on?  Internal carriage seems to max out at 2x 2,000lbs.  Not much at all.  Same as F-117's usually carry. 

Is it? I always envisioned its first day role to be exactly like the F-117, except cheaper, faster and more maneuverable.

>>F-16 maneuverable, close-in strike fighter -> F-35 maneuverable BVR strike fighter

F-16 knife-fighting and max-range AMRAAM's are not the same role at all.  That's like saying F-5's and F-14's have the same role.  Not to mention that F-16's can carry Sidewinders, and more missiles period.

My point was that, a lot of people would prefer not to get into that knife fight in the first place. Given the chance, I think anyone with a decent sense of self-preservation would rather fight BVR and avoid close-in dog fighting. An F-16 is an amazing plane, and while it's more than a match for the planes it was intended to fight, next gen fighters and even current gen fighters will most likley be outfitted for BVR as well. If you insist on countering BVR with the F-16's forte of in your face flying, then it'll be like trying to kill a sniper by running up to him with.... with a knife. While the F-16 has the option of close-in fighting, the USAF gave it AMRAAM capability specifically so that it wouldn't have to rely on it.

We sure as heck aren't replacing F-15E's with F-22's. Strike Eagle will be around for a LONG time.

The F-15E will probably be around for awhile. However, with F-22 on the horizon, the domestic lifespan of the F-15 is in question, especially in the minds of Washington politicians. You can say goodbye to the F-15C though.

>>>If they continued to build only the F-22 we'd end up with a significantly smaller force in the air, not to mention the only branch of service benefitting from the increased F-22 production would be the Air Force.

Gotta disagree there. USAF F-15's pretty much single-handedly cleared the air in Desert Storm, to allow Navy and Marine strike planes to do their job. Bunch of F-22's would do the same.

Semantics! Agh!!! By benefit, I meant receive new airplanes. The main benefit of the F-35 and F-22 is the stealth. Without it, any F-14, F-15, F-16 whatever, could do the same job equally or better. For the Navy and Marine strike planes to do the job you needed the F-15's. Now, the F-117's which attacked the heart of Baghdad didn't need that support, and therein lies the benefit. The beauty of stealth capability is that it allows one plane, be it a F-117 or a B-2, to perform the job of half a dozen or so planes. Now, if an F-35 can perform the stealth-strike role just as capable as an F-117 or F-22 but at half the price, is it really justifiable to buy more F-22's?

One upside to the F-22, it's so expensive that no one else can afford it. This guarantees only WE have the latest and greatest. The F-35 at the promised price, was so cheap that everyone and their dog lined up to buy them. Let's hope we never go to war with the Dutch.

If you anyone wants a great read about the JSF, you can go here. It's a transcript from the PBS Nova show on the competition between the 32 and the 35.

[F-ZeroOne]

The UK has always had an eye on longer-range combat, partly because of our nautical heritage and the need to defend Britains sea-lanes. Remember, we've been nearly bought to our knees twice by interdiction of international shipping...!

BTW, the Eurofighter is now officially the Eurofighter Typhoon. This name was chosen because it was polictically neutral and acceptable to all nations in the project.

German tank commanders may feel a little bit differently about that... [1]

[1] In fact, British pilots were a bit nervous as well, given the original ( WWII ) Typhoons early development difficulties...!

[Anubis]

Here's a question: If the STOVL variant is meant to use an external gunpod (why not is true since it would be hugging the ground anyway so the stealth is not an issue) could it theoretically use TWO gunpods?

Really light up some ground targets there.

[Stamen0083]

Here's a question: If the STOVL variant is meant to use an external gunpod could it theoretically use TWO gunpods?

If the centerline pylon is the same as the others, definitely. Maybe even up to five is possible.

[Druna Skass]

BTW, the Eurofighter is now officially the Eurofighter Typhoon. This name was chosen because it was polictically neutral and acceptable to all nations in the project.

German tank commanders may feel a little bit differently about that... [1]

[1] In fact, British pilots were a bit nervous as well, given the original ( WWII ) Typhoons early development difficulties...!

At least they didn't call it Lightning. The British got stuck with the crappy early models and hated them, then when the U.S. showed up with the newer ones the Germans called them the Fork-tailed Devils.

[Coota0]

Gotta disagree there.  USAF F-15's pretty much single-handedly cleared the air in Desert Storm, to allow Navy and Marine strike planes to do their job.  Bunch of F-22's would do the same. 

Because the Air Force ran the Air War and kept the Navy and as many of the Allies as possible from getting any aerial kills. I've heard stories about Hornet pilots picking up MiGs after fropping their ordanance and being ordered no to engage, so that Air Force F-15s could be diverted to intercept instead, even though the Hornet pilots were way closer.

[Coota0]

Hewy David...can teh strike eagle without the bomb pods and Lantinrs bolted on,,,dogfigtht just as well as the F-15C? I know its always touted as a dual role strike fighter but I also heard since it has permanenet CFTs, it cant go accelerate 90 degrees vetical.

I would hate ton think that the dogfighting ability of the strike eagle was like gone..

I do know the eagle itself is an energy fighter BU i just want to know fi the strike ewagle could still turn n burn with the best fo them n such.

They can. In my opinion the F-15E is a better fighter than the F-15C because of the guy in the back, he's deticated to the radar, and an extra set of eyes never hurts

[David Hingtgen]

F-35's don't have centerline pylons. No stealth does.

Price seems to be the recurring thing here. My point is, regardless of the unit cost of the F-35 (low because there's what, 3000+ on order now?) the program cost is still high. Billions to develop, plus 40 mil per plane isn't "cheap" when you could have just NOT developed it, and use the billions of development money for LOTS of F/A-22's, and develop the FB-22 and F-22N.

F-117's only cost a LITTLE more than F-35's, most sites I check give dollar amounts in the 40's of millions. And we've already developed them.

"Half price" planes only count if you've already spent the money to buy them. What's cheaper? A plane you've developed, and buying 10 of them for 200 million each-----or a plane you need to develop, and spend 5 billion doing so, and then buying 10 for 100 million each? (Totally fake numbers, but it illustrates my point) It's not like we have a bunch of planes lined up at the dealership, and the F-35 is almost as good for half the price. It's the "we'll have it in a few years, but you'll have to give us a few billion to design it first" model. While the F-22 is "coming next week" and the F-117 and F-16 are "here, ready to go, quite capable, and affordably priced".

[imode]

True, true, true.

There's always all the other costs accrued through R&D and eventual inevitable overflow. Every plane, especially as they advance technologically, will go through these phases during development. Though, I don't see that as a reason not to say screw it, and just stop developing them. Our current force of the 14, 15, 16 and 18 is still probably the most powerful force in the world. Combined with the great training our pilots receive, we can still probably defeat any comparable and superior aircraft that currently exists today. Problem is, no one knows how these craft will perform against their adversaries 30 years down the line (B-52 for 50 more years baybee~!). Back during WWII, we realized we had inferior aircraft, and we churned out new planes like the F6F and P-51 in what now seems like a blink of an eye. Developing a new plane that quickly today is almost unthinkable. Take the F-22 for example. It took nearly 20 years from proposal to deployment, and the call to design an ATF to replace the F-15 was proposed when the F-15 itself was not even 15 years old!

I personally believe that taking an active role in military development is far more preferable than taking a reactive role. With any luck, the F-22 and F-35 will power us on for another 35+ years, but 10 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if the military was to propose a replacement for these fighters as well.

As deployment is a slow process, I don't see our current planes disappearing anytime soon. Most likely they will be replaced over periods of time, but until the next gen fighters can be deployed to every squadron F-15s, 16s, Harriers and A-10s will probably continue to be in service well past 2010.

Here's my geeky little analogy--

It's like a video card or a processor. You can only add more memory and clock it so far before it starts to reach its performance limit. Eventually, you have to design something completely new just to compete or you lose and maybe even go out of business. The one who designs the better, faster stronger product first is the winner and usually continues to perform best throughout its product life cycle.

Edited February 27, 2004 by imode

[Anubis]

Our existing jets won't fade out overnight. Look at how long it took to phase out the F-4 completely.

[imode]

Our existing jets won't fade out overnight.  Look at how long it took to phase out the F-4 completely.

No, they certainly won't. Nothing ever happens that quickly. They'll probably still be around for a LOOOOONG time, but most likely delegated for other missions.

Edited February 27, 2004 by imode

[ewilen]

Price seems to be the recurring thing here.  My point is, regardless of the unit cost of the F-35 (low because there's what, 3000+ on order now?) the program cost is still high.  Billions to develop, plus 40 mil per plane isn't "cheap" when you could have just NOT developed it, and use the billions of development money for LOTS of F/A-22's, and develop the FB-22 and F-22N.

What about skipping both and shifting the billions in savings to upgrading the F-15 and F-16?

(Granted, we're now fairly committed to both the F-22 and the F-35--I don't know at what point we basically have to regard both programs as "sunk costs" and start thinking in terms of flyaway costs.)

Graham, I'll have to see what I can find about the EF vs. prospective F-15 upgrades.

imode,

Our current force of the 14, 15, 16 and 18 is still probably the most powerful force in the world.

I'm pretty sure the numbers alone will tell the story. How many front-line fighters do we have? How many could any conceivable combination of adversaries put together?

Combined with the great training our pilots receive, we can still probably defeat any comparable and superior aircraft that currently exists today.

I think this is certainly the case if you're talking about an aircraft flown by a member of the armed forces of virtually any country outside of the G8 (probably minus Russia) + Israel . Then you can factor in the likely numerical superiority, and for a typical scenario we have how many excellent US pilots in their fighters, per hapless third-world pilot in his?

Finally, let's keep in mind that the main purpose of tactical military aviation is (a) delivering high explosive and other mayhem to the enemy on the earth's surface (b) preventing delivery in the other direction. How much of these missions are going to be handled by missiles, UAVs, and ground-based anti-aircraft weaponry as time goes on?

Edited February 27, 2004 by ewilen

[Stamen0083]

F-35's don't have centerline pylons.  No stealth does.

"The Navy and Marines, meanwhile, have both opted for a specialized external gun pod on their CV and STOVL variants. The same GAU-12 cannon is carried, but in a special tear-drop pod that can be mounted on a dedicated centerline pylon between the weapons bays. The pod is unique in that it employs stealth characteristics and should allow the aircraft to maintain low observability. Other advantages of the gun pod include room for a larger ammunition supply and the ability to remove the pod on missions where a gun is not necessary. "

From Aerospace Web.

So it looks like the F-35 can only carry one external gunpod afterall, since the centerline hardpoint will be dedicated to the gun.

Of course, this begs the question of where on the centerline will the gunpod be placed, since the liftfan in the middle of the aircraft will probably cut into the centerline.

Edited February 28, 2004 by Stamen0083

[Coota0]

I'm pretty sure the numbers alone will tell the story. How many front-line fighters do we have? How many could any conceivable combination of adversaries put together?

Heres a scenario: I read either yesterday or the day before (On the yahoo Welcome screen, can't find the story now ) that the EU was considering placing sanctions against the U.S. Could picture the EU led by the Germans and French in a war against the U.S. with they're advanced aircraft and those of their allies. Do I think all of the EU's nations will fight us? No, I'm sure some woould ally with us or sit out notably the British. Now do I think this will happen tomarrow? No, but in the next 20 years yes. I think the Germans will either kick us out or we'll voluntarily decide to, and maybe the same for Italians, but I do think the next war will be in Europe and it will be against the high-tech countries of Europe.

[David Hingtgen]

I am beyond shocked that their could be a centerline pylon on an F-35, much less BETWEEN the weapons bays. If that's the case, 10 bucks says that you can't open the weapons bays while carrying that gunpod. Which'd mean you have 0 internal payload.

[Anubis]

I am beyond shocked that their could be a centerline pylon on an F-35, much less BETWEEN the weapons bays. If that's the case, 10 bucks says that you can't open the weapons bays while carrying that gunpod. Which'd mean you have 0 internal payload.

I'll have to piggyback that bet. It wouldn't surprize me. Since the stealth would already be affected by having the gunpod, why not go ahead and plan to use the external pylons anyway?

[ewilen]

Heres a scenario: I read either yesterday or the day before (On the yahoo Welcome screen, can't find the story now ) that the EU was considering placing sanctions against the U.S. Could picture the EU led by the Germans and French in a war against the U.S. with they're advanced aircraft and those of their allies. Do I think all of the EU's nations will fight us? No, I'm sure some woould ally with us or sit out notably the British. Now do I think this will happen tomarrow? No, but in the next 20 years yes. I think the Germans will either kick us out or we'll voluntarily decide to, and maybe the same for Italians, but I do think the next war will be in Europe and it will be against the high-tech countries of Europe.

What issue is Europe going to fight the US over? Is a falling out of such a magnitude going to be so unforeseen that we won't be able to build up in response?

But yes, I suppose that if our political leadership is as inept in statecraft as has been claimed in regards to its arms procurement policies, we should be arming ourselves against our closest allies as well as the rest of the world.

[muswp1]

I bet when Bush and Co. get voted out in November, a lot of the talk of the F-35 replacing everything will die down. If the Air Force decided to drop the A-10 in favor of the F-35, the Army will grab them in a heartbeat to support the AH-64's. In my opinion, the F-35 is a big mistake, especially give the roles it is being tasked with. If the Marines want it for battlefield air superiority to cover their Harriers and copters, fine. But replacing the F-14D and the A-10 with the F-35 simply won't happen. The government (ie Rumsfield) already tried to replace the F-14D with the F/A-18E and that failed because the Tomcat simply out performed the Super Hornet.

[Stamen0083]

I am beyond shocked that their could be a centerline pylon on an F-35, much less BETWEEN the weapons bays. If that's the case, 10 bucks says that you can't open the weapons bays while carrying that gunpod. Which'd mean you have 0 internal payload.

Why not?

It's not like the weapons bay doors open back to back. I think you should give the aircraft engineers more credit than that. We're not all stupid :-P

There's probably a wide clearance between the doors, enough to carry the pods. I'm thinking of something like how the centerline tank on the F/A-18 Hornet is mounted relative to the main gear door. The doors open just fine with the tank wedged pretty much in between there.

[ewilen]

I bet when Bush and Co. get voted out in November, a lot of the talk of the F-35 replacing everything will die down.

1) We don't know what will happen in the election...

2) Why should it matter--my impression is that politicians of all stripes have bought into the F-35. (And if they haven't, I'm sure Lockheed has a nice subcontract for their district...)

3) Best to steer clear of political specifics and political predictions on MW.

Edited February 28, 2004 by ewilen

[David Hingtgen]

Stamen0083: based on the pics/drawings at http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml, it looks like there's mere inches between the doors of the weapons bays. Maybe a foot. But certainly not "gunpod-wide". F-35 wasn't designed to accomodate anything there AFAIK, the original plan for a gunpod was an internal one, displacing a JDAM.

Now, if they mean more like "aft of the weapons bay, with just the tip of the barrel poking between the aft ends of the doors" then that'd make sense. Could just be semantics issue of what "between" means.

(I'm still amazed an F-16 can cycle its gear with a center tank attached).

Edited February 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Stamen0083]

Now, if they mean more like "aft of the weapons bay, with just the tip of the barrel poking between the aft ends of the doors" then that'd make sense. Could just be semantics issue of what "between" means.

Definitely.

Hmm... how wide *would* a gunpod be?

[David Hingtgen]

Well, it's 25mm, so I presume the gun itself would be larger than the M61A series, thus presumably larger than the SUU-23 pod. But likely smaller than the 30mm GPU-5 (which is pretty big).

Edited February 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Stamen0083]

Well, it's 25mm, so I presume the gun itself would be larger than the M61A series, thus presumably larger than the SUU-23 pod. But likely smaller than the 30mm GPU-5 (which is pretty big).

So can I guess about 2 feet across?

[pfunk]

anyone see the history channels A-10 Tankbuster special,,,,,,,,,,SSSSSSWEEEEEEEETTT machine

[Axelay]

Yes, marvelous show. I always thoroughly enjoy hearing that cannon fire.

[Druna Skass]

Our existing jets won't fade out overnight. Look at how long it took to phase out the F-4 completely.

Hell look at the B-52, The Buff's been around since, what the 50's?