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

[Hurricane29]

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

That show was great, gave me even more respect for the A-10.

[Coota0]

As far as what would cause the EU to go to war with us, I think it's simple:Pride.

I know sounds stupid but we're the only superpower (many would argue China, but I consider them more of regional power, up and coming but regional,) but the Germans and French would very much like to be a competing superpower, alone they couldn't hope to challenge the U.S. but in the form of the EU they can, they can control much more of the UN, and dominate the European trade. The French have always had deleusions of grandor in many ways, do they really nead multiple conventinal big-deck carriers? They don't get involved in anything NATO or the UN does (unless it's to grip). The Germans are a very proud group and while they have been our allies (the West Germans at least) since the end of WWII after a century in which they lost two wars and were basically used as pawn in the coldwar, German pride has taken a ding, twice they have wanted to be a world power, why not again? Why couln't the leaders of the EU convince other European nations to go along with them? Finally I could see the Russians allying with the EU or even joining them, they are still unhappy about the outcome of the cold war, so far capitalism hasn't been a wonderful thing for them, they like many other countries resent the U.S. because of our way of life and standard of living.

Now the EU has it's own problems, many of the countries involved have hated each other for centuries. The Germans and the French aren't extremly fond of one another, the Turks and the Greeks are not on the best terms and the Fins don't trust the Russians. (Ok not all mebers but I think they would possibly join)

I don't think war with the EU would happen overnight but I do think it could happen much faster than we would expect. Then again, we were holding peace talks with the Japanese and no one thought they would attack the U.S. on December 6th of 1941.

Edited February 28, 2004 by Coota0

[Coota0]

Anybody who gets TechTV: tonight at 7:30 (Central Time) they're showing The Armaments of the JSF on Future Fighting Machines.

[Anubis]

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?

And thay are planning on using the B-52 until the 2020's at least. It's a great reliable bomber, and they keep upgrading to accomodate new weapons and equipment. Didn't they just finsih another upgrade round not too long ago.

[Anubis]

Anybody who gets TechTV: tonight at 7:30 (Central Time) they're showing The Armaments of the JSF on Future Fighting Machines.

I will have to watch or at least tape that.

[ewilen]

As far as what would cause the EU to go to war with us, I think it's simple:Pride.

I know sounds stupid

I hate to be harsh, but you should stop there while you're ahead.

[Nied]

Angel's Fury: F-35's carry AMRAAM's. That's it. 2 of them, usually. So much for air superiority.

Well, in "first day of war" mode F-35s carry a pair of AMRAAMs and a pair of JDAMS. Once the air defences have been knocked down though it would carry weapons externally on four underwing pylons, and a pair of sidewinder pylons on the wingtips. Given the nature of what they do I would be extremely surprised if the Marines ever sent their F-35s into a mission without external stores (most likely with one of the internal bays carrying the new 25mm gun they're desinging for it).

[Nied]

Well that should teach me to post something without paying closer attention to how many pages there are in a discussion. A thought on that site Graham posted: If the F-35 can carry ASRAAMs in it's internal bays just fine, how hard would it be for it to carry a AIM-9X instead? The two are certainly about the same size. 1 AMRAAM and 1 Sidewinder wouldn't be much, but probably enough to hold off a bandit untill the F-22s could come to clean up.

Edited February 29, 2004 by Nied

[David Hingtgen]

Size isn't the problem. F-35's don't have AIM-9's (any version) because a bay-mounted one would have its seeker blocked. ASRAAM's work due to their lock-after-launch ability.

[Isamu Atreides 86]

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

That show was great, gave me even more respect for the A-10.

it was pretty good. i liked it, as well.

[ewilen]

Size isn't the problem. F-35's don't have AIM-9's (any version) because a bay-mounted one would have its seeker blocked. ASRAAM's work due to their lock-after-launch ability.

Just wondering--why isn't this a problem for the F-22? Or if the Raptor carries sidewinders externally, why doesn't that affect its stealthiness?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

raptors have swinder ports built in speceifcally to give them clearance to lock on IR when the bay on the sides is open(the side bays are specifically for winders)

The plane is less stealthy with external stores but UNLIKE the JSF can carry MUCH more internally then the JSF. THink JSF=light weaponry or less a lot less where ass F-22=LOTS of weaponry internally.

[imode]

Well, the JSF and F-22 were built during two different styles of thought. The F-22 was a cold-war idea, when we thought we'd be slugging it out with the might of the Russian airforce, thus the internal storage built specifically for missiles and what not. The F-35 was designed and built after the fall of USSR for a much different battlefield.

[Nied]

raptors have swinder ports built in speceifcally to give them clearance to lock on IR when the bay on the sides is open(the side bays are specifically for winders)

The plane is less stealthy with external stores but UNLIKE the JSF can carry MUCH more internally then the JSF. THink JSF=light weaponry or less a lot less where ass F-22=LOTS of weaponry internally.

Actually the largest Load a F-22 can carry in its main bay is a pair of 1,000 lb JDAMS and two AMRAAMs. The F-35 can carry two 2,000 lb JDAMs and the same two AMRAAMs. While the F-22 has a larger bay, its dimensions just can't handle anything with a larger diameter than the 1,000 pounder.

[Nied]

Size isn't the problem. F-35's don't have AIM-9's (any version) because a bay-mounted one would have its seeker blocked. ASRAAM's work due to their lock-after-launch ability.

That sounds like more of a software problem to me, especially considering how closely related the ASRAAM and AIM-9X are. The F-35 is supposed to have an IRST system, it shouldn't be too hard to write the code for the handoff after launch.

[David Hingtgen]

This pic clearly shows how an F-22 angles out Sidewinders so their IR seekers can get a good view:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...-22-000320a.jpg

They can do this due to the trapeze the AIM-9's are mounted on, and presumably the YF-23 would have had something similar, having trapeze-mounted AMRAAM's.

F-35's however, have no trapeze's, only rails. Couldn't mount one on the inner door, and putting a trapeze in the air-to-ground spot would certainly reduce clearance enough to preclude 2,000lb JDAM's, a key advantage the 35 has over the 22. (Since the 35 needs bulged bay doors to hold 2,000 pounders, the clearance has to be tiny)

[David Hingtgen]

While AIM-9X's SHOULD have lock-after-launch like ASRAAM's, especially for the F-35's use, they don't. Never expect "common sense and logic" to apply to the military!

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I can't wait to see the expression on your face when you're forced to eat your words.

Those who decided not to have an integrated gun in the F-35 has either failed the few history classes they had to take, or simply chose to not take them at all.

How about the lesson of advancing your tactics with technological changes or the one about relying on 'proven' methods often results in unnecessary death on the battlefield.

Whether he's right or wrong, imode is the one who's actually applying history to this discussion. Just saying something happened in the past is meaningless. Don't site an example of something that happened nearly half a century ago and say that it's going to happen again and expect to be taken seriously.

Gotta agree on this. Just because guns were essential on fighters for the last 50 years doesn't mean it will be essential indefinitely.

I don't know the answer for sure but I think its wrong to apply such general simplistic rules or keep pointing to the vietnam experience.

Its like back in the 20s/30s when the admirals were saying the big naval rifle mated to the armoured battleship was essential and them newfangled flying things are unreliable and that the navu should concentrate on building battleships because you can't trust these unreliable flying things who have not proven themselves well enough.

[ewilen]

Great picture reference, David!

I haven't found much on the ability of the F-15 relative to the Eurofighter, especially with the assumption of "reasonable" upgrades to the F-15.

I have found claims that the Eurofighter would win about 80% of 1-1 combats vs. the latest Russian fighters, while the Eagle's chances would be closer to 50-50. But that may have been based on advertising literature, and of course it doesn't address the training and numbers issues in a war with any conceivable EF-equipped adversary. Anyway, the link is here.

I do think that, given the Eagle's size, there would be plenty of room for avionics improvements and maneuverability improvements (perhaps along the lines of the F-15 ACTIVE). Some stealth could probably be added as well--after all, they did it with the Super Hornet and it looks pretty much like a big Hornet.

This Usenet thread has some interesting comments on what the USAF might do if the F-22 were cancelled. The F-16XL figures prominently.

Then I have several fairly well-written articles with a critical view of the F-22 and/or JSF. First, Col. Riccioni gives his anti-F-22 rant. He thinks it's not only unneeded, but won't even perform as advertised. Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings argues for scaling back both JSF and F-22

in this piece. Here's a piece from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists with a close look at the JSF program's effect on the procurement budget.

Finally, this memo (PDF format) bodes ill for the future of the F-22--mentioning it in the same paper as the Comanche isn't a good sign. Some context here.

[Stamen0083]

Its like back in the 20s/30s when the admirals were saying the big naval rifle mated to the armoured battleship was essential and them newfangled flying things are unreliable and that the navu should concentrate on building battleships because you can't trust these unreliable flying things who have not proven themselves well enough.

The fighter planes were unproven then. They're proven now. Do you think the admirals will feel the same way today that they did in the 20's/30's?

The internal gun is a proven weapon. It was taken out once and it was proven disastrous. What sense is there to do it again?

[Druna Skass]

Through out this whole thread I just keep thinking of that line Gene Kranz (sp?) said in Apollo 13 "I don't care what anything was designed to do, I care about what it can do."

And aparently close combat is something the F-35 can't do. I just hope that thing can out run it's opponents and keep it's opponent in missile range.

[Lynx7725]

I've been following this thread with somewhat of a morbid curiosity..

I think I can sum up the key for and against points of the arguments here. On one side, we have the pro-F22/ F-35 crowd, who (justifiably) seems rather enthusiastic about the new technology being brought into play.

On the other, we have a very pragmatic bunch of F14/ F15/ A10 lovers, who likes nothing more than to see the fleet size maintained, if not increased.. also justifiable.

The thing is, both sides are right. <ducks>

When the excrement hits the ventilation device, and a war must be fought, lives are at stakes and nobody wants to put their lives in the hands of newfangled planes which might not work. Not to mention that these newfangled planes cost 1.5 to 2 times that of an existing airframe, which means I have half the numbers using tools that might not work!

That, I believe, is the major concern of the "proven technology" crowd.. they want to keep using F14/ F15/ A10, because, rightfully, they worked. It's proven and the troops know how to make the fullest use of these tools.

But bear in mind that because these tools are proven, the enemy also knows what to expect.. and knowing is half the battle. Counter-strategies can be thought of, new counter-weapons can be devised, etc. etc.

You absolutely need the new technologies that the F22 and F35 are bringing into the services.. they may not be needed now, and maybe not even needed in 2010 or 2020, but sooner or later you would need them.

The F22 and F35 are mere precursors to a new generation of fighters using new technologies and new tactics. Yes, you can probably retrofit some of these technologies onto existing airframes (F15 ACTIVE, Super Tomcats, F16XL all are fairly good examples) but at some point in time, a completely new airframe is needed to test the sum of all the disparate technologies. And, IMO, that's really what the F22 and F35 is doing.

The problem here is budget. You can't afford to maintain both a ready fleet of aircraft -- even proven aircraft -- and still look into these new technologies, not with the lack of a clear and defined enemy and the ever-shrinking budgets that every nation seems to prefer.

R&D is always expensive, either in monetary terms or otherwise. And there's always cost overrruns in projects. With smaller budgets, R&D is likely to get a massive cut in funding, but visionary leadership understands that there is a huge need to bring new ways of doing things into the field -- or risk stagnation and ultimately replacement/ extinction.

Essentially, what has happened here is a huge gamble.. The US military is gambling on the remaining political and military influence that the US has would keep the status quo, at least till 2010, or if lucky, 2020. If the status quo can be maintained, the US military truly would not need that extensive an air armanda -- pure intimidation, flexing a few muscles, etc. would keep rogue nations in line. All the while the US military is retiring old airframes and bringing new technologies online.

After 2010 or 2020, if prevailing conditions, well, prevails, the US influence may not be what it is currently. But it is irrelevant to the US military, because they would have a fleet of new and improved multi-role aircraft with which to project the US influence. It may even be sufficient to restore the US influence on world matters.

The huge risk here is getting caught by a two-front war between now and 2010/ 2020. It's akin to getting caught by a punch in the groin with your pants at half-mast. Painful and potentially crippling.

As for the issue of whether stealth or not, gunpod or not..

Stealth is illusionary. Stealth merely indicates an ability to avoid current sensors. Just as plate armour and devastating cavalry charges spurred the development of pikes and black powder weapons, current stealth technology would spur better detection technologies. It's simply a matter of time before someone somewhere would find a way to detect these newfangled stealth planes.

Gunpod-wise, it may be true that the war in the future may be fought at BVR. But that's not the way the wars today are being fought -- at least, not some of them. An integrated gun is probably a bad idea if the BVR warfare comes to pass (extra deadweight in an airframe...) but you also can't ignore it.

The gunpod is probably a good idea -- theortically. If you need it, mount it. If not, skip it for more ordnance to dump on the enemy. However, the F35 execution of this idea smacks of afterthought rather than forethought.

Personally, I find the F35 somewhat asethetically pleasing but absolutely horrendous in terms of battlefield role -- it does nothing particularly well. If it were up to me I'll kill and burn and bury that project. It's not unredeemable, but I see very little value in that airframe.. too little payload to be like the A10, too normal to take the place of the Harrier, and too puny to be an interceptor or Fleet Defence (which it isn't supposed to be).

The F22, that's another story. The sheer number of missiles it can carry is somewhat pleasing. Now, if we can turn it into an A22 with wing-mounted ordnance (I know the internal bays are fairly small), it may be quite interesting.

[Zentrandude]

guess in the future with cost of the military budget shrinking or the cost of the weapons of war rising airplanes might just become a cilivian affair while military just use long range missiles that either is accurate enough (if thats possible) so no missed or wrong targets or Long range missiles and the idea of alwell for inocints getting caught in the affair its war time anyways. both sounds very bad but it can seem very possible.

[pfunk]

the A-10's is a 23??MM round that fires 4000 rounds a minute. it was built around that gun and thats its main armament.

I really do think its taking over the role of the Tankbuster, heres a popular mechanics story on it. I really dont think it will do a bad job, i just think it lacks in the armor

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mi...flexible_flyer/

I copied this from another site also

* The F-35 has two weapons bays, each of which can accommodate a single "Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)" GPS-guided bomb and an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM). The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs. The F-35A and F-35C variants have bulged weapons bays to accommodate the larger munitions. The two bays have two doors each, with the AMRAAM fitted on a launch rail on the inner door.

Four stores pylons can be attached to all variants to provide a much larger warload, at the expense of stealth. The inner pylon on each wing is rated for up to 2,270 kilograms (5,000 pounds), while the outer pylon is rated for up to 1,135 kilograms (2,500 pounds).

Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27 Millimeter Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27 revolver-type cannon, in the left wingroot. The other variants do not have a built-in gun, but can accommodate a cannon pack plugged into one of the weapons bays.

[pfunk]

and its freindly to the envirionment

EPA Awards Lockheed Martin for F-35 Program

PALMDALE, Calif. - Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Palmdale has been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for dramatically reducing the use of hazardous materials in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. is a business area of Lockheed Martin Corp. [NYSE: LMT]

The plant received the EPA Region 9's 2003 Environmental Achievement Award for its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Design for Environment (DfE) process. EPA officials presented the award on Earth Day, April 22, in San Francisco. The award recognizes "exceptional work and commitment to the environment."

The company initiated DfE to identify, eliminate and minimize the use of hazardous materials in the F-35 design, production and subsequent operations throughout the aircraft's life cycle. The goal of DfE is to integrate materials into the design that reduce environmental impact, minimize effects on worker health and safety, and lower the life-cycle costs of hazardous materials handling.

[Nied]

Through out this whole thread I just keep thinking of that line Gene Kranz (sp?) said in Apollo 13 "I don't care what anything was designed to do, I care about what it can do."

And aparently close combat is something the F-35 can't do. I just hope that thing can out run it's opponents and keep it's opponent in missile range.

I don't see how that's true. Sure in "first day of war" mode it will only have a pair of AMRAAMs (though that's only true for the USMC and Navy versions and I doubt the marines will be flying without external stroes very often), but it's not like it's stuck without external stores for the entire conflict. Most likely F-35s would spend the majority of thier combat missions lugging external stores, which include a pair of dedicated sidewinder rails, and a gunpod (except for the Air Force which has the gun built in). Given that the F-35 is supposed to be about as maneuverable as an F-16 (no slouch in the air-to-air department itself) I'd say it has pretty good chances in a dogfight.

[Nied]

The fighter planes were unproven then. They're proven now. Do you think the admirals will feel the same way today that they did in the 20's/30's?

The internal gun is a proven weapon. It was taken out once and it was proven disastrous. What sense is there to do it again?

Battleships were a proven weapon during the '20s and '30s. That didn't make them any more obsolete during WWII.

As much as I like the internal gun on aircraft the data shows that it's going the way of the Dodo. There have been fewer and fewer gun kills over the years, and more and more BVR kills. The reason BVR combat failed in Vietnam was beceause the Rules of Engagement for that war required visual identification, meaning pilots had to close to visual ranges, at which point thier already unreliable Sparrows were useless. In this day and age of IFF transponders and AWACS the ROE can be relaxed, most aircraft can be positively identified while beyond visual range, and modern AMRAAMs are about a thousand times more reliable than the old Sparrow missiles used in Vietnam. BVR combat wasn't a failure in Vietnam it was just ahead of it's time.

[Nied]

While AIM-9X's SHOULD have lock-after-launch like ASRAAM's, especially for the F-35's use, they don't. Never expect "common sense and logic" to apply to the military!

Oh I don't. But doesn't and can't are two different things. Hell if push comes to shove we could borrow some ASRAAMs from the UK (since all versions of the JSF are cleared for the same stores). Considering how often the UK comes on military adventures with us they'd most likely have stockpiles nearby anyway.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

nope where did you hear that? THe F-35 is slower and much less manuerverable than the F-16. I am tellin ya the only thing its got going for it is being a cheap stealth.

and the thing about pointing to vietnam? Because it is similar to today. No fighter pilot would want to go ino a dogfight without a gun. The Su-37 is so high threat because why? NOt only because of BVR but also because for a big ass fighter, it moves pretty well doing things you wouldnt imagine a almost 70 ft fighter plane to do in the sky. It defies gravity ina lot o ways. IN terms of history lets look at the facts. A lot of potential kills were potential because phantom riders in veitnam for the most part did not have a gun. Why do you think the crusaders had it good? The gun and manueverability were the main selling points and buuilding pioints for the F-15 and most fo the teen fighters. OH yea 50 yrs ago bleh. The gun is always needed in a fighter plane. Its the onyl weapon that cannont jam automatically and hell even the russian flankers got them. Sure not that many kills have been gun kills in the last 20 or so years but it is still needed. Alot of the MIg 21 kills that the IAF scored in yom kippur were gun kills. Remember technology is good but its not necesarily alwyas reliable. Sure stealth and BVR are good right? What if the JSF got into a dogfight, missed all its BVR shots and didnt have a gun btu had a decent pilot at the controls? Oh wait thats right he can only outrun the enemy pilot if he can speed out with enough gas. Oh wait thats right lets say this is an ambush with the F-22 CAP pilots already having there hands full. Sure to some of you the "just in case things" may seem minimal and a waste of money...but you gotta look at the history of they the damn gun was put back intop place to begin with.

TO me deleting a gun on a FIGHTER plane is stupid. plain and simple. F-15E? oh yea the strike eagl;e? holy crap its got a gun too!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

No BVR was a failure in vietnam and even today BVR tghoyugh shitloads better than vietnam, is not fully compliant witht eh advertisements that the pencil pushers like to say. tomcats shot off a few phoenixes over iraq in 98 and missed all of them. Oh and like I said before though the data shows the gun kills are less and les the gun is still needed. History should teach a lesson folks not be forgotten. Any fighterpolot will tell you that the gun is needed. Why elsew is the gun still on the typhoon? Why is it on the tornado? And hell why is the Su-37 being so exploited for close in knife fighting? I cant believe how people think the gun shoujld not be on the next gen fighters. Hel the 22 and the 23 had provisiosn for it while the demval was stil going on and even the UAE F-16 Block 60s got guns. The gun is IMPORTANT people. no matter how good radars and BVR gets do people realize you can STILL out run a missle? See guns yea are still like a last resort thjing but that doesnt mean you should eliminate them. Thats like saying 'oh are planes are made out of biodegradable crap that makes them like impenetrable oh yea accidents happen but with our pencil pusher civies in the govt and DOD they make sure the planes radar has enough smartness to counter any amoutn fo death that may happen...and oh yea it can but its unlikely...so therefore we got rid of our ejection seats"

[pfunk]

TO me deleting a gun on a FIGHTER plane is stupid. plain and simple. F-15E? oh yea the strike eagl;e? holy crap its got a gun too!

the F-35 has a 27MM Gun USAF version, and the other varients can get one plugged into one of the missle bays

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I know dude. See fi they didnt lable that thing a multirole fighter I wouldnt be so hard on it. LIke I said in my previous posts when I hear multirol I think hornet or falcon which do Multirole exceptioonally well.

[F-ZeroOne]

Hell if push comes to shove we could borrow some ASRAAMs from the UK (since all versions of the JSF are cleared for the same stores). Considering how often the UK comes on military adventures with us they'd most likely have stockpiles nearby anyway.

Thats odd, we always thought it was the other way round...

The Tornado has an internal gun because the Air Defence Variant was developed from the attack version. It was also fashionable at the time [1] - the Tornado was being developed just after Vietnam - to put guns back into aircraft.

[1] A surprisingly strong part of aircraft design on occasion!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

guns are always needed on FIGHTER air superiority planes! nuff said its true! WHo gives a damn how reliable BVR weaponry si when your ambushed close in its uselee! u needs ya a gun!

Its like saying "holy crap we got advanced BVR lets kill our bubble cockpits and go back to closest cockpits with like 1x1 windows! we gopt radar and stealth baybee noones got us!"

[imode]

nope where did you hear that? THe F-35 is slower and much less manuerverable than the F-16.

You keep saying that, yet I have no real reason to believe you.

One of the original design requirements set forth by the airforce was that it would have to be more maneuverable than the F-16 and have the ability to supercruise. If it was slow and much less maneuverable, how would this thing ever have made it past the drawing board?