F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[HenryBHough]

All this when a stock of strategic size nukes could clean up so much more and so much more quickly!

 

[SteadyMercury]

I don't recall claiming the range on the F-35 was poor....

You stated it won't be a good naval fighter because of the range, which makes zero sense since F-35C has greater range than F-18.

Here, let me help you remember:

It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised

Similar to your utterly bizarre sequence of claiming A-10 has better loiter time followed by noting you have no idea what the loiter time of F-35 is. These aren't the posts of someone approaching something objectively, it is the post of someone with a conclusion they are trying to chase and are willing to suspend truth and logic to catch it.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The supercruise is a very nice capability but it can't do CAS half as good as a A-10. The A-10 carries 5 times as much ordnance so your claim that it can do some things better than the A-10 are not born out by fact.

Ummm no, F-35 max weapons payload is 15,000 lbs to 18,000 lbs depending on the variant, very similar to the A-10.

Point made earlier is it will be able to carry eight SDB-2s while flying clean, thus giving it the capability to engage eight targets with pinpoint accuracy without sacrificing the performance and stealth issues of external hardware on pylons. This would be an actual combat loadout, not some silly max ordinance number that no plane flies with. I suggest you stop trying to look at this as an oversimplistic weight contest (yay B-52 is better at CAS it carries more) and examine what an actual A-10 carries flying sorties carries.

Found some typical loadouts at the link below, clearly the A-10 doesn't carry 5x as much ordinance it usually has four 500 lb bombs (guided and unguided), a rocket pod and/or maverick, and a targeting pod.

Latest known Operation Enduring Freedom A-10 combat loadouts Warthog News

Photo proofs of: 82-0659 - 103rd FS, 111th FW (Pennsylvania ANG), Willow Grove ARS, Pennsylvania (PA)
; 78-0655 - 303rd FS, 442nd FW (AFRC), Whiteman AFB, Missouri (KC):

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 5: pylon not installed
Station 6: Mk. 82 LDGP?
Station 7: pylon not installed
Station 8: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 9: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 10: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 11: empty pylon

23rd Fighter Group, 23rd Wing (ACC), Moody AFB, Georgia (tailcode FT)

(Combat-deployed to Bagram AB, Afghanistan, September 2008 - August 2009)

Note: In early March 2009, the 75th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was replaced by the 74th EFS, but only by personnel.

Photo proof of 79-0179:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: empty pylon
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proofs of 80-0252, 78-0679:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: SUU-25 Flare dispenser
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of ...:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of 80-0144:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: Flare Dispenser
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: empty pylon
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of 79-0135:

Station 1:
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3:
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
Station 5:
Station 6:
Station 7:
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
Station 9:
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11:

354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, 355th Fighter Wing (ACC), Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona (tailcode DM)

(Combat-deployed to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, July 2009 - January 2010)

Photo proofs of 80-0155, 78-0684:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: Sniper XR targeting pod
Station 3: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM
Station 5: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM
Station 9: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 10: empty pylon
Station 11: empty pylon

 

[SteadyMercury]

Tell us what it does better. I am curious.

Battlefield awareness, operating in contested airspace, getting to the battlefield faster, taking off from ships.

Here is an interesting scenario for you:
Lucrative targets the U.S. Air Force in the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations - AIR FORCE HISTORICAL STUDIES OFFICE BOLLING AFB DC Perry D Jamieson - Google Books

What happened when A-10s were used in areas defended by SAMs? They started getting shot down and were immediately restricted in use to higher altitudes and kept completely out of the battle against the better defended Repub guards. An A-10 flying at higher altitude is just a bomb truck and has no CAS advantages over F-35, while an A-10 that cannot even be deployed because of SAM presence is clearly at a disadvantge to an F-35.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Spotting the target is kind of important too.

Good point, F-35 is built to spot targets, between the sensors the helmet and the computers it has the best battlefield awareness of any fighter ever built.

The Army has threatened the Air Force that if they retire the A-10 the Army will take it over. Maybe all those generals know more about the issue than you do.

Hah hah and back to the appeal-to-authority argument. So if I find experts who believe the F-35 is a wiser purchase does that mean I've proven my point since those generals know more about the issue than you do?

It is about more than CAS, and the decision to go with multirole versus specialized aircraft is almost a completely different thread. My contention is the F-35 will be able to handle CAS missions while also having the additional capabilities of air superiority fighter, strike fighter, etc. all sorts of things the A-10 cannot do including CAS in contested airspace. It is a highly political argument and it gets people beating their chests and arguing illogically just to support their favorite plane, which is hilarious to watch.

 

[westwall]

I don't recall claiming the range on the F-35 was poor....

You stated it won't be a good naval fighter because of the range, which makes zero sense since F-35C has greater range than F-18.

Here, let me help you remember:

It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised

Similar to your utterly bizarre sequence of claiming A-10 has better loiter time followed by noting you have no idea what the loiter time of F-35 is. These aren't the posts of someone approaching something objectively, it is the post of someone with a conclusion they are trying to chase and are willing to suspend truth and logic to catch it.

Well I was clearly wrong as regards the range. I don't remember writing it, nor do I know why I would think that, but it is clearly wrong. The loiter time of the A-10 is better due to the amount of ordnance that it can carry. You can trade ordnance for fuel if you need to and the A-10 has loads more payload than the F-35. Of that there is NO doubt.

 

[westwall]

The supercruise is a very nice capability but it can't do CAS half as good as a A-10. The A-10 carries 5 times as much ordnance so your claim that it can do some things better than the A-10 are not born out by fact.

Ummm no, F-35 max weapons payload is 15,000 lbs to 18,000 lbs depending on the variant, very similar to the A-10.

Point made earlier is it will be able to carry eight SDB-2s while flying clean, thus giving it the capability to engage eight targets with pinpoint accuracy without sacrificing the performance and stealth issues of external hardware on pylons. This would be an actual combat loadout, not some silly max ordinance number that no plane flies with. I suggest you stop trying to look at this as an oversimplistic weight contest (yay B-52 is better at CAS it carries more) and examine what an actual A-10 carries flying sorties carries.

Found some typical loadouts at the link below, clearly the A-10 doesn't carry 5x as much ordinance it usually has four 500 lb bombs (guided and unguided), a rocket pod and/or maverick, and a targeting pod.

Latest known Operation Enduring Freedom A-10 combat loadouts Warthog News

Photo proofs of: 82-0659 - 103rd FS, 111th FW (Pennsylvania ANG), Willow Grove ARS, Pennsylvania (PA)
; 78-0655 - 303rd FS, 442nd FW (AFRC), Whiteman AFB, Missouri (KC):

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 5: pylon not installed
Station 6: Mk. 82 LDGP?
Station 7: pylon not installed
Station 8: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 9: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 10: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 11: empty pylon

23rd Fighter Group, 23rd Wing (ACC), Moody AFB, Georgia (tailcode FT)

(Combat-deployed to Bagram AB, Afghanistan, September 2008 - August 2009)

Note: In early March 2009, the 75th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron was replaced by the 74th EFS, but only by personnel.

Photo proof of 79-0179:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: empty pylon
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proofs of 80-0252, 78-0679:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: SUU-25 Flare dispenser
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of ...:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: empty pylon
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of 80-0144:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3: Flare Dispenser
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 5: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 (black fuse cover)
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (white fuse cover)
Station 9: empty pylon
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11: empty pylon

Photo proof of 79-0135:

Station 1:
Station 2: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 3:
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
Station 5:
Station 6:
Station 7:
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM (yellow fuze cover)
Station 9:
Station 10: AN-AAQ-28 LITENING AT targeting pod
Station 11:

354th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, 355th Fighter Wing (ACC), Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona (tailcode DM)

(Combat-deployed to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, July 2009 - January 2010)

Photo proofs of 80-0155, 78-0684:

Station 1: empty pylon
Station 2: Sniper XR targeting pod
Station 3: LAU-117 single-rail launcher for AGM-65 Maverick missile
Station 4: GBU-38 JDAM
Station 5: GBU-12 Paveway II
Station 6: empty pylon
Station 7: Mk. 82 LDGB
Station 8: GBU-38 JDAM
Station 9: LAU-131 Rocket Pod
Station 10: empty pylon
Station 11: empty pylon

Ummmm, yeah. Ok. 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?

Can't have both on this planet.

 

[westwall]

Spotting the target is kind of important too.

Good point, F-35 is built to spot targets, between the sensors the helmet and the computers it has the best battlefield awareness of any fighter ever built.

The Army has threatened the Air Force that if they retire the A-10 the Army will take it over. Maybe all those generals know more about the issue than you do.

Hah hah and back to the appeal-to-authority argument. So if I find experts who believe the F-35 is a wiser purchase does that mean I've proven my point since those generals know more about the issue than you do?

It is about more than CAS, and the decision to go with multirole versus specialized aircraft is almost a completely different thread. My contention is the F-35 will be able to handle CAS missions while also having the additional capabilities of air superiority fighter, strike fighter, etc. all sorts of things the A-10 cannot do including CAS in contested airspace. It is a highly political argument and it gets people beating their chests and arguing illogically just to support their favorite plane, which is hilarious to watch.

I will certainly appeal to those who are fighting the wars. I'm not. They are. The history of military technology is littered with weapons systems that no one wanted but those who were building them. It is also littered with dead people forced to use those systems which were failures.

 

[westwall]

Tell us what it does better. I am curious.

Battlefield awareness, operating in contested airspace, getting to the battlefield faster, taking off from ships.

Here is an interesting scenario for you:
Lucrative targets the U.S. Air Force in the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations - AIR FORCE HISTORICAL STUDIES OFFICE BOLLING AFB DC Perry D Jamieson - Google Books

What happened when A-10s were used in areas defended by SAMs? They started getting shot down and were immediately restricted in use to higher altitudes and kept completely out of the battle against the better defended Repub guards. An A-10 flying at higher altitude is just a bomb truck and has no CAS advantages over F-35, while an A-10 that cannot even be deployed because of SAM presence is clearly at a disadvantge to an F-35.

Hanging ordnance off them loses your contested airspace advantage. Battlefield awareness is dependent on people on the ground. In other words the A-10 can benefit from the same weapons suite. The A-10 can take off from ships as well. The one true advantage the F-35 has is speed. I have already granted you that.

As far as the war losses, they sent them in unescorted. No ECM aircraft and at that stage they didn't even have the big eye in the sky keeping track of the Iraq ground movements so the A-10's were going in on recon/attack sorties so were as vulnerable as you can get. And they still only lost two of them. The others were returned to service.


"OTTAWA — It seems U.S. fighter pilots have lost that loving feeling for their new F-35 stealth jets.
At least that’s the impression given in a scathing Pentagon report leaked this week that identifies a huge number of problems facing the U.S. military’s F-35 fleet — including fears that it can easily be shot down.
From radars that don’t work, to blurry vision from the aircraft’s sophisticated helmet, to an inability to fly through clouds, the report, which includes pilot comments, paints a picture of a jet nowhere near ready for real-life operations.
F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin is refusing to comment, but the report’s revelations will likely give Canadian military planners pause as they continue assessing options for replacing Canada’s aging CF-18s."


F-35 design problems make night flying impossible increase risk of being shot down U.S. pilots warn National Post

 

[SteadyMercury]

Well I was clearly wrong as regards the range.

I know this.

The loiter time of the A-10 is better due to the amount of ordnance that it can carry. You can trade ordnance for fuel if you need to and the A-10 has loads more payload than the F-35. Of that there is NO doubt.

Given that you recently posted you can find no information on F-35 loiter time, you are again talking out of your ass, just like with F-35 range.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Ummmm, yeah. Ok. But then it can't remain stealthy.

It can remain stealthy with eight precision guided air to ground weapons internally.

I posted plenty of examples of actual weapon loads carried by the A-10, clearly your "omigosh 5x more payload" battle cry is misplaced. Four 500 lb bombs, a rocket pod and a maverick.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I will certainly appeal to those who are fighting the wars. I'm not. They are. The history of military technology is littered with weapons systems that no one wanted but those who were building them. It is also littered with dead people forced to use those systems which were failures.

You missed the point by a mile... an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because both sides can find random "experts" who would support their case.

Say I bring up General Welsh, one of the strongest advocates of the F35 and one who has stated the A-10 won't be survivable in future battlefields. What is his background? A-10 pilot.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Hanging ordnance off them loses your contested airspace advantage.

1. It doesn't need to have external ordinance to pack a serious air to ground punch, that has been explained about a half dozen times now so I'll just bind a macro key to type it out from now and save time.

2. Even with external ordinance it doesn't lose the contested airspace advantage because the A-10 is slow. That is like claiming because an F-15E isn't stealthy it doesn't have an advantage in contested airspace over A-10s, when clearly history has shown our military has been forced to not use A-10s and instead use fast movers because of SAM threat.

Battlefield awareness is dependent on people on the ground. In other words the A-10 can benefit from the same weapons suite. The A-10 can take off from ships as well. The one true advantage the F-35 has is speed. I have already granted you that.

Battlefield awareness is also about aircraft sensors, radar, and networking, all of which the F-35 is much better equipped than an A-10.

F-35Bs and F-35Cs can both operate from navy ships off the coast to support ground actions, the A-10 cannot.

And they still only lost two of them.

Two of them lost to eight SAMs launched. Unacceptable, which is why they quickly stopped using them in that area and restricted their altitude.

 

[mamooth]

In the short Russia-Georgia war, tiny Georgia shot down four Russian SU-25's, which is the Russian version of the A-10. The SU-25 and A-10 are both seen by any modern air defense system as big slow targets, and are kind of useless unless you have complete air supremacy.

As far as those brushfire wars go, it's not "A-10 or F-35", it's "A-10 or a mix of drones and F-35s". Remember the drones? Very slow, insanely long loiter times, very cheap.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I think sentiment drives the rabid A-10 types, that is the only way I can explain their willingness to suspend logic and manufacture information about aircraft capabilities, and pretend the nature of CAS hasn't evolved past F-4U corsairs screaming over tree tops with pilots strafing whatever catches their eye.

The modifications to the A-10C upgrade path do what exactly? Support targeting/launching of PGMs to make the A-10 more effective on the modern battlefield, because the advances in modern ordinance have made medium altitude CAS using precision guided weapons the best path.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The SU-25 and A-10 are both seen by any modern air defense system as big slow targets, and are kind of useless unless you have complete air supremacy.

I read that as recently as Libya they restricted where A-10s could operate based on rumors of SA-18s on the ground.

Keeping your aircraft out of the battle because you fear it'll get blown out of the sky is never a win.

 

[Manonthestreet]

F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019'. F-35 stealth jet will not be able to fire its guns until 2019 - Telegraph

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yet another attack piece that has no real source, just a bunch of references to "Air Force official" and something the official sources deny is true. You are the perfect audience for them.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Avalanche of evidence this plane is garbage but like the warmists you cling to your faith. Several hundred billion down the toilet without even one fully functional plane.

 

[HenryBHough]

Loved the European Debut at this summer's Farnborough Air Show where it was hoped at least 90 orders would be placed by NATO members.

Here's a photo:

Nope.

NOT that stealthy.

Just a no-show.

No orders, either.