F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Manonthestreet]

GO back a few of my posts it compares it to F-22 which is true all apsect stealth......F-35 is 20 times larger or more than f-22

 

[Daryl Hunt]

GO back a few of my posts it compares it to F-22 which is true all apsect stealth......F-35 is 20 times larger or more than f-22

Why, because you said so? Now about that cite. Otherwise, you are just talking out the south end still.

 

[westwall]

Dude, you are full of crap. I guarantee you I am far more versed in the history of the Air Force, and the workings thereof, than you ever will be. You are trying to compare an apple to a prime rib dinner. The fact remains that the obama admin has cut back on parts to such an extent that the ENTIRE aviation community is in dire straits. That includes the F-35 which in addition to being shortchanged in the supply logistics chain, is also so far behind its production targets that there was no way for them to get the planes flying when they broke up here.

That is a fact. I don't like it. But it is a fact. Trying to assert hangar queens as "normal" is horse poo. Yes, in a WAR ZONE they are a way of life. Not those CONUS bound you 'tard.

Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again? How many years do you have as a Line Chief. How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves. News flash: When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew. Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day. Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition. All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.

Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted. You would know that it's against regulation. But it happens all the time. If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two. There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions. There never is. But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned. Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around. It's not Regulation, but it is normal. Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted. Just shows how far down the pike you really were.

A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war. They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.

• 

None. And none. And it doesn't matter. You were the worker bee. I knew your boss. And, he was a damned good friend of mine.

Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making. I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well. Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.

Why bother. The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable. But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine. However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF. The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke. He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.

I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do. Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it. I didn't start out in Maintenance. I ended up there, that's all. I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.

BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties. I am in the second half of 60s, myself. I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things. Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job. But they really can't.

I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones. I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving. I changed because I was damaged for life. Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ. Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again? Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me. But I was broken. I still am.

So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit. That ship has already sailed.

I never said I served with him. I said he and I were friends. Yes, I am 70 years old. I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes. Many hundreds of times when I was younger. Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead. He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy. He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff. His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.

 

[westwall]

Daryl/Westwall, lighten up a bit guys. That is some advice from an aged First Sergeant in his mid70's. Nasty is simply nasty and more so when personal. You guys have to much going for yourselves to get personal. Again, please, lighten up a bit!

I'm game. I have zero to either lose or gain from this nonsense.

Likewise. Lets discuss the issues and not each other.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just how many years do you have in Maintenance Management again? How many years do you have as a Line Chief. How about anything to do with management of the Aircraft themselves. News flash: When those birds hit the tarmac, they cease to be owned by the Crew. Maintenance now owns them and only loans them to the air crew for a few hours each day. Most Pilots don't have a clue what goes on in the background when they don't have the key in the ignition. All they know is that they have a mission to fly and the bird is sitting there configured for it at the right load, airworthy, and ready for them to do a short preflight and get it into the air.

Your denial of "Hangar Queens" is noted. You would know that it's against regulation. But it happens all the time. If if weren't for those Queens, the Tankers would be down for parts that will keep them down for a week or two. There just aren't enough air frames to go around for the amount of flying hours and missions. There never is. But if you sit in on a Chief of Maintanence meeting you will hear it mentioned. Bombers and Tankers always have one Hangar Queen around. It's not Regulation, but it is normal. Everyone from wing down knows it's going on but it's not something that is publically admitted. Just shows how far down the pike you really were.

A Bomber and a Tanker is ALWAYS at war. They operate as if they were at war to prevent war.

• 

None. And none. And it doesn't matter. You were the worker bee. I knew your boss. And, he was a damned good friend of mine.

Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making. I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well. Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.

Why bother. The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable. But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine. However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF. The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke. He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.

I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do. Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it. I didn't start out in Maintenance. I ended up there, that's all. I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.

BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties. I am in the second half of 60s, myself. I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things. Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job. But they really can't.

I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones. I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving. I changed because I was damaged for life. Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ. Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again? Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me. But I was broken. I still am.

So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit. That ship has already sailed.

I never said I served with him. I said he and I were friends. Yes, I am 70 years old. I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes. Many hundreds of times when I was younger. Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead. He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy. He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff. His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.

The son doesn't speak for the Dad. And neither do you. To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A. The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.

Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?

 

[westwall]

None. And none. And it doesn't matter. You were the worker bee. I knew your boss. And, he was a damned good friend of mine.

Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making. I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well. Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.

Why bother. The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable. But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine. However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF. The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke. He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.

I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do. Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it. I didn't start out in Maintenance. I ended up there, that's all. I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.

BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties. I am in the second half of 60s, myself. I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things. Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job. But they really can't.

I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones. I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving. I changed because I was damaged for life. Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ. Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again? Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me. But I was broken. I still am.

So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit. That ship has already sailed.

I never said I served with him. I said he and I were friends. Yes, I am 70 years old. I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes. Many hundreds of times when I was younger. Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead. He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy. He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff. His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.

The son doesn't speak for the Dad. And neither do you. To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A. The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.

Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?

How many of them have actually flown it though? There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it. There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft. What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you are ill equipped to be making the bold statements you keep making. I can see you are capable of munging song lyrics as well. Since I had many bosses, how about naming just one.

Why bother. The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable. But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine. However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF. The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke. He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.

I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do. Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it. I didn't start out in Maintenance. I ended up there, that's all. I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.

BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties. I am in the second half of 60s, myself. I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things. Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job. But they really can't.

I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones. I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving. I changed because I was damaged for life. Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ. Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again? Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me. But I was broken. I still am.

So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit. That ship has already sailed.

I never said I served with him. I said he and I were friends. Yes, I am 70 years old. I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes. Many hundreds of times when I was younger. Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead. He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy. He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff. His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.

The son doesn't speak for the Dad. And neither do you. To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A. The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.

Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?

How many of them have actually flown it though? There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it. There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft. What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.

More than you will admit. And you don't have to fly it. You can also go into Red Flag against it. Until they turned on their IFF, not one single Fighter or Ground Installation could see it. Not even the Controllers in their ECs. They made them turn on their IFF so they could be seen. Even then, not one single fighter or ground installation could fire on them. In Green Flag, the F-35A was a complete success in taking out ground installations including CAS in 2015. No losses. In 2014, they used the F-16 and the A-10 for CAS and got slaughtered. Ground Installations and ManPads are just too deadly. Facing the Russians, we would be facing systems either as good as our own or nearly so. You have to see it to fire at it.

 

[westwall]

Why bother. The fact remains that you were a worker bee, a valued one no doubt, and no doubt your service was honorable. But your knowledge of the inner workings of the Air Force is minimal, as is mine. However, I at least was friends with Base Commanders, some of whom ARE well versed in the politics of the USAF. The earliest one that I was good friends with was Hub Zemke. He was a bit before your time, me thinks, but he taught me how to really ring the performance out of an aircraft, even the light aircraft I was flying at the time.

I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do. Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it. I didn't start out in Maintenance. I ended up there, that's all. I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.

BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties. I am in the second half of 60s, myself. I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things. Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job. But they really can't.

I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones. I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving. I changed because I was damaged for life. Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ. Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again? Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me. But I was broken. I still am.

So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit. That ship has already sailed.

I never said I served with him. I said he and I were friends. Yes, I am 70 years old. I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes. Many hundreds of times when I was younger. Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead. He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy. He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff. His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.

The son doesn't speak for the Dad. And neither do you. To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A. The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.

Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?

How many of them have actually flown it though? There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it. There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft. What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.

More than you will admit. And you don't have to fly it. You can also go into Red Flag against it. Until they turned on their IFF, not one single Fighter or Ground Installation could see it. Not even the Controllers in their ECs. They made them turn on their IFF so they could be seen. Even then, not one single fighter or ground installation could fire on them. In Green Flag, the F-35A was a complete success in taking out ground installations including CAS in 2015. No losses. In 2014, they used the F-16 and the A-10 for CAS and got slaughtered. Ground Installations and ManPads are just too deadly. Facing the Russians, we would be facing systems either as good as our own or nearly so. You have to see it to fire at it.

What about the new F-15's and their new avionics suite? Like I said, I don't place a lot of faith in reports from Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon likewise has a poor record for factual reporting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I was on both sides depending on what I was assigned to do. Got my wings and even the one with the Chute on it. I didn't start out in Maintenance. I ended up there, that's all. I am at least as versed as anyone under the title of Wing King on most things.

BTW, in order for you to have served with him, you would have to be in your seventies or eighties. I am in the second half of 60s, myself. I served on both sides of the Ops and Maint side of things. Some of the jobs I filled early on are now filled with Occifers who think they can do a better job. But they really can't.

I have known a few Officers in my time and served with some might fine ones. I have also had the distinction of being with Occifers that played more politics than serving. I changed because I was damaged for life. Even though the mission was a success, I was a fruitcake when I got to the LZ. Are you aware that if you are bad enough off, the AF would deny you separation until your brain starts working again? Once you get it together, they almost always allow you to reenlist like they did me. But I was broken. I still am.

So don't try and convince these people that a 4 year light plane pilot knows as much as you do and that a career Airman like me doesn't know shit. That ship has already sailed.

I never said I served with him. I said he and I were friends. Yes, I am 70 years old. I too have jumped out of perfectly good airplanes. Many hundreds of times when I was younger. Hub was a non political animal which is why he never got his Star, and also why his last command was out here at Stead. He told it like it was, and his son, who I am likewise good friends with (I am currently holding all of his dads guns and medals thanks to his house being damaged in the Washoe Valley fire) and I have had many talks about the F-35 and current AF policy. He feels as I do, that they are both not up to snuff. His opinion is that his father would likewise be appalled at the waste in the F-35 program.

The son doesn't speak for the Dad. And neither do you. To date, the F-16 Pilots are all goo goo eyed over the F-35A. The Navy and Marines keep finding new things to use the F-35B (the least capable) that are mind boggling.

Should I listen to you or to the ones that fly it?

How many of them have actually flown it though? There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it. There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft. What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.

More than you will admit. And you don't have to fly it. You can also go into Red Flag against it. Until they turned on their IFF, not one single Fighter or Ground Installation could see it. Not even the Controllers in their ECs. They made them turn on their IFF so they could be seen. Even then, not one single fighter or ground installation could fire on them. In Green Flag, the F-35A was a complete success in taking out ground installations including CAS in 2015. No losses. In 2014, they used the F-16 and the A-10 for CAS and got slaughtered. Ground Installations and ManPads are just too deadly. Facing the Russians, we would be facing systems either as good as our own or nearly so. You have to see it to fire at it.

What about the new F-15's and their new avionics suite? Like I said, I don't place a lot of faith in reports from Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon likewise has a poor record for factual reporting.

The new suite can see further than the enemy planes. While this is good, the ground installations can see it just fine. What the new suite does is keep the F-15 out of range for the enemy to attack and allow the F-35A to vector in the weapons fired by the F-15. The F-15 will fire well beyond the range of the weapons affectiveness but not beyond the F-35 that is passively guiding onto the target.

 

[Manonthestreet]

F-35 Helmet, Blind, Pilots, Night Flights | DoDBuzz

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F-35 Helmet, Blind, Pilots, Night Flights | DoDBuzz

It's just a software setting problem. Fairly easy to fix. And it really only affects the C model that is yet to go into production. Try again, monobreath.

 

[DrainBamage]

How many of them have actually flown it though? There's a huge gulf between flying a thing and reading about it. There are very few pilots who have rated in the aircraft. What I have seen is a lot of hype promulgated by a very few pilots.

A more interesting question would be how many of the critics of the plane have actually flown it?

It seems bizarre to me that all these pilots from different countries and different branches of service rave about this aircraft yet their opinions are dismissed, yet the opinions of people who have never even sat in the cockpit of an F-35 are taken as gold. All these pilots raving about how much the F-35 has dominated against Red Air in exercises must be part of some huge conspiracy to lie about actual F-35s performance, and whatever person with a blog writes from their living room is the more reasonable truth to pursue. Polls of pilots on what plane they would prefer to be in overwhelming lean towards F-35, yet some will instead lean on misconstrued article from an early model testing software limits on maneuvering against an F-16 as proof it cannot dogfight.

I'd invite you to take your "how many of them have actually flown it" and apply that to F-35 critics as well.

 

[DrainBamage]

GO back a few of my posts it compares it to F-22 which is true all apsect stealth......F-35 is 20 times larger or more than f-22

Referencing yourself as proof of something isn't proof. None of whatever war blogs you read really knows the RCS of an F-22 versus an F-35, it is all assumptions and guesses.

In fact the only statement made on the subject was by General Mike Hostage, who said the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22. I can go dig up the actual interview if you'd like, but I suspect you'd just disregard a statement by the ACC Commander and go with whatever guesswork is coming out of the blogspace.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Not referencing myself .....Reffing the planes known specs......duh

 

[DrainBamage]

They aren't known specs, they are estimates taken from vague references to golf balls and marbles. Can you provide a link to an F-35 spec sheet officially released by DoD or Lockheed Martin that has the plane's RCS? I'd be quite surprised if you could.

The only recent information we have from someone who'd know (as commander) is from a General who said F-35 is stealthier than F-22.

 

[miketx]

I really think it's a sign of how hapless many have become today. All the comments on this state of the art aircraft, with most of those commenting knowing absolutely NOTHING about it, other than what is placed for you to read by your media gods. I've wondered for years how we as a people have ever got past the bronze age, with all the fools we have loose.

 

[DrainBamage]

In addition to General Hostage, there is this excerpt from a pilot who has flown both the F-22 and F-35:

F-35 Lightning public debut shows the right stuff - AOPA

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story. Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”

So we have:

1. The commander of ACC saying the F-35 is stealthier than F-22
2. A pilot who has flown both F-22 and F-35 saying the F-35 is stealthier
3. Red flag exercises where F-15Es get wiped out by F-35s because they can't find them
4. Pilots saying F-35s had to turn on their transponders because ground radars can't find them to run the exercises

By all recent accounts by people actually flying the plane or involved in the program stealth is not a problem with F-35, yet determined critics are repeatedly claiming the F-35 isn't stealthy, that it isn't all aspect stealth, and that there is some official spec sheet floating around that lists classified detailed data on F-35 RCS.

 

[DrainBamage]

But then it can't remain stealthy. Hanging anything on it compromises its range and renders it back to a normal aircraft. The second you hang a single external weapon on it, you have compromised its stealthiness which is what you claimed you wanted to keep. So, which is it? A highly expensive conventional weapons delivery platform or a highly expensive stealth aircraft?

F-35 can use external hardpoints in a CAS role since it doesn't need to be stealthy for CAS. Even in environments where USAF pulled A-10s out because they were getting shot down they were able to use F-16s instead since they do CAS from higher and faster. Obviously an F-35 can do the same CAS role as the F-16 with external stores except it can do it better since better sensors and doesn't need to waste external carriage on fuel tanks and targeting pod.

Sure the A-10 has an advantage over fast movers when flying really low using gun or rockets, but the majority of weapons deployed in CAS (by a huge margin) are: 1. JDAM 2. LGB, and this includes by A-10s which usually carry two of each. F-35 will be much better than an A-10 at putting JDAMs and LGBs on targets, as it will with SDBs when they are integrated in future weapons block.

The LO characteristics come into play in SEAD/DEAD, air superiority, and strike missions since being able to get that much closer to a target without being tracked is clearly advantageous.

 

[westwall]

But then it can't remain stealthy. Hanging anything on it compromises its range and renders it back to a normal aircraft. The second you hang a single external weapon on it, you have compromised its stealthiness which is what you claimed you wanted to keep. So, which is it? A highly expensive conventional weapons delivery platform or a highly expensive stealth aircraft?

F-35 can use external hardpoints in a CAS role since it doesn't need to be stealthy for CAS. Even in environments where USAF pulled A-10s out because they were getting shot down they were able to use F-16s instead since they do CAS from higher and faster. Obviously an F-35 can do the same CAS role as the F-16 with external stores except it can do it better since better sensors and doesn't need to waste external carriage on fuel tanks and targeting pod.

Sure the A-10 has an advantage over fast movers when flying really low using gun or rockets, but the majority of weapons deployed in CAS (by a huge margin) are: 1. JDAM 2. LGB, and this includes by A-10s which usually carry two of each. F-35 will be much better than an A-10 at putting JDAMs and LGBs on targets, as it will with SDBs when they are integrated in future weapons block.

The LO characteristics come into play in SEAD/DEAD, air superiority, and strike missions since being able to get that much closer to a target without being tracked is clearly advantageous.

I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable. Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg. For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's. In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth. 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.

An A-10 can. If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own. EFFECTIVELY. Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron. That's just reality. Aircraft break all of the time. So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have. In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say. Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.

 

[DrainBamage]

I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable. Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg. For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's. In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth. 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.

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.

An A-10 can. If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own. EFFECTIVELY. Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron. That's just reality. Aircraft break all of the time. So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have. In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say. Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.

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.