F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

Soldiers on the ground taking fire from bad guys on the hill only care about one thing... the bad guys being neutralized. Whether it is a JDAM from a B-1 they never even saw or a dramatic A-10 gun spam makes no difference.

Neither have ever been under that kind of fire. Let's see. I was in my bunker (ditch, behind the rock) when incoming fire started coming in. We had lost 2 of our troops already and the bad guy was getting closer. I grabbed my trusty Iphone and started..........I died very quickly. If you have a hand on your Iphone then you don't have your two hands on your weapon. When under fire, a M-16/M-4 beats the devil out of a teddy bear at the time.

 

[DrainBamage]

You know what's funny. You weren't posting when your good buddy was on vacation. Now you only post when he posts, and you seem to only post in threads where he needs support. Hmmm. Very suspicious....

Well I guess so much from the "stay on topic" edict from the mod eh? If we've decided the topic is now each other again instead of F-35, I'd point out that irrational paranoia like you're exhibiting is often a sign of mental illness.

Use your noggin a little there instead of dreaming up conspiracies, I came back to the thread because little alerts popped up on the top of my screen saying someone is quoting/replying/rating my posts, so here I am back in the thread.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You know what's funny. You weren't posting when your good buddy was on vacation. Now you only post when he posts, and you seem to only post in threads where he needs support. Hmmm. Very suspicious....

Well I guess so much from the "stay on topic" edict from the mod eh?

If we've decided the topic is now each other again instead of F-35, I'd point out that irrational paranoia like you're exhibiting is often a sign of mental illness.

But it's us that keep getting side tracked. You know it, I know and well, just praise the Lord and pass the powder.

 

[DrainBamage]

You'd think he could just check location of IPs instead of living with paranoia issues, I don't even live in the Untied States.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You'd think he could just check location of IPs instead of living with paranoia issues, I don't even live in the Untied States.

I own many sites and have a perfectly good server. He needs to think about that before his next move. He doesn't get any more chances at this point. Do you think he understands what I said?

 

[DrainBamage]

What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.

 

[westwall]

What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.

The term is called danger close, and this is why...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.

The term is called danger close, and this is why...

This has been an extremely poor moderated conversation. It's about the F-35 not the A-10. And the question of which is better will be answered next month. Until then, let's get back to the F-35

 

[westwall]

What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.

The term is called danger close, and this is why...

This has been an extremely poor moderated conversation. It's about the F-35 not the A-10. And the question of which is better will be answered next month. Until then, let's get back to the F-35

The OP is a question about whether the F-35 is too expensive for what it delivers (in a nutshell), I say yes, and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role, a role that the aircraft's proponents say it will be great at, I am very much in keeping with the OP. Just a friendly warning, publicly commenting about Moderation is grounds for an immediate ban.

I am very thick skinned but others here want me to give you another vacation so watch yourself.

 

[DrainBamage]

and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,

It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.

Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.

If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?

If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?

If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?

What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.

 

[westwall]

and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,

It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.

Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.

If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?

If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?

If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?

What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.

What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement. Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.

Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you. Attack the points I made, not me.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What are these idiots doing loading A-10s up with JDAMs, Paveways, AGM-65s, and that yucky targeting pod? Don't they know the best thing is to install six additional gun pods? Anyone who watches youtube knows guns are bestest.

The term is called danger close, and this is why...

This has been an extremely poor moderated conversation. It's about the F-35 not the A-10. And the question of which is better will be answered next month. Until then, let's get back to the F-35

The OP is a question about whether the F-35 is too expensive for what it delivers (in a nutshell), I say yes, and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role, a role that the aircraft's proponents say it will be great at, I am very much in keeping with the OP. Just a friendly warning, publicly commenting about Moderation is grounds for an immediate ban.

I am very thick skinned but others here want me to give you another vacation so watch yourself.

1. There is way too much time spent on the A-10 for the OP. If your buddy wants an A-10 thread, he should start one. Poor mderation at best.

2. Go for it. Others seems to be you and your buddy. I already have a Message Base ready to go in that event. And enough people have seen my tag, they can easily find it. It only goes live if you push this.

The original OP posted that could have gone many ways. Not just one very narrow direction. Yes, it's expensive but other weapon systems are benefiting it as well. That has not been programmed into cost. That, alone, makes it worth it.

Now, tell us again why it isn't worth the cost since even the F-15 and the F-18 have benefited in the research and development. Factor that in in your answer.

 

[DrainBamage]

What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement.

It is better at some things. Can get there faster, can see the battlefield better, can coordinate with other elements better, can target PGMs faster, can operate in an areas that might be denied to the A-10. That isn't ZERO evidence.

It's comical someone expecting a point to be addressed when their point is a youtube video of an A-10 gun run, complete with someone claiming that proves another aircraft can't do CAS.

Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.

A-10 is more survivable because it has to be given more likely to get hit. Are there droves of B-1s, F-15Es, F-18s, and F-16s getting shot down that I'm not aware of? Nope. It is utterly retarded to celebrate that a plane's slow speed and mission profile making it vulnerable to being is okay because the plane is tough, and remember which type of plane has been restricted from use because of it's vulnerability. You always assume one MANPAD hit = plane down, you don't plan around an A-10 soldiering on with one engine.

Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you. Attack the points I made, not me.

This is cute coming from the guy a few posts away of accusing me of being another poster. THAT sure had a lot to do with the topic, right King Hypocrite?

 

[DrainBamage]

since even the F-15 and the F-18 have benefited in the research and development. Factor that in in your answer.

And F-22, and future B-21, etc.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,

It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.

Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.

If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?

If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?

If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?

What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.

What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement. Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.

Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you. Attack the points I made, not me.

CAS. If the CAS is to be done within 150 miles and there is no way to use standoff weapons, it it requires a big gun, Percentage chance of that is so low it's off scale. If that becomes the only factor then the A-10 is priceless. If not......

Like said by another poster, MOST CAS is done by other aircraft. In order to get the A-10 to extend it's range, you are going to be tying up a tanker or two that could be used for other uses. The A-10 isn't the only asset out there that needs tanker support. We only have X number of tankers.

The ONLY time the F-35 loses to the A-10 in ANYTHING is when you have to be down and dirty. Again, the percentage of missions that this comes up is almost zero. Next month, things will be answered. Be prepared for the results.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,

It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.

Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.

If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?

If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?

If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?

What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.

What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement. Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.

Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you. Attack the points I made, not me.

In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces. In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s. The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses. How much proof do you need?

 

[westwall]

and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,

It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.

Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.

If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?

If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?

If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?

What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.

What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement. Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.

Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you. Attack the points I made, not me.

In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces. In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s. The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses. How much proof do you need?

Provide links to support your claims please.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

and by providing A-10 related material to demonstrate what a poor choice the F-35 is for the CAS role,

It is pretty funny that you believe posting a youtube video of an A-10 shooting it's cannon proves another plane is a poor choice for the CAS role, it demonstrates an extremely dogmatic and shallow way of thinking.

Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted by planes other than the A-10, everything from B-1s to AC-130s to F-16s. Your faulty logic is therefore claiming that all this support from Air Force planes was poor since they don't have the one characteristic (GAU-8) that you are enamored with, despite use of that gun to kill enemies is a very tiny minority weapons deployed across all CAS missions. I disagree with this, I think USAF is doing an outstanding job supporting the ground troops with all these different airplanes in CAS roles. There are scenarios where the A-10 has particular advantages over other platforms, and scenarios where other platforms have advantages over an A-10.

If someone posts a video of a B-1 using a three hour loiter time to monitor the battlefield while dropping 40 JDAMs on enemies does that prove A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since it can't do this?

If someone posts a video of an F-15E arriving from 200 kilometers away in just minutes to put some LGBs on insurgents can we say it proves A-10 is a poor choice for CAS since the A-10 would still be 10 minutes away while our troops are getting killed?

If someone posts a video of an F-16 high overhead dropping cluster munitions on enemy armor in Iraq, because A-10 was pulled from that area due to SAMs shooting the down (yes, this happened) can we say it is superior in CAS role since A-10 isn't even there?

What you are is a fanboy, the epitome of fanboy. You like a certain plane and get all giddy watching videos of it shooting it's gun, and it makes you blindly local to the point where facts and logic go by the wayside.

What I am arguing is that in the CAS role which you claim the F-35 is BETTER than the A-10 at performing, there is ZERO evidence to support your statement. Add to that the fact that if a A-10 is shot up it will likely survive, which the F-35 won't, that even if shot down it is four times (at minimum) cheaper than the F-35 so replacement isn't nearly as big a burden, that if shot down the odds are GREATLY in favor of the pilot surviving, thus they are more willing to hang it out there on a mission, thus increasing their effectiveness.

Your attempts at deflection while amusing are not helping you. Attack the points I made, not me.

In 2014, during Green Flag where the ground forces show up to play their games, the F-16s and the A-10s were chopped to pieces. In Green Flag of 2015, they sent in two F-35s. The bagged the CAS Targets, neutralized the surface to air radar with ZERO losses. How much proof do you need?

Provide links to support your claims please.

GREEN FLAG

F-35 performs CAS role during Green Flag

F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process F-35s played the US Army’s primary CAS providers during Green Flag. And were not shot down in the process

This is from a simple search on Google. You should try it and actually ask the right questions. Every task they have asked of the F-35A has been positive.

Considering that two of the F35As were tasked with CAS and was successful while the year before, the F-16 and the A-10 was ground to hamburger that tells loads. When there are no manpads in enemies hands ANY AF Fighter or Attack bird can handle it. But introduce manpads and you can't come in low and slow anymore without a suicide pact. Ask the Russians.

 

[DrainBamage]

F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag

"Not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the joint-force Green Flag exercises testing the jet and its pilots’ prowess operating it in a contested air-support role in the Western U.S. this month, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Cameron Dadgar, head of the exercise and leader of the 549th Combat Training Sqdn. at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This is notable because A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions"


Apparently this Lt Col Dadgar from the 549th Combat Training Squadron is also in on this vast conspiracy to spin propaganda.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag

"Not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the joint-force Green Flag exercises testing the jet and its pilots’ prowess operating it in a contested air-support role in the Western U.S. this month, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Cameron Dadgar, head of the exercise and leader of the 549th Combat Training Sqdn. at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This is notable because A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions"


Apparently this Lt Col Dadgar from the 549th Combat Training Squadron is also in on this vast conspiracy to spin propaganda.

That was unfair. They allowed the grunts to fire back. And we all know that ground pounders NEVER do that. Ask the Russians.