All this when a stock of strategic size nukes could clean up so much more and so much more quickly!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't recall claiming the range on the F-35 was poor....
It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised
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.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.
Battlefield awareness, operating in contested airspace, getting to the battlefield faster, taking off from ships.Tell us what it does better. I am curious.
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.Spotting the target is kind of important too.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
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
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.Spotting the target is kind of important too.
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?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.
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.
Battlefield awareness, operating in contested airspace, getting to the battlefield faster, taking off from ships.Tell us what it does better. I am curious.
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.
I know this.Well I was clearly wrong as regards the range.
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.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.
It can remain stealthy with eight precision guided air to ground weapons internally.Ummmm, yeah. Ok. But then it can't remain stealthy.
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.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.
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.Hanging ordnance off them loses your contested airspace advantage.
Battlefield awareness is also about aircraft sensors, radar, and networking, all of which the F-35 is much better equipped than an A-10.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.
Two of them lost to eight SAMs launched. Unacceptable, which is why they quickly stopped using them in that area and restricted their altitude.And they still only lost two of them.
I read that as recently as Libya they restricted where A-10s could operate based on rumors of SA-18s on the ground.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.