Is there any justification for the F-35 fighter jet?

[J P Stein]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

All makes sense. Don't know if we can afford hundreds of jets any more! I was told if it's not supersonic the USAF doesn't want it. Thinking about it more it would seem to me that the Army or Marines would be more interested in a turbine ground support aircraft anyway.

It is an over simplification.

The A-10 is "proof of concept" in the close support role. It can haul a bus to the battfield, absorb more damage, and bring the driver home far above capability of any prop job.....cept maybe a B-17.

[RWebb]

Air superiority is not just a plane vs. plane battle. AWACs and other things are crucial -- no one, foe or not, can match the US as a peer. The closest thing is a near peer and only for a certain period of time.

The US has been so far ahead for so long that the term air supremacy was coined for us.

I prefer we not fall back.

[944Larry]

Originally Posted by J P Stein

It is an over simplification.

The A-10 is "proof of concept" in the close support role. It can haul a bus to the battfield, absorb more damage, and bring the driver home far above capability of any prop job.....cept maybe a B-17.

Agreed, fine aircraft. Always one of my favorites. But it's on the way out. I was thinking in terms of cheap and easy to base near the front with a high loiter time but with a higher speed than a helo. Hell, may be too much to ask from any one single aircraft. Wonder if I can find a Stuka laying around?

[944Larry]

Originally Posted by RWebb

Air superiority is not just a plane vs. plane battle. AWACs and other things are crucial -- no one, foe or not, can match the US as a peer. The closest thing is a near peer and only for a certain period of time.

The US has been so far ahead for so long that the term air supremacy was coined for us.

I prefer we not fall back.

Pretty much says it all. I imagine the F35 bugs will get worked out.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Quote de J P Stein

It is an over simplification.



The A-10 is "proof of concept" in the close support role. It can haul a bus to the battfield, absorb more damage, and bring the driver home far above capability of any prop job.....cept maybe a B-17.

Agreed, fine aircraft. Always one of my favorites. But it's on the way out. I was thinking in terms of cheap and easy to base near the front with a high loiter time but with a higher speed than a helo. Hell, may be too much to ask from any one single aircraft. Wonder if I can find a Stuka laying around?

That's what we developed. 6+ hours persistence, A-10 systems, light armor, advanced ISR capability. An A-10 lite.

[mikester]

The A-10 is hard to argue with; it's an extremely successful aircraft for a number of reasons.

It's extremely over designed and if you look at the other aircraft that have performed in this role well you'll see some similarities.

Check out the A1-H Skyraider. Not by any means a speed demon but could carry a huge ordinance load, loiter for long periods, provided excellent visibility for the pilot and could deliver against fixed and armored targets death - quickly. It's got a powerful engine, a huge wing and a nimble wing loading to keep it maneuverable at low speeds.

The A-10 builds on this theme adding speed, even more ordinance load, loiter time and in flight refueling capabilities plus that huge canon is probably known by anyone man more than 3 years of age. I do believe an updated A-10, even based on the same airframe incorporating modern technology would be an excellent starting point for a refresh in that role. I don't think props are needed to do the job.

[onewhippedpuppy]

The A-10 overkill is good, but you don't need it for killing guys in the back of a Toyota pickup speeding through the desert. Overkill drives cost, maintenance, reduces on station time, and reduces reliability. The A-10, like most jets, spends much more time under maintenance than in the air.

[944Larry]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+100

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

The A-10 overkill is good, but you don't need it for killing guys in the back of a Toyota pickup speeding through the desert. Overkill drives cost, maintenance, reduces on station time, and reduces reliability. The A-10, like most jets, spends much more time under maintenance than in the air.

The AC-130 works well for this. You have a choice of weapons to put on target and a decent loiter. Downside is that it is huge and has a lot of crew and maintenance. We need a small version of this.

A "lightweight" turboprop version of a Dragonfly wouldn't be a bad asset to have when you don't have a Grail or Shilka waiting for you.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Boeing actually considered bringing back the OV-10 Bronco, but found that the cost to update and retool for new production wouldn't be worth it. An airplane in that genre is needed for today's warfare.

The AC-130 is awesome, but again it is a big and expensive to operate airplane. Not needed to take out some Taliban hiding in a hut.

[RWebb]

The small version of the AC-130 will be a drone with a small gun or cheap missiles.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Boeing actually considered bringing back the OV-10 Bronco, but found that the cost to update and retool for new production wouldn't be worth it. An airplane in that genre is needed for today's warfare.

The AC-130 is awesome, but again it is a big and expensive to operate airplane. Not needed to take out some Taliban hiding in a hut.

Yeah, but if there are TWO taliban hiding in a hut...

[nostatic]

"eyes on" doesn't mean what it used to.

Some of you guys are fighting the last war - which is a US tradition. Listen to Paul.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

The A-10 overkill is good, but you don't need it for killing guys in the back of a Toyota pickup speeding through the desert. Overkill drives cost, maintenance, reduces on station time, and reduces reliability. The A-10, like most jets, spends much more time under maintenance than in the air.

Didn't we just go with Embraer on a new COIN aircraft not long ago?