F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[westwall]

it is you peddling the propaganda dude.

According to the propaganda that is true.

I get the impression you're quite used to doing this when facts don't agree with your assumptions. Just wave it off as propaganda and you'll never be wrong, easy peasy!

You are championing a aircraft who's costs have skyrocketed. The claimed price for one is ridiculous. That is a Lockheed claim (based on an estimate of the development and production costs of the program as a whole), and it bears nothing to reality. Hence it is propaganda. The actual cost is currently unknown as Lockheed is still in development to correct the numerous faults that still plague the aircraft. Until ALL of those faults are rectified there can be no known flyaway cost.

You are basing your arguments on estimates. Estimates are not facts. Until you learn the difference you will merely be a propagandist.

 

[DrainBamage]

You are championing a aircraft who's costs have skyrocketed. The claimed price for one is ridiculous. That is a Lockheed claim (based on an estimate of the development and production costs of the program as a whole), and it bears nothing to reality. Hence it is propaganda. The actual cost is currently unknown as Lockheed is still in development to correct the numerous faults that still plague the aircraft. Until ALL of those faults are rectified there can be no known flyaway cost.

I'm not "championing" anything as I've got no horse in the race. I don't have to fly the plane, I don't work for LM. You're confusing disageeing with what you say and championing, it isn't a sports event where I'm cheering for the F-35 like a team.

The estimate isn't from Lockheed Martin, it is from a USAF General: F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: F-35A Prices Drop 5.5%

“When we do settle LRIP 10,” Bogdan continued, expect all three variants “to come down in price significantly…. probably somewhere on the order of six to seven percent.” By the time the plane enters Full Rate Production in 2019, Bogdan estimates the price will be down to $80-$85 million for an F-35A, $110 million for a F-35B, and a $96 million for an F-35C. That’s comparable to the (inflation-adjusted) prices of the older aircraft they replace, aircraft that lack the F-35’s stealth, advanced electronics, and artificial intelligence software.

The last few GAO reports have also noted trends in lower costs, they aren't Lockheed Martin either.

You are basing your arguments on estimates. Estimates are not facts. Until you learn the difference you will merely be a propagandist.

Irony here, you consistently post incorrect things as fact. Over, and over, and over.

 

[westwall]

You are championing a aircraft who's costs have skyrocketed. The claimed price for one is ridiculous. That is a Lockheed claim (based on an estimate of the development and production costs of the program as a whole), and it bears nothing to reality. Hence it is propaganda. The actual cost is currently unknown as Lockheed is still in development to correct the numerous faults that still plague the aircraft. Until ALL of those faults are rectified there can be no known flyaway cost.

I'm not "championing" anything as I've got no horse in the race. I don't have to fly the plane, I don't work for LM. You're confusing disageeing with what you say and championing, it isn't a sports event where I'm cheering for the F-35 like a team.

The estimate isn't from Lockheed Martin, it is from a USAF General: F-35 ‘Not Out Of Control’: F-35A Prices Drop 5.5%

“When we do settle LRIP 10,” Bogdan continued, expect all three variants “to come down in price significantly…. probably somewhere on the order of six to seven percent.” By the time the plane enters Full Rate Production in 2019, Bogdan estimates the price will be down to $80-$85 million for an F-35A, $110 million for a F-35B, and a $96 million for an F-35C. That’s comparable to the (inflation-adjusted) prices of the older aircraft they replace, aircraft that lack the F-35’s stealth, advanced electronics, and artificial intelligence software.

The last few GAO reports have also noted trends in lower costs, they aren't Lockheed Martin either.

You are basing your arguments on estimates. Estimates are not facts. Until you learn the difference you will merely be a propagandist.

Irony here, you consistently post incorrect things as fact. Over, and over, and over.

Wrong. You are posting LM estimates. They are lying. That is a fact. Below is the best estimate of the cost per aircraft to come out, and it is from the people who actually pay the bills. I'll believe them over LM any day of the week.


"There have been some wild assertions about F-35 unit cost recently. See the Lockheed claims as reported in Breaking Defense, Defense News and others that we should expect F-35A costs to be $85 million in 2019. None of these articles acknowledged that there are ways to measure F-35 unit cost other than by mouthing Lockheed and/or Joint Program Office prognostications for the future. Winslow Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, CDI at the Project of Government Oversight (POGO) claims these predictions do not conform with the actual procurement of costs reflected in the real numbers listed in the 2014 budget spending.

“Try instead, empirical data from as recently as last month from sources that typically work hand-in-glove with the Pentagon.” Wheeler wrote in his blog. “They would be the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Their National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was squirted through the Senate and signed into law on December 26. On questions like funding for high priority weapons, like the F-35, they virtually never act without consulting closely with the Pentagon, even if they don’t always cough up every penny requested. For their 2014 bill, they did indeed take a few nicks out of the F-35 program, but the numbers, released in their “Joint Explanatory Statement” for the 2014 NDAA, give a more revealing view of F-35 unit costs than what Lockheed and some uninquisitive articles asserted at the end of 2013.”

The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following. (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft."


How much the F-35 Really Cost? | Defense Update:

 

[DrainBamage]

Wrong. You are posting LM estimates. They are lying. That is a fact. Below is the best estimate of the cost per aircraft to come out, and it is from the people who actually pay the bills. I'll believe them over LM any day of the week.

No, the estimates from DoD via the General in charge of the program. They are the ones negotiating the contracts with LM.

You've found a blog post from over three years ago that relies on NDAA data for 2014, and believe it estimates cost better than DoD and GAO office do today. Pretty funny.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. You are posting LM estimates. They are lying. That is a fact. Below is the best estimate of the cost per aircraft to come out, and it is from the people who actually pay the bills. I'll believe them over LM any day of the week.

No, the estimates from DoD via the General in charge of the program. They are the ones negotiating the contracts with LM.

You've found a blog post from over three years ago that relies on NDAA data for 2014, and believe it estimates cost better than DoD and GAO office do today. Pretty funny.

That's when your 85 million estimate comes from too or did you miss that part? The fact remains that the NDAA information is PUBLISHED by the US government. It is what they are PAYING for the aircraft. You can yell and make silly accusations all you want, but i know how to do basic math.

 

[Manonthestreet]

[I feel it is a grossly over priced aircraft that is going to have severe problems with reliability and which will spend most of its time in the hangar instead of out performing the missions it was designed for.

85 million for a 5th generation stealth aircraft is not grossly overpriced, as pointed out a new F-18 costs 78 million. Go look up how much Typhoon, PAK-FA, and Rafale cost.

Where do you get your reliability figures for F-35, it's still teething and under development but most early issues with availability have been related to software and have been addressed. What is truly astounding is over 60,000 hours without a crash, do you know how many F-16s crashed by the time they reached this stage?

If it ever gets that low it's because Trump put fear of losing it all in em plane is so late next design is alrdy being done up

 

[DrainBamage]

That's when your 85 million estimate comes from too or did you miss that part? The fact remains that the NDAA information is PUBLISHED by the US government. It is what they are PAYING for the aircraft. You can yell and make silly accusations all you want, but i know how to do basic math.

First off nobody is yelling. You seem to be unusually personaly vested in this given the bizarre accusations about yelling or propaganda. Calm down, we're just having a discussion.

NDAA information from 2014 that is taken as apples vs oranges with flyaway cost estimates. The cost estimates are from actual LRIP contracts that have been finalized between DoD and LM. The actual numbers from the LRIP 9 contract is for 57 aircraft are below. They aren't projections, they are from finalized contract flyaway costs.

• 42 F-35As (26 US, 16 foreign), the vanilla variant used by the Air Force and most foreign partners, at $102.1 million apiece — 5.5 percent less than the previous lot, LRIP 8, and 60 percent below the first fighters bought under LRIP 1.
• 13 F-35Bs (6 US, 7 foreign), the “jump jet” variant used by the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy, the most technologically challenging model, at $131.6 million apiece — 1.8 percent below LRIP 8.
• 2 F-35Cs (both US), the US Navy variant reinforced for tooth-rattling aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings, at $132.2 million apiece — a 2.5 increase over LRIP 8, but that’s because the Navy slashed its buy in half (from 4 planes to 2), losing economies of scale.

Even at today's prices initial low rate prices an F-35A at 102 million is not overpriced for the capabilities it provides. Estimates for 6% lower on LRIP-10, we'll know when that gets finalized as well, much better than some blog post from over three years ago.

 

[westwall]

That's when your 85 million estimate comes from too or did you miss that part? The fact remains that the NDAA information is PUBLISHED by the US government. It is what they are PAYING for the aircraft. You can yell and make silly accusations all you want, but i know how to do basic math.

First off nobody is yelling. You seem to be unusually personaly vested in this given the bizarre accusations about yelling or propaganda. Calm down, we're just having a discussion.

NDAA information from 2014 that is taken as apples vs oranges with flyaway cost estimates. The cost estimates are from actual LRIP contracts that have been finalized between DoD and LM. The actual numbers from the LRIP 9 contract is for 57 aircraft are below. They aren't projections, they are from finalized contract flyaway costs.

• 42 F-35As (26 US, 16 foreign), the vanilla variant used by the Air Force and most foreign partners, at $102.1 million apiece — 5.5 percent less than the previous lot, LRIP 8, and 60 percent below the first fighters bought under LRIP 1.
• 13 F-35Bs (6 US, 7 foreign), the “jump jet” variant used by the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy, the most technologically challenging model, at $131.6 million apiece — 1.8 percent below LRIP 8.
• 2 F-35Cs (both US), the US Navy variant reinforced for tooth-rattling aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings, at $132.2 million apiece — a 2.5 increase over LRIP 8, but that’s because the Navy slashed its buy in half (from 4 planes to 2), losing economies of scale.

Even at today's prices initial low rate prices an F-35A at 102 million is not overpriced for the capabilities it provides. Estimates for 6% lower on LRIP-10, we'll know when that gets finalized as well, much better than some blog post from over three years ago.

Why didn't you post the last paragraph? That statement kills whatever estimate they may have trotted out.


"Will the Air Force buy its full complement? Harrison was skeptical.

“I don’t think it’s plausible that we’ll actually buy that full amount in the long run, but they don’t need to change their plans right now, they don’t need to scare the foreign partners by signaling that right now, it wouldn’t make sense to do it now,” he says. “You don’t have to make that decision on the total quantity, you don’t even have to make the decision on the full-rate production, until four or five years from now. So you can wait four or five years, more of the foreign partners will get deeply invested in the program, and then they can scare them.”

 

[DrainBamage]

I have no idea where that last paragraph came from, so no I didn't quote it. I quoted data from LRIP 9.

Is this yet another blog you're fond of?

 

[westwall]

I have no idea where that last paragraph came from, so no I didn't quote it. I quoted data from LRIP 9.

Is this yet another blog you're fond of?

It came from your link.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.

The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.


Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.

Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely. The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it. The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons. The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.

You are missing the point here. There are MANY CAS platforms out there. One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops. Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS. But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors. The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer. It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops. Where was the A-10? Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range. Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird. To give you an idea. The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff. They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available. The last time I checked, this is called cheating. There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well. If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong. It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine. I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974. So they used the A-10 to kill the project.

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more. I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.

Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft. And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future. It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.

As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc.. It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130. What's left........Sandy. And only if the first parameters are met. That is extremely narrow in scope. Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.

Oh please. The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft. You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet? Get real..

You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have? UCMeICU comes into play.

The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground. NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel. When the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad. Welcome to Afghanistan. The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range. Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K. Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again? You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions. Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Not all truth is on the Internet only.

 

[westwall]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely. The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it. The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons. The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.

You are missing the point here. There are MANY CAS platforms out there. One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops. Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS. But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors. The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer. It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops. Where was the A-10? Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range. Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird. To give you an idea. The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff. They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available. The last time I checked, this is called cheating. There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well. If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong. It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine. I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974. So they used the A-10 to kill the project.

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more. I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.

Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft. And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future. It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.

As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc.. It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130. What's left........Sandy. And only if the first parameters are met. That is extremely narrow in scope. Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.

Oh please. The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft. You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet? Get real..

You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have? UCMeICU comes into play.

The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground. NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel. When the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad. Welcome to Afghanistan. The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range. Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K. Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again? You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions. Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Not all truth is on the Internet only.

The troops on the ground love the A-10. The top brass hate it. Guess who I'm going to listen to. The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely. The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it. The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons. The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.

You are missing the point here. There are MANY CAS platforms out there. One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops. Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS. But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors. The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer. It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops. Where was the A-10? Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range. Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird. To give you an idea. The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff. They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available. The last time I checked, this is called cheating. There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well. If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong. It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine. I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974. So they used the A-10 to kill the project.

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more. I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.

Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft. And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future. It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.

As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc.. It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130. What's left........Sandy. And only if the first parameters are met. That is extremely narrow in scope. Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.

Oh please. The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft. You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet? Get real..

You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have? UCMeICU comes into play.

The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground. NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel. When the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad. Welcome to Afghanistan. The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range. Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K. Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again? You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions. Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Not all truth is on the Internet only.

The troops on the ground love the A-10. The top brass hate it. Guess who I'm going to listen to. The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.

Last time I checked, the military wasn't run by an E-2 Grunt.

 

[DrainBamage]

The troops on the ground love the A-10. The top brass hate it. Guess who I'm going to listen to.

The troops love whoever drops the JDAM on the bad guys over the ridge, and most of the time it isn't an A-10.

The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.

Those "assholes" usually clocked their time in combat as well, I'm baffled at your bizarre hatred for people with successful military careers.

Current theater commander is General Nicholson, he has a bronze star with "V" from combat. I forget the name of the top USAF out there but if it's still same one I read about he's decorated F-15 combat pilot. Those guy put their lives on the line during their career same as the grunts, yet you disparage them for the sin of rising up through the ranks.

What have you done Westwall?

 

[DrainBamage]

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

I'm not sure how you're figuring this. An F-35 will carry 8 SDBs internal, and in a CAS role probably at least 4 more GBU-12s under the wings. It can hit plenty of targets, and it can hit find them and target them faster than an A-10.

what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters

The F-35s performance in Red Flag and Green Flag show otherwise, even with current limited software and weapons it has far outperformed availabel 4th gen fighters.

An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed. If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.

I'm curious if you're just making this up or had someone tell you this. What is the maximum speed planes can use laser designators on LANTIRN/LITENING/SNIPER pods, sure you have this information since you're spouting off details about capabilities of laser targeting, right?

 

[williepete]

What have you done Westwall?

Same question to you. What squadrons did you fly with? How much CAS experience do you have, ground or air?

 

[DrainBamage]

I was USAF but not a pilot, and I'm not the one disparaging others with combat experience just because they made rank.

 

[williepete]

I was USAF but not a pilot, and I'm not the one disparaging others with combat experience just because they made rank.

AFSC?

 

[DrainBamage]

Irrelevant. When I start criticizing others with combat experience just because they made rank I'll be sure to PM you my resume.

 

[westwall]

Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft. And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future. It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.

As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc.. It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130. What's left........Sandy. And only if the first parameters are met. That is extremely narrow in scope. Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.

Oh please. The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft. You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet? Get real..

You want to drop that A-10 down on the deck to use the only weapon it has that most others don't have? UCMeICU comes into play.

The A-10 is only vulnerable to Manpads when he's 10K or below from the ground. NOt every patch of ground is at sealevel. When the ground starts at 11K then the A-10 becomes visible at 15K and is well in the range of a Manpad. Welcome to Afghanistan. The A-10 may not be able to climb high enough to get out of Manpad range. Meanwhile, the AC-130 can fire accurately from 30K. Which bird is used for MOST attacks in Afg again? You won't hear of the AC-130 attacks since they are attached to Special Forces and we don't exactly publicize those missions. Meanwhile, according to you, if the A-10 even burps that's big news. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Not all truth is on the Internet only.

The troops on the ground love the A-10. The top brass hate it. Guess who I'm going to listen to. The troops actually doing the fighting, not the assholes who get a nice kickback, and a comfy job in the defense industry after they've retired.

Last time I checked, the military wasn't run by an E-2 Grunt.

You are correct. But they're the ones who get to die so that the generals you are so proud of can get their cushy job. I'll take the word of the grunts on the ground over a staff REMF any day of the week.