F-22 or F-35? you decide!!

[geauxtohell]

If I left you with the impression that geau that I as simply advocating for the F-22 at the expense of the F-35 that would be the wrong impression. As a former A-6 Driver I know full well what CAS is. I was simply trying to point out that it's not a wise thing to do to eliminate an air to air fighter for many reasons. The biggest of which would be Air superiority to dominate the other sides air power to the point where it becomes useless in a battle scenerio. While we have many great airframe currently and when matched against their current rivals they stack up well. The F-15 in fact has never been lost in air combat against any russian made aircraft from SU-27's to Mig-29's. However when matched against newer offerings such as the SU-35/37 or the Euro-Fighter they tend to show their age a little, especially the F-16 which is outmatched by both of those fighters. However, none of those comes close in performance to the F-22 and in CAS none matches the F-35's ability. While some will point to a recent mock combat sim. by the USAF as an example of the F-35's weakness against the SU-35/37 this has been disputed but will post it here for all to see anyway..

I just don't see the point in dumping a ton of money into the latest and greatest fighter when we already have plenty of platforms that are adequate for the mission at hand.

A decade ago everyone thought the A-10 was going to be scrapped. Now that aircraft has flies more missions than it can handle.

It's the same logic with scrapping the Crusader. It looks cool on paper, but what can it really do that the Palidin can't?

 

[Navy1960]

If I left you with the impression that geau that I as simply advocating for the F-22 at the expense of the F-35 that would be the wrong impression. As a former A-6 Driver I know full well what CAS is. I was simply trying to point out that it's not a wise thing to do to eliminate an air to air fighter for many reasons. The biggest of which would be Air superiority to dominate the other sides air power to the point where it becomes useless in a battle scenerio. While we have many great airframe currently and when matched against their current rivals they stack up well. The F-15 in fact has never been lost in air combat against any russian made aircraft from SU-27's to Mig-29's. However when matched against newer offerings such as the SU-35/37 or the Euro-Fighter they tend to show their age a little, especially the F-16 which is outmatched by both of those fighters. However, none of those comes close in performance to the F-22 and in CAS none matches the F-35's ability. While some will point to a recent mock combat sim. by the USAF as an example of the F-35's weakness against the SU-35/37 this has been disputed but will post it here for all to see anyway..

I just don't see the point in dumping a ton of money into the latest and greatest fighter when we already have plenty of platforms that are adequate for the mission at hand.

A decade ago everyone thought the A-10 was going to be scrapped. Now that aircraft has flies more missions than it can handle.

It's the same logic with scrapping the Crusader. It looks cool on paper, but what can it really do that the Palidin can't?

While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and who's designs date back over 30. With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities and SAM's as well as an increasing number of nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating purchasing 900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation, listen to the Air Force and it's requirements for 60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate threats. While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd. As I mentioned earlier several nations would like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as Japan. This would simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase the F-22. They have an old fleet of F-111's and to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations. While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become less effective in their mission.

 

[geauxtohell]

While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and who's designs date back over 30. With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities and SAM's as well as an increasing number of nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating purchasing 900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation, listen to the Air Force and it's requirements for 60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate threats. While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd. As I mentioned earlier several nations would like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as Japan. This would simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase the F-22. They have an old fleet of F-111's and to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations. While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become less effective in their mission.

But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.

The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.

Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4. I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.

The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.

I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader. What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?

 

[DiveCon]

While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and who's designs date back over 30. With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities and SAM's as well as an increasing number of nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating purchasing 900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation, listen to the Air Force and it's requirements for 60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate threats. While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd. As I mentioned earlier several nations would like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as Japan. This would simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase the F-22. They have an old fleet of F-111's and to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations. While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become less effective in their mission.

But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.

The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.

Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4. I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.

The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.

I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader. What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?

the crusader was shelved because the N-LOS cannon is due to come out that would make it obsolete
look it up, this thing is phenomenal

 

[Navy1960]

While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and who's designs date back over 30. With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities and SAM's as well as an increasing number of nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating purchasing 900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation, listen to the Air Force and it's requirements for 60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate threats. While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd. As I mentioned earlier several nations would like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as Japan. This would simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase the F-22. They have an old fleet of F-111's and to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations. While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become less effective in their mission.

But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.

The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.

Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4. I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.

The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.

I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader. What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?

I can't tell you how much I agree with some of your assertions when it comes to purchasing decisions made by the Army recently or the Air Force and the entire DoD for that matter. Does anyone here remember the "Comanche" a lot of money spent on that light scout helicopter and in the end nothing in the field. The A-10 has been around a long time and the F-35 I suspect will finally lead to its retirement because the F-35 comes standard with nice powerful punch for CAS i.e. 25mm GAU/22A 4 barrel cannon. However I could not disagree with you more on the need for the F-22, in fact air superiorty missions are vital for force projection world wide. Without a superior air ro air capability for the future we run the risk of being unable to complete most of the missions assigned to our various air services. One other vital role these aircraft play is homeland air defense, a role that has been fillled from the F100 all the way to the F-15. So yes there is a vital need for these and the mission has not gone away. In fact the mission for these types of aircraft is even more critical with the sheer number of counties able to aquire ever more sophisticated types of aircraft and missles.

 

[DiveCon]

While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and who's designs date back over 30. With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities and SAM's as well as an increasing number of nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating purchasing 900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation, listen to the Air Force and it's requirements for 60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate threats. While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd. As I mentioned earlier several nations would like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as Japan. This would simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase the F-22. They have an old fleet of F-111's and to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations. While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become less effective in their mission.

But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.

The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.

Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4. I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.

The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.

I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader. What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?

I can't tell you how much I agree with some of your assertions when it comes to purchasing decisions made by the Army recently or the Air Force and the entire DoD for that matter. Does anyone here remember the "Comanche" a lot of money spent on that light scout helicopter and in the end nothing in the field. The A-10 has been around a long time and the F-35 I suspect will finally lead to its retirement because the F-35 comes standard with nice powerful punch for CAS i.e. 25mm GAU/22A 4 barrel cannon. However I could not disagree with you more on the need for the F-22, in fact air superiorty missions are vital for force projection world wide. Without a superior air ro air capability for the future we run the risk of being unable to complete most of the missions assigned to our various air services. One other vital role these aircraft play is homeland air defense, a role that has been fillled from the F100 all the way to the F-15. So yes there is a vital need for these and the mission has not gone away. In fact the mission for these types of aircraft is even more critical with the sheer number of counties able to aquire ever more sophisticated types of aircraft and missles.

but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
too many missions for one airframe

 

[geauxtohell]

While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and who's designs date back over 30. With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities and SAM's as well as an increasing number of nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating purchasing 900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation, listen to the Air Force and it's requirements for 60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate threats. While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd. As I mentioned earlier several nations would like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as Japan. This would simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase the F-22. They have an old fleet of F-111's and to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations. While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become less effective in their mission.

But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.

The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.

Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4. I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.

The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.

I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader. What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?

the crusader was shelved because the N-LOS cannon is due to come out that would make it obsolete
look it up, this thing is phenomenal

That's a valid reason to not fund it, but I think that is only part of the story.

The Army was all hot and bothered over this issue, and it is one of the reasons that Shinseki was fired (wrongly I believe).

At the heart of it was the fact that the Artillery branch wanted the latest and greatest without any real good reason.

On the modern battlefield, the entire artillery branch is trying to find relevance. Mortars are as effective, man portable, and more mission efficient.

I think at the root of a lot of this are old dogs that can't admit they need to learn new tricks.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.

Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.

With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! That's precious...

So the US Military is a 'social program?' When did that happen?

The country is on it's knees due PURELY to the same policies for which you're presently advocating.

A sound defense is not a cost to the culture, as such profits the system by providing a secure environment in which to do business; to raise our families and to be free to spout addleminded socialist BS on message boards.

 

[DiveCon]

But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.

The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.

Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4. I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.

The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.

I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader. What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?

the crusader was shelved because the N-LOS cannon is due to come out that would make it obsolete
look it up, this thing is phenomenal

That's a valid reason to not fund it, but I think that is only part of the story.

The Army was all hot and bothered over this issue, and it is one of the reasons that Shinseki was fired (wrongly I believe).

At the heart of it was the fact that the Artillery branch wanted the latest and greatest without any real good reason.

On the modern battlefield, the entire artillery branch is trying to find relevance. Mortars are as effective, man portable, and more mission efficient.

I think at the root of a lot of this are old dogs that can't admit they need to learn new tricks.

well, the N-LOS is a remotely controled tracked artillery
and has a remotely control resupply as well
puts fewer men in harms way
also it can fire multiple rounds and have them all hit at the same time
it can adust and fire that quickly

 

[geauxtohell]

I can't tell you how much I agree with some of your assertions when it comes to purchasing decisions made by the Army recently or the Air Force and the entire DoD for that matter. Does anyone here remember the "Comanche" a lot of money spent on that light scout helicopter and in the end nothing in the field. The A-10 has been around a long time and the F-35 I suspect will finally lead to its retirement because the F-35 comes standard with nice powerful punch for CAS i.e. 25mm GAU/22A 4 barrel cannon. However I could not disagree with you more on the need for the F-22, in fact air superiorty missions are vital for force projection world wide. Without a superior air ro air capability for the future we run the risk of being unable to complete most of the missions assigned to our various air services. One other vital role these aircraft play is homeland air defense, a role that has been fillled from the F100 all the way to the F-15. So yes there is a vital need for these and the mission has not gone away. In fact the mission for these types of aircraft is even more critical with the sheer number of counties able to aquire ever more sophisticated types of aircraft and missles.

I agree that air to air is always going to be essential, but the fact it makes little sense to drop a bunch of money into the latest and greatest air to air platform when we are already decades ahead of our rivals.

When is the last time an aircraft was shot down? We are clearly not suffering for lack of projection. In the meantime, three guys with RPGs, AK-47s, and left over soviet mines can stymie an entire battalion.

At the root of all this lies frivelous spending by those in the military who aren't in touch with reality. Why do the Marines get 3% of the Navy dollar when they are shouldering 97% of mission requirements?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...
On the modern battlefield, the entire artillery branch is trying to find relevance. Mortars are as effective, man portable, and more mission efficient.

I think at the root of a lot of this are old dogs that can't admit they need to learn new tricks.

ROFL... Well that depends on the mission... Mortars are fine where one has a weapons unit within range of the target. Artillery simply provides for a broader IDF AO... and by no small margin.

I was an 81mm gunner and while it's been 30 years since I fired one, if memory serves the 81 had an ER of +/-5 km... It's my understanding they're running a 120mm mortar now, but it comes, as was argued in my day when it was being discussed THEN, with mobility issues...

But if you're 5 or 6 klicks down wind of a mortar battery, you're GTG... however, you can roam 6 times that if you've a 155 battery in the neighborhood and get excellent IDF support.

This notion that IDF systems are antiquated is pretty much the same crap that was being touted in the early 90s just before the first gulf war.

At the time they were arguing about the Abrams tank... and I heard countless 'experts' tell us how 'the days of the MBT were long gone...' that the 'M1 was designed to combat the Soviets in the fields of eastern Europe and now tha tthe Soviets were our friends, there's just no need for such a platform; that the new systems would be lighter, faster and so on...

Well, we know how long that nonsense lasted. The MBT was a rock star and as a result it's foreseeable future cemented... Arty guys are the unsung heros... they bust their ASSES drilling day in and out and no one sees it... its a deafening job, where everything weighs on the "TONS" scale, it's hot, dusty, muddy, rainy, cold, wet and miserable... and they are nearly always there to rain down the death when ya need it most.

I also think the F35 is a series of absurd compromises... The AF should recognize that the A10 platform is PERFECT for what it does... they don't need to build hundred million dollar jets to do its job... It's a subsonic, low and slow anchor with a massive punch...

They could build DOZENS of new A10s or A10 type platforms for what one of the F35s cost; which, given a more powerful, fuel efficient powerplant, electronics and perhaps some airframe tweaks, would out perform the state of the art; because you don't NEED STATE OF THE ART FOR THAT MISSION. What ya need is RELIABLE AIRCRAFT, ROLLING ON and STAYING ON TARGET for as long as needed.

I'm sure they're going to buy it and I'm sure its going to cost a freakin' FORTUNE to UN-COMMITTEE the thing and make it worth havin'...

 

[geauxtohell]

but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
too many missions for one airframe

That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.

The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform. It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.

In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?

 

[DiveCon]

but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
too many missions for one airframe

That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.

The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform. It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.

In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?

the F-22 gives you the ability to fly ANY other aircraft to do the close in support
without the worry someone else would shoot the better ground support aircraft out of the sky

 

[geauxtohell]

but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
too many missions for one airframe

That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.

The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform. It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.

In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?

the F-22 gives you the ability to fly ANY other aircraft to do the close in support
without the worry someone else would shoot the better ground support aircraft out of the sky

So does the F-35.

Again, at the root of this are a bunch of fighther jocks struggling to find their relevance on the modern battlefield and going in the complete opposite direction.

 

[asaratis]

How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.

Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.

Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.

With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.

The Constitution or that goddam bit of paper is just that a bit of paper. The founding fathers wishing to be free of the mother country never achieved same, it was a trick an illusion by the power brokers who led the simple folk to believe that they had won and were therefore free of the controls of the Uk.

But in reality that never happened, the US was up for sale and the Uk bought it lock stock and barrel. Like a play that was written it has been acted out with the cast and the audience believeing that they are free of any interuptions or influence. but that is not the case.

The Constitution was pure theatre, an illusionists set of props to beguile the people and this has been so since it was written. And where is the Constitution now? its called the Patriot Act but the one and the other are the same, rules set down in which to control the people, nothing changes, the perps control all and have done so for so long.

Its all nonsense, politics this party that party, its all irrelevant as these things are merely the stage sets that the perps use to hoodwink us all. So while you slaver over some new jet fighter and believe your country needs it people are starving for want of the basic things in life. But you don't care because it dose not affect you at this moment in time. Its an American sickness, better to have guns and bullets rather than food, better to die defending the indefensible than to live.

You would think with all the American failures in war that the truth would start to hit home but it has not, you must ask yourself why. Why is it that a nation that claims to be the strongest on the planet keeps losing, can you understand that concept? I have heard all the excuses under the sun from Americans yet it still does not provide the answer as to why you fail.

The simple answer is that you are not designed to win just as the perps who set up ww1 and ww2 knew who would be the winners and who would be the losers well before the first shot was fired. Its not rocket science and all the clues and answers are there you just have to look. Nothing is random and all things are connected.

No they are not, ahead of what, Iraq, Iran? When are Americans going to realise that their military is not as good or advanced as they think it is. And that aside such technology does not help you win wars does it. For all your alleged technology your failure rate in open conflict is quite astounding. I cannot think of any other nation that has lost as many times as the US has. You talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk to use one of your lines.

The belief in ones superiority compared to reality are miles apart proof of which is in the aforementioned. The constant failure of your forces in the field must come as a shock compared to the drooling over weapons systems that you cannot even afford.

Time to bring what you call those troops home and live on the farm, you have neither the will or capacity to win so quit while your ahead.

Spoken like a true pacifist. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit slavery.

This thread was started to compare two aircraft as candidates for use in defending our freedoms against other countries that would use weapons to take them away. Why shouldn't we pay for the best we can manufacture?

Your proposal to substitute social giveaways to those that would be satisfied with not having to work for a living for the common defense of their right to sit on their asses is inexplicably flawed by lack of reason. If taken over by the right country, such people may be executed for not volunteering to work in the rice fields for the common good of the government. All we need do is provide our military with less than the best.

I vote for the F-22 Raptor. I have long admired birds of prey.

 

[DiveCon]

That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.

The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform. It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.

In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?

the F-22 gives you the ability to fly ANY other aircraft to do the close in support
without the worry someone else would shoot the better ground support aircraft out of the sky

So does the F-35.

Again, at the root of this are a bunch of fighther jocks struggling to find their relevance on the modern battlefield and going in the complete opposite direction.

the F-35 does not do the air superiority as well
quite frankly, it doesn't do ANY of its missions as well as the aircraft it is replacing

 

[Navy1960]

Well a lot's been said , so rather than address each one and clog up the thread, I will try say a few things here. One is the F-35 is a design more along the lines of the F-18 when it comes to mission capabilites with the noted exception of the F-35B which is the Marine Corps variant which is set to not only replace the FA-18 but also the AV-8B. So it is a mult-role aricraft Dive so by it's very nature it will not have all the capabilities of the A-10 when it comes to the CAS roles but what it lacks in lead on the ground it makes up for in speed to target, and the ability to fill other roles. This is not a lack of capabilites it is an enhancement. While not an advocate of using the F-35 as an all around solution for every role because it is not a match for the F-22 in the air to air envelope , I am an advocate for the F-35 as part of an overall solution in conjunction with the F-22. As I have stated earlier the F-22 pattern for which ALL 5th generation fighters are based on. So it makes no sense to simply ride ourselves or the worlds premier fighter and the DoD should listen to the warfighters for a change as to what they want in the field rather than some appointee who's interests do not reflect the wishes of the warfighter. Perhaps, that is the main reason the Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Air Force, etc are always begging congress for new systems and billions are being spent with no results because DoD never actually listens to the needs of the actual warfighter. Want an example, for years now all services have been literally begging on bended knee's for a replacement for the KC-135 and for years the contract has been rewarded and then cancelled at the cost of billions while the warfighters still limp along with a 50 year old airframe. So yes, the F-22 is a vital asset if only because the Air Force as said that it requires an additional 60 to meet its requirements for a MEDIUM THREAT and that assesment is taking into account a full inventory of 1200 F-35's. In fact the Air Force told congress 3 years ago it does NOT need any additional C-130's and congress forced the Air Force to purchase an additional 18 of them to keep the line open. See what I mean? The same goes for the C-17, our global air lift capacity while used is very much under utilized. So while we continue to purchase airlifters we ignore force projection vehicles like the F-22 and the F-35.

As for ther assertion of air to air kills...

A total of 6 MiG-29s were shot down of which 4 MiG-29s were shot down by USAF F-15C, 1 by USAF F-16CJ or friendly fire MANPADS and one by Dutch F-16AM.[29][30] Others were destroyed on the ground and one crash landed and was later destroyed as it was placed as a decoy

May 3, 1999 (by Lieven Dewitte) - A U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter shot down a Yugoslav MiG-29 jet Mondaynight after the MiG rose to challenge the American warplane during NATO bombing raids The Russian-built fighter jet was downed near the border between Serbia and Bosnia
http://www.f-16.net/news_article213.html

The USAF deployed F-15C, D and E models to the Persian Gulf in 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm where they accounted for 36 of the 39 Air Force air-to-air victories. F-15Es were operated mainly at night, hunting modified SCUD missile launchers and artillery sites using the LANTIRN system.[33] According to the USAF, its F-15Cs had 34 confirmed kills of Iraqi aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, mostly by missile fire: five MiG-29 "Fulcrums", two MiG-25 "Foxbats", eight MiG-23 "Floggers", two MiG-21 "Fishbeds", two Su-25 "Frogfoots", four Su-22 "Fitters", one Su-7, six Mirage F1s, one Il-76 cargo plane, one Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and two Mi-8 helicopters. After air superiority was achieved in the first three days of the conflict, many of the later kills were reportedly of Iraqi aircraft fleeing to Iran, rather than actively trying to engage U.S. aircraft. The single-seat F-15C was used for air superiority, and the F-15E was heavily used in air-to-ground attacks. An F-15E achieved an aerial kill of another Iraqi Mi-8 helicopter using a laser-guided bomb during the air war. The F-15E sustained two losses to ground fire in the Gulf War in 1991.[34] Another one was damaged on the ground by a SCUD strike on Dhahran air base.[35]



USAF F-15 Eagle videoThey have since been deployed to support Operation Southern Watch, the patrolling of the No-Fly Zone in Southern Iraq; Operation Provide Comfort in Turkey; in support of NATO operations in Bosnia, and recent air expeditionary force deployments. In 1994, two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks were downed by USAF F-15Cs who thought they were Iraq Hinds in the Northern no-fly zone of Iraq in a friendly fire incident.[36] USAF F-15Cs shot down four Yugoslav MiG-29s using AIM-120 missiles during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Operation Allied Force.[34]

The F-15 in all air forces had an air-to-air combined record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat as of February 2008.[37] To date, no air superiority versions of the F-15 (A/B/C/D models) have ever been shot down by enemy forces. Over half of the F-15's kills were made by Israeli Air Force pilots.
F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think to simply dismiss the idea that air to air combat is this myth of the past is to not know the actual situation. While there are several things that can be done to reduce the amount of waste at the DoD not listening to the Air Force when it comes to defense needs is not one of them. Further as I have suggested, if the Administration and others are so intent at not permitting our military to have the finest air superiority fighter ever built in the numbers needed then lift the export ban on nations that have shown an interest in it so that the line will remain open to fill Air Force needs should the arise.

 

[Navy1960]

Compared to the JSF, the F-22 Raptor is indeed larger in size and internal volume. Nevertheless, the F-22 suffers from one key limitation. Its center bays were designed around the AIM-120 AMRAAM that is only about 12 ft (3.65 m) in length and has a maximum fin span of about 1.5 ft (0.45 m). These dimensions are quite sufficient for the aircraft's primary role as an air superiority fighter. However, the end of the Cold War forced the Air Force to change priorities and give the F-22 a stronger ground attack capability. Unfortunately, most air-to-ground weapons are significantly longer, wider, taller, and heavier than the AIM-120, making it difficult to integrate such weapons into the F-22 bays. The only weapon that has been integrated so far is the GBU-32 JDAM, a GPS-guided bomb that is about 10 ft (3.05 m) in length and is based on the 1,000 lb (455 kg) Mk-83 general purpose bomb.

Most air-to-surface weapons are in the 2,000-lb (910 kg) class, however, but these weapons are usually around 12.5 to 14 ft (3.80 to 4.25 m) long and too large to fit within the F-22. Bearing these limitations in mind, JSF designers purposefully sized the two internal bays around these larger 2,000-lb class weapons. The two weapons that have predominantly dictated the overall length and depth of the bays are the AGM-154 JSOW and the GBU-31 2,000 lb (910 kg) version of JDAM.



F-35 weapons bay
Each bay contains two weapons stations, as shown above. Air-to-ground stores like JSOW and JDAM are carried on the outboard station. Air-to-air weapons can also be carried in this position but are carried primarily on the inboard station that is specifically dedicated to that purpose. One of the unique features of the design is that the air-to-air station swings out on a hinged rail as the inboard bay door opens.

The list of weapons that the JSF will carry when it enters service has not yet been finalized. However, it has been decided that all variants will be cleared to carry the same selection of weapons regardless of whether or not each user actually intends to arm its planes with that weapon. For example, the Navy CV variant will be cleared to carry the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) even though only the Air Force has that weapon in its inventory. Similarly, all US aircraft will be compatible with the ASRAAM air-to-air missile that only the United Kingdom plans to carry on its planes. The decision to clear all variants with the same weapon loads was made in order to simplify integration requirements, maintain commonality, and lower overall development costs. Note that the above statements are no longer entirely true since the bays of the F-35B STOVL version have been reduced in size as mentioned earlier. As a result, the F-35B is no longer compatible with JSOW and 2,000 lb JDAM weapons. The largest weapon this F-35 variant can carry internally is the GBU-32 1,000 lb version of JDAM. A list of the weapons that are currently planned for internal carriage on the F-35 is shown below.



F-35 internal weapons
Not included in this diagram are weapons in source selection as of this writing that are to be added to the internal carriage list. These weapons include the American GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, of which four can be carried on the air-to-ground station in each bay, and a new 500 lb laser guided bomb for the British (ultimately won by the Paveway IV). Another possible addition is a new variant of JDAM being considered by the US that will add a digital scene matching capability for improved accuracy.

The F-35 also has six external pylons, three under each wing. The inboard station is designed for up to 5,000 lb (2,265 kg) loads and will most likely be used to carry external fuel tanks. The pylon can carry 2000-lb class air-to-ground weapons as well. The midboard pylon is also primarily intended for air-to-ground weapons and can carry up to 2,500 lb (1,135 kg). The surface attack weapons compatible with these two pylons include many of the same ones carried internally as well as additional stores that are too large to fit in the bays. The outboard station on each wing, however, is a dedicated air-to-air station carrying up to 300 lb (135 kg) and designed specifically for short-range infrared guided missiles like AIM-9X Sidewinder. A list of weapons currently planned for external carriage is illustrated below. Note that training bombs have not been included in this list.
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

While I find myself in the position of having to defend both these airframes, so be it. The A-10 is a robust CAS airframe that has filled and continues to fill it's mission well. However the F-35 was not intended to fill the A-10 mission alone and was designed to fill a number of rolls. When you look at the weapons stores list, the F-35 is NO whimp when it comes to the ability to deliver lead on target. While I do agree that if the call was for a pure CAS aircraft it would make sense to take a look at a A-10 follow-on and this idea is a a good one if you want my opinion. However, given the current purchasing environment , I would urge you all who dismiss the F-35 to take a look at it again. Especially the F-35B which in my opinion represents the best in aviation innovation.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKp4S5jvDLg&feature=related]YouTube - F 35B Vertical Take Off and Landing[/ame]

 

[geauxtohell]

I think to simply dismiss the idea that air to air combat is this myth of the past is to not know the actual situation. While there are several things that can be done to reduce the amount of waste at the DoD not listening to the Air Force when it comes to defense needs is not one of them. Further as I have suggested, if the Administration and others are so intent at not permitting our military to have the finest air superiority fighter ever built in the numbers needed then lift the export ban on nations that have shown an interest in it so that the line will remain open to fill Air Force needs should the arise.

Again, I've never advocated abandoning air to air. My point is that it has taken a major back seat to CAS and we have sufficient air to air capabilities right now.

In that light, it makes little sense to upgrade our air to air platforms.

What makes sense is to configure ourselves to a disposition that matches the sitation we are in. In that light, A10s, spectres, and drones are where the money should go. Even tactical lift and logitistics are in much higher demand than air to air.

The root of this is that figher pilots are the cream of the crop in the air force, and they are having a hard time admitting that they are quickly losing their relevance on the modern battlefield. Of course the Air Force wants the F-22, what is it going to do with itself if it admits that air to air is no longer high priority.

As for lockheed, I am not sympathetic to their financial loss. They know their business and they know they aren't 100% in control of their business. That's just the way it goes.

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSTB7U_qlTM]YouTube - Long Burst[/ame]

I thought you all might like to take a look at the GAU-12 which is currently deployed in the AV-8B and is similar to the weapon that will be in the F-35. The only difference is the F-35 version will contain a system that puts more lead on target than the GAU-12.

As for your assertion geau, while I respect your opinion, I could not disagree with you more on the need for upgrading our air to air capability. This same kind of thinking has led to the Air Force stuck with the KC-135 for all these years " it's good enough" or "we can use what we have now" kind of thinking has led to airframes that have flown long past their useful lives. Further, I have illustrated that air to air engagements have not simply disappeared in recent times. In fact if you look at the life cycle of the F-15 it has been a very busy air superiority fighter. It makes no sense what so ever to just abandon the principles of air to air engagements and concentrate on this one size fits all mentality. While I advocate both platforms, I would be a strong supporter of a follow-on for the A-10 which has been a very successful aircraft.