I feel like we took all the lessons learned (or at least the ones we should have learned) during the 60s, 70s, and 80s (with the failures that the F-4, F-14, F-111, B-1, B-2, etc. were, plus the new engineering and acquisitions process knowledge the Fighter Mafia and Pentagon reformers brought to the table), and took a massive dump all over it before setting it on fire. Colonel Boyd is no doubting doing backflips in his grave right now.
I feel like we took all the lessons learned (or at least the ones we should have learned) during the 60s, 70s, and 80s (with the failures that the F-4, F-14, F-111, B-1, B-2, etc. were, plus the new engineering and acquisitions process knowledge the Fighter Mafia and Pentagon reformers brought to the table), and took a massive dump all over it before setting it on fire. Colonel Boyd is no doubting doing backflips in his grave right now.
I haven't read it... but, learning those lessons wouldn't necessarily make the next batch easier...
It's the constant technological evolutions of these projects that are driving up costs... the true barometer of whether these planes are worth it (imo) is that the lesson learned are applied to OTHER aspects in the industries.
I feel like we took all the lessons learned (or at least the ones we should have learned) during the 60s, 70s, and 80s (with the failures that the F-4, F-14, F-111, B-1, B-2, etc. were, plus the new engineering and acquisitions process knowledge the Fighter Mafia and Pentagon reformers brought to the table), and took a massive dump all over it before setting it on fire. Colonel Boyd is no doubting doing backflips in his grave right now.
The F-4 wasn't a failure. It kicked all kinds of ass in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
The F-14 wasn't a failure. It wasn't cheap but it was a premier full fledged interceptor and again could kick all kinds of ass in its day.
The B-2 wasn't a failure by any means. Its just ungodly expensive.
The F-4 was a failure when you realize it wasn't originally designed to be a fighter-bomber, it just turned out to be effective in that role, and that became its saving grace. As an actual air-to-air combatant, it was too heavy and too unmaneuverable, hence why older MiGs had no issue shooting them down. Also, when you consider that it was designed to combat enemy aircraft with missiles, but then realize that it wasn't actually maneuverable enough to dodge enemy missiles itself, you realize a serious design flaw...
The F-14 was a failure because it was likewise too heavy and unmaneuverable, let alone how complex it was. Its saving grace was that our pilots were far better trained than their Libyan opponents (amongst others). It was also considered a 'success' because it was the sole platform to my knowledge capable of carrying the AIM-54c Phoenix missile, which in and of itself wasn't that great a piece of hardware in practical usage.
The B-2 is likewise a failure when you realize that we didn't actually NEED a stealth bomber, even at the time it was designed. Its a piece of redundant hardware.
All of those aircraft became famous for doing things other than what they were designed to do, and weren't particularly effective in doing what they were designed to do in the first place, and were way too costly for the alternative roles they found themselves in relative to other aircraft.
Lucius - Think for a moment, the F-15/16/18 are still flying and will still be flying for quite some time longer than the F-14 was (the 15/16 have already surpassed its service life IIRC and the 18 is well on its way). The 15 and especially the 16 are regarded as superior air-to-air combatants, and the F-18 was designed to "compliment" (read: make up for all of its many faults, deficiencies, and issues) the F-14. Does that sound like a success to you?
Also notice that swing-wing, once touted as the future of aircraft design, is considered largely to be a technological dead-end at this point.
Clusterfeth is mild...the F-35 is reaching boondoggle status. Meanwhile, the F-22 is a bonafide boondoogle. We seem to have reached a new phase of the military-industrial complex in which we sink billions into BUILDING -- not just developing -- equipment that will never get used. Oh, for the days of the M247 Sergeant York. That one looks tame now.
See, this is why I want a functional, rational GOP. Much like how only Nixon could go to China, the Republicans are the key to restoring some sanity to our military spending.
Your a bit off base. The F-4 was a superb fighter. It sustained so many casualties early on because our pilots were not being trained properly for dogfights. And by that I mean they were not being trained at all. Once we recognized that short coming training schools were created to fix the gap. We also only lost 30 F-4's in air to air combat. As for your assertation that it wasn't maneuverable enough to "dodge missiles", the F-4 filled the Wild Weasel role for nearly 40 years. It's job was to find SAM sites, and have them fire missiles at it, so other aircraft could locate it, and destroy it. They don't pick an aircraft who can't escape those missiles, to do that job. It is still being used today by modern air forces, such as the Japanese Air Self Defense Force as an intercept fighter. Failures aren't still in service with modern nations 50 years after they were originated.
The B-2 is still actively used for it's stealth capabilities, as a first strike bomber. It was the first aircraft in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and knocked out vital targets that made it safer for the rest of our aircraft to operate.
The F-111, again not a failure. A succesful platform that did it's job superbly, and is still in use with todays modern militaries (Australia). We retired it from US service because it was cheaper to maintain a few fighter aircraft like the F-15/F-16/A-10. The F-111, like the F-117, were cut from our service in large part because of massive budget cuts that the DoD sustained during the 90's. It was also the first aircraft to score a "kill" on the F-22A. Granted, it was an accident, but it still did it.
The F-14, again a great aircraft for it's role. It was an adaptable craft that handled many roles outside of what it was originally designed for, and again was a victim of shrinking budgets, and advancements made for the F/A-18 that rendered it a redundant aircraft.
The closest to being right that you were was the B-1. And the only real problem with it was that it was designed to fight a foe that dissapeared shortly after it was introduced into the force. It is still a capable strategic bomber, compaired to the venerable B-52, and that is why we still have it in service today. It's fast speed makes it a great CAS bomber who can get to a trouble point quickly, and deliver a large number JDAMS with precision. In regards to that role, it's much better then the B-52.
djones, so much of what you just posted is extremely wrong, if I wasnt on a phone atmid go into greater detail but a quick overview:
1. The f-4 isnt and hasnt been in service as a front line fighter in years. Its used for aerial recon and EWar. In regards to wild weasel missions, it was only successful in that role due to its straight line speed being high enough to enter and exit the contemporary SAM systems threat range fast enough, in air to air combat avoiding a missile takes a bit more.
2. B-2 was not first into any of those places, helos and mc-130s were. In fact helicopters opened the hole in iraqs air defenses for the rest to follow.
3. You realize the F-111s intended role was to be an air to air fighter??? The F designation was there for a reason unlike the F-117s... it only ever found utility as an ewar platform and fighter bomber and is outmaneuvered and outmatched at all points along its flight envelope by all contemporary and most preexisting fighter aircraft (hence why the f-15 came into existence).
4. The F-14 was great at everything but its intended role (exceptfor maybe intercepting soviet bombers, but it doesnt take much to be good at that), that is when it wasnt down for maintenance. It was a hangar queen if there ever was one.
5. The B-1 has a lot more problems than youve realized (note that i was also referring to the original b-1 not the one we have today, slightly different aircraft, though several serious design flaws carried over.
Do yourself a favor, read Boyd (every Airman should).
Back on topic, though, there is a cost/benefit analysis to be made with any new piece of equipment.
I don't know how much an F35 costs compared to an F18, for example, however if it was twice as expensive you need to be able to think it can kill about twice as many enemies (allowing for the cost of pilot training, logistics, etc.) or it would not be superior as a war weapon.
The funny thing KK is that the F-35 started out as an attempt to reduce the ever increasing costs of fighter aircraft. Turns out that didn't go as planned.
Chaos, in 2006 I watched as F-4's of the JASDF were launched to intercept foreign aircraft who were threatening USAF assets. It still serves as a front line fighter today. The JASDF wing at Misawa AFB uses F-4's as their primary fighter aircraft, and uses F-2's to train pilots for service in other locations.
Again, yes the B-2 is the first combat aicraft in. In Libya they were the first combat aicraft in, and hit 45 seperate targets on that mission. They struck interceptor aircraft and C2 assets making is effectively impossible for the Libyan military to resist our forces.
The F-111 and F-14 were aircraft designed for a role, and had the world change around them. They then adapted to other rolls, which is not a mark of failure, but that of success. And aircraft who can act outside of it's original role is a succesful aircraft because we're getting more use out of it. And you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.
Your whole premise of measurement is false. You listed the F-16 and F-15 as successes, but like the "failures" that you claim the F-14 and F-111's to be, they were originally designed solely as air superiority fighters, whose rolls expanded as the world changed around them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back on topic, though, there is a cost/benefit analysis to be made with any new piece of equipment.
I don't know how much an F35 costs compared to an F18, for example, however if it was twice as expensive you need to be able to think it can kill about twice as many enemies (allowing for the cost of pilot training, logistics, etc.) or it would not be superior as a war weapon.
Naturally this calculation is very complex.
True that. At this point the thing is ungodly expensive, and not rolled out well.
The argument that having "one plane to rule them all" being imprudent is a good one. There are different missions, and the flight characteristics for those missions are different.
Good VTOL - no ones's really worked up a competitive VTOL. You can make one but its not going to be the next F15.
Good carrier plane - can't do VTOL.
Good general FB - ok
Cheap F of FB - not with the above baby.
Yep. Everything else is tight, but the bomb bays sure aren't. Its almost a perfect ruise missile/JDAM kind of launcher againt low intensity conflicts where we utterly control the sky. Its a flying mack truck.
djones520 wrote: Chaos, in 2006 I watched as F-4's of the JASDF were launched to intercept foreign aircraft who were threatening USAF assets. It still serves as a front line fighter today. The JASDF wing at Misawa AFB uses F-4's as their primary fighter aircraft, and uses F-2's to train pilots for service in other locations.
Again, yes the B-2 is the first combat aicraft in. In Libya they were the first combat aicraft in, and hit 45 seperate targets on that mission. They struck interceptor aircraft and C2 assets making is effectively impossible for the Libyan military to resist our forces.
The F-111 and F-14 were aircraft designed for a role, and had the world change around them. They then adapted to other rolls, which is not a mark of failure, but that of success. And aircraft who can act outside of it's original role is a succesful aircraft because we're getting more use out of it. And you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.
Your whole premise of measurement is false. You listed the F-16 and F-15 as successes, but like the "failures" that you claim the F-14 and F-111's to be, they were originally designed solely as air superiority fighters, whose rolls expanded as the world changed around them.
My understanding is that the F-4s in Japanese service (which are heavily modified from the US version) are retained in reserve to augment Japans fleet of F-15s (which are the actual front line fighters). In any case, it wasn't after a boatload of modifications to the US version that it became useful to us.
No, the B-2 is not the first combat aircraft in, we had boots on the ground well beforehand, and I assure you that they didn't WALK in... (unless of course you're fudging the definition of combat aircraft to only include those with an F or B designation, ignoring all the other armed aircraft in service that aren't fighters or bombers). Similarly, as a stealth bomber, it seems to have an issue where it becomes a big frakking target once it opens its bomb bay.
The F-111 and F-14 did not 'have the world change around them', unless you count the Russians developing 'superior' swing wing aircraft which scared us shitless until we realized that their performance was inferior to already inferior aircraft. Regardless of whether or not the aircraft is successful in other roles, it is still a failure if it fails at its INTENDED role. We are, after all, discussing the acquisitions process, and from the acquisitions perspective they were all failures: Behind schedule, overbudget, and failed to do what they were designed and purchased to do. In regards to the F-111 killing an F-22, cite your source as I have never heard that and could not find that anywhere. To my knowledge, the first kill of an F-22 was done by a US Navy EA-18G Growler, which is what i think you are confusing it for (as the EA-18 achieved the kill by accident as well, after the training exercise had ended).
In regards to the F-15 and F-16, the fighters were originally envisioned by Boyd solely as air to air combatants yes, but the Air Force had different plans from the get-go, and in any case, both ARE good at their intended roles dogfighting roles (and far and away better than the F-4, F-111, and F-14).
djones520 wrote: The F-111, again not a failure. A succesful platform that did it's job superbly, and is still in use with todays modern militaries (Australia).
Actually, the RAAF retired the F-111 in December 2010.
One thing that I feel I must point out, is that when the Joint Chiefs want to create a new weapons platform, they put out the word, and something gets designed.... If they buy it for whatever branch it is that branch goes and gets to play with it. IF the branch feels it sucks at the roles that the Chiefs and designers had for it, they come up with a new role, since they are stuck with it.
Imagine for instance, that the navy wanted a new destroyer. So a company out there designs a ship with a flat topped deck, but it has a ton of guns too... Well, the navy may soon realize that it may not be the best destroyer out there, but that flat top is great for planes, so now it becomes a carrier/destroyer. Is the overall ship a failure? By most other folks views it isnt.
My point here, especially towards Chaos, is that just because something "fails" at what the designers and purchasers sold it as, but still lasts 15-20+ years in service means that it isn't a failure. And generally, aircraft that bring SOF into a country are not really considered "combat" even though they are carrying a metric gakload of "whoop-ass" in them.
The F-4 phantom is regarded as one of the most successful military fighter plane programs in history. It was also used by all American military branches making it the first true "Joint Strike Fighter".
Lockheed WISHES their F-35 would be even a fraction as successful as the F-4 was for Mcdonnell Douglas. Chaos, you're way off base.
djones520 wrote: you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.
My uncle flew one in the RAAF. He loved his "pig". The local AFB is getting one of the retired planes for their museum.
We've also made a kill against a 'superior' sub with our "obsolete" and incredibly noisy Collins class sub.
You don't need to be stealthy if you attack from behind, where their own screw wake blinds them.
It's called "doing the best you can with what you've got." Aussies are known for it.
djones520 wrote: you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.
My uncle flew one in the RAAF. He loved his "pig". The local AFB is getting one of the retired planes for their museum.
We've also made a kill against a 'superior' sub with our "obsolete" and incredibly noisy Collins class sub.
You don't need to be stealthy if you attack from behind, where their own screw wake blinds them.
It's called "doing the best you can with what you've got." Aussies are known for it.
I thought it was because the Australian military consumed the essence of Drop Bears to gain their powers?
As an engineer involved in both the F-35 and the F-22 programs, and sustaining efforts for F-15,F-16, F-18 and others, the level of tech in the 35 and 22 is light years ahead of anything out there. (most of that is in the avionics, and stealth tech)
Yes you could go on building airplanes with 1970's and 1980's technology, but think about what that means when you have other nations building birds with cutting edge 21st century tech.
Also.... no way an F-111 kills an F-22 without some flukey event taking place. The F-111 wouldn't even see the F-22, in fact the F-22 could take out 15 F-111's and they wouldn't even know what hit them.
generalgrog wrote: As an engineer involved in both the F-35 and the F-22 programs, and sustaining efforts for F-15,F-16, F-18 and others, the level of tech in the 35 and 22 is light years ahead of anything out there. (most of that is in the avionics, and stealth tech)
Yes you could go on building airplanes with 1970's and 1980's technology, but think about what that means when you have other nations building birds with cutting edge 21st century tech.
Also.... no way an F-111 kills an F-22 without some flukey event taking place. The F-111 wouldn't even see the F-22, in fact the F-22 could take out 15 F-111's and they wouldn't even know what hit them.
GG
The problem is in simulation those planes with 1970's and 1980's tech are blowing the the f35 out of the sky. And honestly, you really don't need the f35 to bomb countries with little to no AA capability past a zu23 strapped to a pickup truck. It's been massively over sold to fit any and all combat roles and in the end it seems like it will be like the f22, too damn expensive to risk losing.
djones520 wrote: you must have missed my part where I mentioned the Australian F-111 being the first to make an Air to Air kill against the greatest fighter aircraft in the world today.
My uncle flew one in the RAAF. He loved his "pig". The local AFB is getting one of the retired planes for their museum.
We've also made a kill against a 'superior' sub with our "obsolete" and incredibly noisy Collins class sub.
You don't need to be stealthy if you attack from behind, where their own screw wake blinds them.
It's called "doing the best you can with what you've got." Aussies are known for it.
Well that and your new "Drop Bear Artillery" and "Crocodile Torpedoes." You don't need high tech when Nature has provided you your own WMDs.
Well that and your new "Drop Bear Artillery" and "Crocodile Torpedoes." You don't need high tech when Nature has provided you your own WMDs.
But drop bear artillery is rendered ineffective by helmet technology readily available a hundred years ago.
More seriously, while a more advanced fighter may be too expensive to use in action against far inferior enemies who don't stand a chance against last-gen tech or older, it would be ruinous to lack adequate equipment to deal with other advanced fighters, or the countermeasures other nations who have the resources and wherewithal to develop/purchase proper military equipment may possess. I'm not saying the f35 is such a fighter, regardless of its intended purpose, but the point is there; "we don't need something better, since all of our old equipment can beat the snot of any two-bit third world joke of a military" isn't a good reason not to develop along the cutting edge.
Hmm...since the British fleet is supposed to be using these when the carriers eventually become operational, I wonder if we'll be seeing any navalised Typhoons in the not too distant future?
Ensis- As an engineer, if I am told to develop something that does x, and what I deliver is not only years behind schedule and millions or billions over budget, but also doesnt do x well but does y and/or z kinda okayish, then i have failed as an engineer, and what I have delivered is a failed product, regardless of the fact that it can be utilized for something else. You can argue against that true but you have to face the reality that you will still need to introduce something that does x well, which means more money and a longer wait. And then when you consider the fact that your competitor IS producing something which ostensibly does x (better) for cheaper and they did it faster than you did... and they also have something that can do y better and for cheaper... and something that can also do z better and for cheaper... (again, ostensibly), then you REALLY have a failure on your hands.
As for spec ops aircraft, MC-130s and AC-130s are most certainly armed (and therefore combat aircraft), likewise are the blackhawks and several other helicopters utilized for insertion/extraction operations.
Whitedragon- the f-4 is an example of an excellent fighter plane program, yes, but not a fighter plane, there is a huge and distinct difference. The F-4 is hands down my (second, after the A-10) favorite combat aircraft, but it was never much any good at its original role of air to air combat. Beyond the lack of a gun, it simply wasnt maneuverable enough to engage another fighter successfully except at lower altitude and high speed (the sweet spot being at roughly 17,000 feet).
Generalgrog - I only partly agree with you. Yes we need to keep our edge, but we dont need thousands of 5th gen fighters when our rivals have none and our 4.5 gen stuff is more than a match for all else, especially when our rivals have a history of being more bark than bite.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OEasy E- that movie is responsible for a lot of people thinking the same (and rather erroneously). It was really an underpowered overweight pig of a plane, kinda like a mini F-111 although not quite as bad since it could actually maneuver against some opponents at certain points of its flight envelope.
Mega_bassist- the F-111 was originally conceived and designed as a front line air to air fighter (weird right?), it at until late in its development that it was rebilled as a bomber to save face and to prevent cancellation (after E-M theory demonstrated that even obsolete Soviet aircraft could outperform it at every altitude and speed in its flight envelope by a large margin).
Whitedragon- the f-4 is an example of an excellent fighter plane program, yes, but not a fighter plane, there is a huge and distinct difference. The F-4 is hands down my (second, after the A-10) favorite combat aircraft, but it was never much any good at its original role of air to air combat. Beyond the lack of a gun, it simply wasnt maneuverable enough to engage another fighter successfully except at lower altitude and high speed (the sweet spot being at roughly 17,000 feet).
Since you started the thread about the F-35 program and its failures, the nature of the program is exactly what we are discussing. Thus your comment about the difference between a fighter plane and fighter plane program is irrelevant.
Hell, there isn't even enough real life flying data to make a distinction about the F-35's actual capabilities in the air one way or another yet.
The second part is undeniably true in terms of actual flight performance, however one only need to look at things such as range and certain other limitations to determine that this aircraft is bad news. I mean, theoretically, it would be an excellent aerospace defense fighter (i.e. an alert plane used to protect the US from foreign aggression), but its very expensive and unnecessarily over-engineered to fill that role (and at present the geopolitical situation doesn't necessitate that a specific aircraft be dedicated to that role), likewise its way too expensive and sophisticated to meet the roles of any of the low-intensity conflicts that we have recently involved ourselves in (even the A-10 is considered by many to actually be TOO advanced for our present situation, which prompted the Air Force and the Navy to start a program to develop/acquire a propeller driven light attack platform that was significantly cheaper to purchase, as well as to operate and maintain).... and it lacks the range needed to actually be utilized in any sort of meaningful manner against any of the likely near powers we may face off against (Russia/China specifically, I wouldn't classify Iran or N. Korea as near powers just yet).
In reference to your first point, fair enough, although I intended the jab at the F-4 to be more in reference to how the aircraft was designed with a very forward-thinking mindset, based around sophisticated technology that wasn't necessarily fully understood at the time (in terms of practical applications on the contemporary battlefield) and as a result its performance in its primary intended role suffered greatly.
LordofHats wrote: The funny thing KK is that the F-35 started out as an attempt to reduce the ever increasing costs of fighter aircraft. Turns out that didn't go as planned.
Well that was to be largely due to the overall compatibility with the F-22, Supposedly carrying many of the same parts. The general problem with our military is that we have way too many different aircraft that perform similar roles. The idea was borrowed from the humvee type which could be kitted out in various designs, someone felt "hey why cant jets do that?" which had been done in extremely limited capacity in the past.
@Kilkrazy: I think Israel can challenge us pretty well, but thats because we gave them the fighters to do so and their pilots look for any reason to be in the air. Otherwise we pretty much pick fights with people who equivelently throw rocks and shoot bows at us. So our budget is not even necessary. How can they tell me that an army that currently has air superiority over all others needs to spend 400 billion to advance vs 5 billion to maintain?
My question would be why the hell we committed to a plane that doesn't even work yet? We should have waited until it could actually take off vertically and I dunno, actually fire a weapon before saying "awesome! I'll take 3k of them!"
My guess is the geniuses at the Pentagon wanted to get as deep into the projects as possible before it was revealed how big of a clusterfeth it really is in order to limit cancellations/cut backs...
LordofHats wrote: The funny thing KK is that the F-35 started out as an attempt to reduce the ever increasing costs of fighter aircraft. Turns out that didn't go as planned.
Well that was to be largely due to the overall compatibility with the F-22, Supposedly carrying many of the same parts. The general problem with our military is that we have way too many different aircraft that perform similar roles. The idea was borrowed from the humvee type which could be kitted out in various designs, someone felt "hey why cant jets do that?" which had been done in extremely limited capacity in the past.
@Kilkrazy: I think Israel can challenge us pretty well, but thats because we gave them the fighters to do so and their pilots look for any reason to be in the air. Otherwise we pretty much pick fights with people who equivelently throw rocks and shoot bows at us. ...
...
The Israelis are very good, but looking at the overall situation it would be unrealistic to suppose they could ever pose any kind of a threat to NATO or the USA.
Apart from their being an ally, Israel is a very small country and fairly dependent on US aid for a lot of its military technology.
The countries we ought to worry about are China, Russia and the places they might sell stuff to.
We should worry about Israel too, they've shown they have no issues spying on us, stealing what military secrets we don't give them, interfering in our domestic politics, nor do they have any issues selling American military technology to the Chinese.
Not to mention their idiotic (and unverified) Samson option...
It would be slightly cheaper to just cut off the "foreign aid" rather than building a 6th generation fight in case Israel might declare war on the USA.
Easy E wrote: I watched TOP GUN I know that the F-14 wasn't a failure.
Exactly! Tom Cruise DOMINATED those "MiG 28s" without any problem! /thread
On-topic, Wasn't the F-111 a mid-range bomber? How did it manage to shoot down a F-22?
AS NOTED. IT DIDN'T. IT didn't go up against an F-22. It went up against an F-16 (lawn dart). The 22 wasn't in service yet and this was over a decade ago (and probably still in the late 90s). Also, it might be a mid range bomber, but it tended to have a wider role here.
chaos0xomega wrote: The F-111 and F-14 did not 'have the world change around them', unless you count the Russians developing 'superior' swing wing aircraft which scared us shitless until we realized that their performance was inferior to already inferior aircraft. Regardless of whether or not the aircraft is successful in other roles, it is still a failure if it fails at its INTENDED role. We are, after all, discussing the acquisitions process, and from the acquisitions perspective they were all failures: Behind schedule, overbudget, and failed to do what they were designed and purchased to do. In regards to the F-111 killing an F-22, cite your source as I have never heard that and could not find that anywhere. To my knowledge, the first kill of an F-22 was done by a US Navy EA-18G Growler, which is what i think you are confusing it for (as the EA-18 achieved the kill by accident as well, after the training exercise had ended).
In regards to the F-15 and F-16, the fighters were originally envisioned by Boyd solely as air to air combatants yes, but the Air Force had different plans from the get-go, and in any case, both ARE good at their intended roles dogfighting roles (and far and away better than the F-4, F-111, and F-14).
The F-14 wasn't built as a dogfighter. It was built as a carrier-based interceptor. You seem to be using a strange, "If it can't turn with the Viper, it's a failure," metric that just doesn't apply. The F-14 was remarkably successful, and truth be told, it's a pound-for-pound better aircraft than the Rhino. It was absolutely a maintenance hog, which is why it was retired. That does not make it a failure.
As far as the F-35 goes, it was a dumb idea from the start, but there really is no alternative at this point. We're pretty much committed to throwing money into it until it works.
RossDas wrote: Hmm...since the British fleet is supposed to be using these when the carriers eventually become operational, I wonder if we'll be seeing any navalised Typhoons in the not too distant future?
chaos0xomega wrote: The F-111 and F-14 did not 'have the world change around them', unless you count the Russians developing 'superior' swing wing aircraft which scared us shitless until we realized that their performance was inferior to already inferior aircraft. Regardless of whether or not the aircraft is successful in other roles, it is still a failure if it fails at its INTENDED role. We are, after all, discussing the acquisitions process, and from the acquisitions perspective they were all failures: Behind schedule, overbudget, and failed to do what they were designed and purchased to do. In regards to the F-111 killing an F-22, cite your source as I have never heard that and could not find that anywhere. To my knowledge, the first kill of an F-22 was done by a US Navy EA-18G Growler, which is what i think you are confusing it for (as the EA-18 achieved the kill by accident as well, after the training exercise had ended).
In regards to the F-15 and F-16, the fighters were originally envisioned by Boyd solely as air to air combatants yes, but the Air Force had different plans from the get-go, and in any case, both ARE good at their intended roles dogfighting roles (and far and away better than the F-4, F-111, and F-14).
The F-14 wasn't built as a dogfighter. It was built as a carrier-based interceptor. You seem to be using a strange, "If it can't turn with the Viper, it's a failure," metric that just doesn't apply. The F-14 was remarkably successful, and truth be told, it's a pound-for-pound better aircraft than the Rhino. It was absolutely a maintenance hog, which is why it was retired. That does not make it a failure.
As far as the F-35 goes, it was a dumb idea from the start, but there really is no alternative at this point. We're pretty much committed to throwing money into it until it works.
If it couldnt turn with a contemporary MiG or Sukhoi (or even an F-15) it was a failure. As an interceptor it would need to engage more than just bombers , it was too reliant on missiles to do its job, which might have been less of an issue if visual confirmation wasnt required by policy. Most of its kills were against poorly trained enemy pilots that didnt understand the concept of maneuvering to engage, AARs show a disproportionate number of missile kills occurred while enemy aircraft wefe in straight level flight when they were well within visual range. Also most kills were against MiG-23s, easily a worse performing design otherwise similar to the F-14 and F-111.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I'm assuming they still haven't worked out a way to stop the thing melting the decks of the aircraft carriers?
American amphibs/carriers yes, from what i understand they have to recoat the deck in a new material and install large heatsinks below it for its entire length.
chaos0xomega wrote: Ensis- As an engineer, if I am told to develop something that does x, and what I deliver is not only years behind schedule and millions or billions over budget, but also doesnt do x well but does y and/or z kinda okayish, then i have failed as an engineer, and what I have delivered is a failed product, regardless of the fact that it can be utilized for something else. You can argue against that true but you have to face the reality that you will still need to introduce something that does x well, which means more money and a longer wait. And then when you consider the fact that your competitor IS producing something which ostensibly does x (better) for cheaper and they did it faster than you did... and they also have something that can do y better and for cheaper... and something that can also do z better and for cheaper... (again, ostensibly), then you REALLY have a failure on your hands.
.
It's not an engineer problem per se...it's more of a management issue. In the modern culture of industry, and current economic situation, everything is "do more with less". And that's great in theory, but if you don't do the proper upfront planning, trying to do more with less, leads to the kind of issues you see with F-35 and others.
I.E. (as an example)a project that should have 20 engineers being done by 5, should take5 years to develop being condensed into 3, and things get missed, or just "pushed" out the door....to be fixed later.
Scott Adams was an engineer before cartooning, and Dilbert is scary accurate at times.
GG
Compel wrote: I'm assuming they still haven't worked out a way to stop the thing melting the decks of the aircraft carriers?
American amphibs/carriers yes, from what i understand they have to recoat the deck in a new material and install large heatsinks below it for its entire length.
It's a shame we aren't just continuing to update the Harrier. Fantastic plane that does everything it says on the tin, has an established support/training/etc sector, a pool of trained pilots and support crew and is reasonably cheap to run.
Hell, even just redesigning the existing Harrier platform from the ground up to bring it "up to date" would have brought in orders flooding in from all over the world. Instead we scrap it without a replacement and buy into the fricking insane F35, a plane we don't need at a cost we can't afford...
RossDas wrote: Hmm...since the British fleet is supposed to be using these when the carriers eventually become operational, I wonder if we'll be seeing any navalised Typhoons in the not too distant future?
Actually I believe that was more your carriers changing then the fighters changing. You lot decided to keep with heli carriers without catapults instead of true carriers, so you can either go with a STOVL design or start building a ski jump like the Russians.
Mates on the Wasp said that the F-35B performed marvelously at it's sea trials, better then our old harriers any way.
Compel wrote: I'm assuming they still haven't worked out a way to stop the thing melting the decks of the aircraft carriers?
American amphibs/carriers yes, from what i understand they have to recoat the deck in a new material and install large heatsinks below it for its entire length.
It's a shame we aren't just continuing to update the Harrier. Fantastic plane that does everything it says on the tin, has an established support/training/etc sector, a pool of trained pilots and support crew and is reasonably cheap to run.
Hell, even just redesigning the existing Harrier platform from the ground up to bring it "up to date" would have brought in orders flooding in from all over the world. Instead we scrap it without a replacement and buy into the fricking insane F35, a plane we don't need at a cost we can't afford...
We could keep updating the Harrier, and the Hornet, and pretty much every aircraft, but it doesn't make the fact go away that many of our airframes in service world wide are at or well beyond their service life, and there's only so much you can do before they start literally falling apart from age.
It's also worth noting that they did not need to use heat sinks to compensate for the F-35B's exhaust, the Navy did work up a new coating called "Termiion" and reports from the 35's sea trials note that the material performed extremely well with no signs of heat stress.
KELLY: ..."My background is as a F-18 Hornet pilot which is on all accounts is an easier airplane procedurally to fly than the Harrier. I have found this airplane to be just a really nice airplane to fly in a shipboard environment.
From taxiing around the deck to short take-offs that we’re doing and even the vertical landings that we’re doing, it’s very natural to fly. Prior to two weeks ago, I had never landed or taken off from this type of ship. I had done it on a big deck carrier, of course.
One thing that a lot of the pilots were concerned about was, as different from the carrier, when you take off you need to keep the airplane going straight, even while you’re taking off. On a carrier with a catapult track you want to do the same. It’s really easier than we thought it was going to be.
On the landing side, again never having landed an airplane in the hover or to a ship before, it’s all very two hand. The throttle is always pulling back, the stick is always up and down and it’s really very two hand that the cues you have from a pilot’s perspective made it very easy to get the airplane on board. The challenge is not, am I going to get the airplane on board. The challenge becomes, can I put my nose tire in a one foot by one foot square box on the deck. And that’s really a testament to the flight controls and the tools that the pilot has to put the airplane right where he wants it on the deck."
chaos0xomega wrote: If it couldnt turn with a contemporary MiG or Sukhoi (or even an F-15) it was a failure. As an interceptor it would need to engage more than just bombers , it was too reliant on missiles to do its job, which might have been less of an issue if visual confirmation wasnt required by policy. Most of its kills were against poorly trained enemy pilots that didnt understand the concept of maneuvering to engage, AARs show a disproportionate number of missile kills occurred while enemy aircraft wefe in straight level flight when they were well within visual range. Also most kills were against MiG-23s, easily a worse performing design otherwise similar to the F-14 and F-111.
It was "reliant on missiles" because it was designed to lug the Phoenix around. That's pretty much it. It was there to shoot down Bears from a hundred miles away. It wasn't designed to be a dogfighter. It proved to be a decent one, but that's not what it was designed to do. We've not fought anybody remotely close to us in terms of air power, and the "too close for missiles, switching to guns" aspect of air combat is largely a bygone.
The bottom line is, we traded combat range, speed, and overall effectiveness in ditching the Tomcat to go with the Rhino; we'll be doing the same going from the Rhino to the Lightning. It's a bad trend.
chaos0xomega wrote: If it couldnt turn with a contemporary MiG or Sukhoi (or even an F-15) it was a failure. As an interceptor it would need to engage more than just bombers , it was too reliant on missiles to do its job, which might have been less of an issue if visual confirmation wasnt required by policy. Most of its kills were against poorly trained enemy pilots that didnt understand the concept of maneuvering to engage, AARs show a disproportionate number of missile kills occurred while enemy aircraft wefe in straight level flight when they were well within visual range. Also most kills were against MiG-23s, easily a worse performing design otherwise similar to the F-14 and F-111.
It was "reliant on missiles" because it was designed to lug the Phoenix around. That's pretty much it. It was there to shoot down Bears from a hundred miles away. It wasn't designed to be a dogfighter. It proved to be a decent one, but that's not what it was designed to do.
Thats not all it was designed to do, it was meant to be a general air superiority platform as well, which it wasn't very good at (it never really proved to be a decent dogfighter, again a disproportionate number of its air-to-air kills did not come from an actual turning battle (i.e. dogfight).
We've not fought anybody remotely close to us in terms of air power, and the "too close for missiles, switching to guns" aspect of air combat is largely a bygone.
We thought the same 50 years back, it proved to not be the case, and the (Air Force) pilots I've met think its hilarious that anyone would ever think that missiles can replace guns, I haven't had the same conversation with Naval Aviators, but I know the Marines would agree with that statement (probably for different reasons) and I know a few Aviator trainees that I'm sure would agree as well. Besides that, the qualities that make for an effective dogfighter (primarily maneuverability) also make for a more survivable aircraft in missile engagement (flares/chaff aren't used to avoid a missile, they are used to confuse the missile and buy the pilot more time in which to out-turn or outmaneuver it). I would imagine that the fact that dogfighting is usually the end result of most simulated air combat exercises to be fairly indicative of what real modern day air combat would be if we were to go to war with someone actually willing to come out and play.
The bottom line is, we traded combat range, speed, and overall effectiveness in ditching the Tomcat to go with the Rhino; we'll be doing the same going from the Rhino to the Lightning. It's a bad trend.
I don't know about that... well the second half is true, but the trade-off from the Tomcat to the Rhino? Well, I'll give you range and speed, but overall effectiveness? The Super Hornet is a more maneuverable plane, and I'd say a superior air-to-air platform (realistically the F-14 would never actually be able to utilize the Phoenix at BVR, barring a change in policy or ROE, which would neutralize its biggest advantage/claim to fame), and came "out of the box" with superior air-to-ground capability (the Tomcat needed a few upgrades post IOC to reach that capability as I understand it). If nothing else, the EA-18G is DEFINITELY a superior plane (by virtue of its e-war capabilities) to the F-14, in air-air, air-ground, and as a utility/support/escort craft.
Seaward wrote: and the "too close for missiles, switching to guns" aspect of air combat is largely a bygone.
While I agree with you that the F-14 was a pretty good aircraft... I'm going to pick on you for this statement. This statement was made before... by the designers of the F-4 Phantom. Just in time for Vietnam to prove them wrong.
China is developing the economic base to one day be capable of matching the US in military might, if they choose to go that path (it is probable, especially if jobs growth tails off and the national government needs some kind of make work project to maintain stability).
Russia has a GDP only slightly bigger than Australia, so that's kind of hilarious. I mean, yeah, we all know for historical reasons they continue to develop some good high end military gear, but come on. Look at their actual force project capabilities. Look at their ability to sustain any kind of force overseas. It cost the US about a trillion dollars to invade Iraq. That's more than half the GDP of Russia.
In the next 20 years
Brazil
India
And now it looks like you're just listing countries considered likely big economic improvers in the next generation, and paying no attention at all to their ability to translate that likely economic growth into military capacity.
There is not much of a threat out there now. Yeah the Russians have planes that can do all kinds of cool acrobatics and gymnastics, but they have to be going pretty slow to do that stuff, and slow mean death in air combat.
The giant problem with the f35 is that they are trying to shoehorn too much into one airframe. When you are pushing the envelope of performance, you really need to specialize, otherwise you end up with a Jack of all trades, ace of none product. Unfortunately the f35 doesn't even appear to be a Jack, but a very expensive piece of crap that can't even perform it's duties up to par wit it's predecessors.
It was a single aircraft that the fault was found in. It's not (as of yet) indicative of a fleet wide fault. Given the newness of the aircraft, and low number that we currently possess, 51, it's safest just to check them all to see if it is a wider issue.
This isn't really news.
It's standard practice in military aviation.
If an inspection turns up a serious (or potentially serious) fault, the fleet will usually be grounded until checks have been carried out.
I've seen this sort of thing many, many times over my career, on more than one airframe.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's wrong with the F-22? I thought that thing was better than anything else out there?
It is, but it's a major pain in the ass when it comes to maintenance. The RAM (radar absorbant material) all over the aircraft causes serious difficulties from what I've heard from our flightline guys. There has also been issues with the oxygen feed, a lot of pilots have complained about that. It's believed to have killed one when he passed out and crashed into a mountain.
Has the F-35 actually conducted real-world air-to-air combat simulations against other planes? I read that it performed not-so-well on virtual and calculated combats, but were there any real tests yet? Wikipedia says it has not been cleared for actual real-world weapons tests yet, is that still the current situation?
I remember reading back in the 80s, when the hot new planes were the F15 and F16, that veteran pilots flying the F5 regularly shot the crap out of young pilots in the latest planes during combat flight trials. Performance is worth nothing without good pilots.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Now this is a valid point against the F-22, pure air superiority is nigh useless in this day and age.
Of course the real question you need to be asking is would it be cheaper to build a fighter-bomber version of the F-22 than building an entire second plane just to carry a small load of air to ground weapons. Given how poorly the F-35's "cheap alternative" concept seems to have worked I have a feeling the answer to that question is not a good one.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Now this is a valid point against the F-22, pure air superiority is nigh useless in this day and age.
Of course the real question you need to be asking is would it be cheaper to build a fighter-bomber version of the F-22 than building an entire second plane just to carry a small load of air to ground weapons. Given how poorly the F-35's "cheap alternative" concept seems to have worked I have a feeling the answer to that question is not a good one.
Possibly. We did it with the F-15. Took an Air Superiority Fighter, and turned it into a superb ground attack aircraft with the F-15E.
I imagine politics had a lot of play in this decision though.
The KC-46, our new tanker, the same questions could be asked. Instead of wasting these millions, possible billions, in that battle to determine the next tanker, why didn't we just get more KC-10's to replace the KC-135 fleet?
Did anyone post the article where they sent the first RAG guys directly to the F-35 squadron? The first nuggets to fly it without fleet experience in other aircraft. They didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the ergonomics of the airplane.
The biggest selling point of the F-35 for me is the passive optical sensor, which is a huge technological leap forward and a major advantage in combat, especially inside visual range. It is very rarely reported on though, I suppose due to secrecy.
The extra durability of the laminate RAM on the F-35 was also a nice touch. But in no way do either of those things justify the incredible price tag. PaK-FAs and J-20s are going to eat these things by the pound. Geeze, S-300 gargoyles will demolish these things, and practically every bad guy out there that can rub two coins together has at least a battallion of S-300s. It's stealthy... if you are an x-band emitter looking at it head on. Problem is, it's going to be employed offensively, so at some point you are going to fly into the country you are bombing and then expose your unstealthy rear aspect to SAMs. Then you're boned. Stupid.
LCS, DDG 1000, F-35, LPD-17, heads need to be freaking heads rolling in the Navy, because they haven't had a single acquisition program (outside the virginia class) that didn't turn out to be a disaster in about 20 years. I mean look at NWUs for christ sake. Someone just needs to walk into the admirals quarters in Norfolk and start blowing these career desk sailors away.
Silverthorne wrote: Did anyone post the article where they sent the first RAG guys directly to the F-35 squadron? The first nuggets to fly it without fleet experience in other aircraft. They didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the ergonomics of the airplane.
The biggest selling point of the F-35 for me is the passive optical sensor, which is a huge technological leap forward and a major advantage in combat, especially inside visual range. It is very rarely reported on though, I suppose due to secrecy.
The extra durability of the laminate RAM on the F-35 was also a nice touch. But in no way do either of those things justify the incredible price tag. PaK-FAs and J-20s are going to eat these things by the pound. Geeze, S-300 gargoyles will demolish these things, and practically every bad guy out there that can rub two coins together has at least a battallion of S-300s. It's stealthy... if you are an x-band emitter looking at it head on. Problem is, it's going to be employed offensively, so at some point you are going to fly into the country you are bombing and then expose your unstealthy rear aspect to SAMs. Then you're boned. Stupid.
LCS, DDG 1000, F-35, LPD-17, heads need to be freaking heads rolling in the Navy, because they haven't had a single acquisition program (outside the virginia class) that didn't turn out to be a disaster in about 20 years. I mean look at NWUs for christ sake. Someone just needs to walk into the admirals quarters in Norfolk and start blowing these career desk sailors away.
For the record the Gerald Ford class is going well t and that's a Navy program, and my mates serving aboard San Antonio class ships say those things are a dream Amphib platform. The F-35 is a complete clusterfeth but the Marine variant is working well enough. For the record, the J-20 is still vaporware and probably about as reliable as the new Iranian stealth fighter, the Chinese Aerospace program is lucky to be producing Gen 4 fighters and even that would have to be under license from Russia. The MV-22's a clusterfeth that turned into an advancement in capability and aviation that hasn't been properly recognized, I know several crew chiefs in the program and they love their birds more then their wives. (or husband in one case, I'm still livid I lost my slot in the Osprey program)
Silverthorne wrote: Did anyone post the article where they sent the first RAG guys directly to the F-35 squadron? The first nuggets to fly it without fleet experience in other aircraft. They didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the ergonomics of the airplane.
The biggest selling point of the F-35 for me is the passive optical sensor, which is a huge technological leap forward and a major advantage in combat, especially inside visual range. It is very rarely reported on though, I suppose due to secrecy.
The extra durability of the laminate RAM on the F-35 was also a nice touch. But in no way do either of those things justify the incredible price tag. PaK-FAs and J-20s are going to eat these things by the pound. Geeze, S-300 gargoyles will demolish these things, and practically every bad guy out there that can rub two coins together has at least a battallion of S-300s. It's stealthy... if you are an x-band emitter looking at it head on. Problem is, it's going to be employed offensively, so at some point you are going to fly into the country you are bombing and then expose your unstealthy rear aspect to SAMs. Then you're boned. Stupid.
LCS, DDG 1000, F-35, LPD-17, heads need to be freaking heads rolling in the Navy, because they haven't had a single acquisition program (outside the virginia class) that didn't turn out to be a disaster in about 20 years. I mean look at NWUs for christ sake. Someone just needs to walk into the admirals quarters in Norfolk and start blowing these career desk sailors away.
For the record the Gerald Ford class is going well t and that's a Navy program, and my mates serving aboard San Antonio class ships say those things are a dream Amphib platform. The F-35 is a complete clusterfeth but the Marine variant is working well enough. For the record, the J-20 is still vaporware and probably about as reliable as the new Iranian stealth fighter, the Chinese Aerospace program is lucky to be producing Gen 4 fighters and even that would have to be under license from Russia. The MV-22's a clusterfeth that turned into an advancement in capability and aviation that hasn't been properly recognized, I know several crew chiefs in the program and they love their birds more then their wives. (or husband in one case, I'm still livid I lost my slot in the Osprey program)
The Gerald Ford is doing OK, not great, and it is useless against our only near peer competitor. With the DF-21C, the Chicoms can fry any CVN, even the Ford, if it gets within, well a distance that is further than an F-18 can fly even with a tanker hit thrown in. There is no defense against the DF-21C either- unless you truck an AEGIS BMD guy with SM3 to very close to the Chinese coast, where he will be promptly ventilated by ASCMs. What does your friend do? If he is a BM or an EN or a DC sailor, he won't be saying that. Sure they have racks you can sit up in, amazing. But titanium fire mains? Really? Someone thought that was a good idea? Oh and the whole random systems catch on fire because of substandard wiring problem. That and being built from the keel up to support the EFV which was then cancelled, rendering the entire ship kind of pointless. I can't agree that either of those programs are actually doing well. As I said, the only big ticket Navy program from the last 20 years that is doing pretty well is the Virginia Class. And that next-generation jammer, that too.
Marine variant is working well enough? Not accurate. The Marine variant has, if anything, considerably more maintenance and flight hour/ maintenance hour problems than the conventional F-35s. During the recent workups to put them in an operational squadron it took 109 hours to do an engine change out! 109! That's not man hours, that's the entire shop working to pull the engine. On a hornet they can pull and replace in 2 hours. Keep in mind the 109 hours were by lockheed guys, not marines that had never touched the engine before. Plus the marine variant has the minor problem of being completely and totally pointless. A stealthy VTOL? For CAS? What the hell sense does that make? The MANPADS and AAA used against CAS aircraft don't care about your limited x-band signature, since they are optically or thermally guided. Radar doesn't come into it at all. There is no reason for the marines to have a stealthy fighter- doctrinally it doesn't make sense. Think about how many Tucanos or old Mosquitos could have been completely updated and refitted for the cost of a single F-35. And they would be killing terrorists and keeping marines on the ground alive right now, as in today, not maybe 6 years from now, if then. It's not even a straight wing? How are you going to do CAS with a swept wing? SDBs? Please. I see the Cobra community getting a lot more business in the future, since it looks like the pointy nose guys have quit the sincere CAS game. I mean, what the hell is the point of this thing? To penetrate enemy airspace off an LHA? Because we were invading an advanced country and for some reason couldn't spare a real aircraft carrier? What? As I said anyway, taking away all the other numerous problems with this thing, it's SAM bait in the rear angle-- completely pointless. It will get marines, sailors, and airmen killed. No question.
To be somewhat fair to the Marines, though, the F-35 was an offer they couldn't refuse. It was either sign on or not acquire anything for, oh, forty years or so.
Hopefully this will bring an end to this sort of "joint" acquisition crap, but I doubt it. There are still plenty of people in Arlington who think a slow, fragile, flammable, under-armed single-engine strike fighter that doesn't have the range of a city bus is what we need to base our air power around.
I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for. The stealth aspect and really the bird itself isn't our fault. We needed a new VTOL to replace the aging harrier fleet and we got handed this.
I've long felt the need for VTOLs is seriously overstated by you guys, and that Whiskeys - and, eventually one hopes, the Zulu Cobra - fill that role just fine.
The Zulu cobras (now named Vipers) do a great job of CAS, the new Hueys (Venoms) make nasty gunships as well (so glad we don't have Blackhawks), I'm not up on the MEU planning side of things, but having our own fast mover support, and more specifically the extra range and speed they bring to the fight, all lifting out of the same area, under the same planning and control team gives the MEU that much more flexibility and combat effectiveness so we don't have to rely on a carrier group if we're lucky enough to have one nearby.
Albeit we're getting roughly 300 nautical miles range out of both of them, the Harrier's (and eventually the F-35) going to be getting to where it needs to be and dropping ordnance on target that much faster.
That's actually one of the nice things about the 35 is it's increasing that combat range significantly, move at a double max speed to the harrier and carries twice the max payload.
Actual numbers: 169 nautical miles up, with up to 600 nmi up on external tanks. The max take off weight is literally double and max speed is just shy of double the Harrier's 662 mph.
It's also worth noting that the Viper's combat radius on internal fuel shrinks to 125 nmi with a 2,500 lb payload, and it's cruise speed is right around 180 mph. Fast, but if you're in the deep hurt and need help now... hard to compare to fast movers.
Nothing, I just don't want them on my flight line.
Real talk I see the Blackhawk as a very limited airframe and wouldn't want it for the Marine Corps. Also it has wheels, after doing a little time with a skid squadron, I find that highly offensive to both man, nature and "god".
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for.
Its a question of CAS doctrine. There is a school of thought that there is a niche for a fixed wing CAS aircraft capable of long station times, and allowing for the delivery of ordinance that helicopters cannot effectively carry (think Skyraider, or Warthog). This is something the Harrier is clearly not capable of nor, really, is the F-35.
Honestly, I agree with Silverthorne in that the F-35 is a rather poor choice as a CAS aircraft. But, conversely, even an upgraded Tucano or Mosquito doesn't really fill that niche due to payload and range limitations. In an ideal situation the Marines would have been given the ability to issue a design call for a purpose built aircraft, but administrative politics being what they are that wasn't going to happen.
The WWII bomber, or something else? Because if you're talking about the bomber, it certainly has my vote. Scrap the entire F-35 project and bring back the Mosquito!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for.
Honestly, I agree with Silverthorne in that the F-35 is a rather poor choice as a CAS aircraft. But, conversely, even an upgraded Tucano or Mosquito doesn't really fill that niche due to payload and range limitations. In an ideal situation the Marines would have been given the ability to issue a design call for a purpose built aircraft, but administrative politics being what they are that wasn't going to happen.
The WWII bomber, or something else? Because if you're talking about the bomber, it certainly has my vote. Scrap the entire F-35 project and bring back the Mosquito!
The WWII bomber, or something else? Because if you're talking about the bomber, it certainly has my vote. Scrap the entire F-35 project and bring back the Mosquito!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's also worth noting that the Viper's combat radius on internal fuel shrinks to 125 nmi with a 2,500 lb payload, and it's cruise speed is right around 180 mph. Fast, but if you're in the deep hurt and need help now... hard to compare to fast movers.
So it's got a larger radius than the F-35, then? /thread
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's also worth noting that the Viper's combat radius on internal fuel shrinks to 125 nmi with a 2,500 lb payload, and it's cruise speed is right around 180 mph. Fast, but if you're in the deep hurt and need help now... hard to compare to fast movers.
So it's got a larger radius than the F-35, then? /thread
Radius is not the sole thing to take into account.
Isn't the development of stealth planes kind of pointless now with passive radar? I mean pretty much every nation has cellular towers and a constant signal is being emitted and when a stealth aircraft passes through these signals it blocks/alters it allowing the passive radar to track it's exact location.
Why don't we dump money into quicklaunch or railgun tech and just build large batteries of these weapons at home and allow us to shell any location on the planet or orbit? (As a bonus we could use both to move supplies into space at a fraction of current costs)
Ninjacommando wrote: Isn't the development of stealth planes kind of pointless now with passive radar? I mean pretty much every nation has cellular towers and a constant signal is being emitted and when a stealth aircraft passes through these signals it blocks/alters it allowing the passive radar to track it's exact location.
Why don't we dump money into quicklaunch or railgun tech and just build large batteries of these weapons at home and allow us to shell any location on the planet or orbit? (As a bonus we could use both to move supplies into space at a fraction of current costs)
As far as I'm aware, knowing something is there because it creates a split second block of a cell tower signal is differant from being able to actively track it with weapon systems and knock it out of the sky.
I don't keep up to date with the latest technologies in weapon tracking, but I've never heard of anything like that.
Edit: The more I think about this, the more I realize it's impossible to work. Your passive system would require something on the receiving end to realize the signal has been blocked. Your trying to use this to determine something flying at 12,000 feet is there, and lock a weapon on it, and shoot it down. Well what is going to be on the other end of where that signal was supposed to be? It would be impossible to build that system as far as I can figure.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's also worth noting that the Viper's combat radius on internal fuel shrinks to 125 nmi with a 2,500 lb payload, and it's cruise speed is right around 180 mph. Fast, but if you're in the deep hurt and need help now... hard to compare to fast movers.
So it's got a larger radius than the F-35, then? /thread
Radius is not the sole thing to take into account.
It's got a larger radius then the F-35... in some bizarre universe where 125 > 475
the F-35 has a range of 350 miles more on internals then the Viper, and if you go max range it beat s the Viper by 600 miles. That's a pretty significant distance.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: the F-35 has a range of 350 miles more on internals then the Viper, and if you go max range it beat s the Viper by 600 miles. That's a pretty significant distance.
If you go max range, you might as well be using a Super Hornet, because it'll be just as stealthy as the F-35 with external tanks.
But, again, the joke is that the F-35 has a pretty pathetic range, and it's only likely to end up even smaller as they continue to need to cut weight. Or, you know, they'll just not fix that whole "likely to combust when hit with anything" problem.
The whole problem is building the bleeding edge tech and then saying we want to do it all...
If we assume just 2x the cost for each element:
com
Stealth
VTOL
Performance for Air Superiority
Payload (with Stealth) for Ground Attack
Range so that it has a decent threat radius
We now combined all of that, and we have at least 5 levels... 2,4,8,16,32 and then factor in sticker shock and reduced building... so 64... now we assume a base line of 10 mill for a plane and our super-everything plane is going to cost us 640 million each.
So the question in the real world - assuming you have a limited budget - are we better fielding 12 F## fighters at a price tag of 7.7 billion or say dropping VTOL and Payload from one and Performance and Stealth from another... for the same 7.7 billion fielding 24 Fxx fighters and 24 Axx bombers...
I know this is simplistic but it seems the US penchant for bleeding edge and multi-role design could end up costing us.
Yeah actually that's a very good point, it's not a stealthy CAS/Ground attack bird that's the problem. It's that it's a stealthy ground attack/CAS/air superiority fighter/cuisinart bird.
Silverthorne wrote: Did anyone post the article where they sent the first RAG guys directly to the F-35 squadron? The first nuggets to fly it without fleet experience in other aircraft. They didn't have a lot of nice things to say about the ergonomics of the airplane.
The biggest selling point of the F-35 for me is the passive optical sensor, which is a huge technological leap forward and a major advantage in combat, especially inside visual range. It is very rarely reported on though, I suppose due to secrecy.
The extra durability of the laminate RAM on the F-35 was also a nice touch. But in no way do either of those things justify the incredible price tag. PaK-FAs and J-20s are going to eat these things by the pound. Geeze, S-300 gargoyles will demolish these things, and practically every bad guy out there that can rub two coins together has at least a battallion of S-300s. It's stealthy... if you are an x-band emitter looking at it head on. Problem is, it's going to be employed offensively, so at some point you are going to fly into the country you are bombing and then expose your unstealthy rear aspect to SAMs. Then you're boned. Stupid.
LCS, DDG 1000, F-35, LPD-17, heads need to be freaking heads rolling in the Navy, because they haven't had a single acquisition program (outside the virginia class) that didn't turn out to be a disaster in about 20 years. I mean look at NWUs for christ sake. Someone just needs to walk into the admirals quarters in Norfolk and start blowing these career desk sailors away.
For the record the Gerald Ford class is going well t and that's a Navy program, and my mates serving aboard San Antonio class ships say those things are a dream Amphib platform. The F-35 is a complete clusterfeth but the Marine variant is working well enough. For the record, the J-20 is still vaporware and probably about as reliable as the new Iranian stealth fighter, the Chinese Aerospace program is lucky to be producing Gen 4 fighters and even that would have to be under license from Russia. The MV-22's a clusterfeth that turned into an advancement in capability and aviation that hasn't been properly recognized, I know several crew chiefs in the program and they love their birds more then their wives. (or husband in one case, I'm still livid I lost my slot in the Osprey program)
The Gerald Ford is doing OK, not great, and it is useless against our only near peer competitor. With the DF-21C, the Chicoms can fry any CVN, even the Ford, if it gets within, well a distance that is further than an F-18 can fly even with a tanker hit thrown in. There is no defense against the DF-21C either- unless you truck an AEGIS BMD guy with SM3 to very close to the Chinese coast, where he will be promptly ventilated by ASCMs. What does your friend do? If he is a BM or an EN or a DC sailor, he won't be saying that. Sure they have racks you can sit up in, amazing. But titanium fire mains? Really? Someone thought that was a good idea? Oh and the whole random systems catch on fire because of substandard wiring problem. That and being built from the keel up to support the EFV which was then cancelled, rendering the entire ship kind of pointless. I can't agree that either of those programs are actually doing well. As I said, the only big ticket Navy program from the last 20 years that is doing pretty well is the Virginia Class. And that next-generation jammer, that too.
Marine variant is working well enough? Not accurate. The Marine variant has, if anything, considerably more maintenance and flight hour/ maintenance hour problems than the conventional F-35s. During the recent workups to put them in an operational squadron it took 109 hours to do an engine change out! 109! That's not man hours, that's the entire shop working to pull the engine. On a hornet they can pull and replace in 2 hours. Keep in mind the 109 hours were by lockheed guys, not marines that had never touched the engine before. Plus the marine variant has the minor problem of being completely and totally pointless. A stealthy VTOL? For CAS? What the hell sense does that make? The MANPADS and AAA used against CAS aircraft don't care about your limited x-band signature, since they are optically or thermally guided. Radar doesn't come into it at all. There is no reason for the marines to have a stealthy fighter- doctrinally it doesn't make sense. Think about how many Tucanos or old Mosquitos could have been completely updated and refitted for the cost of a single F-35. And they would be killing terrorists and keeping marines on the ground alive right now, as in today, not maybe 6 years from now, if then. It's not even a straight wing? How are you going to do CAS with a swept wing? SDBs? Please. I see the Cobra community getting a lot more business in the future, since it looks like the pointy nose guys have quit the sincere CAS game. I mean, what the hell is the point of this thing? To penetrate enemy airspace off an LHA? Because we were invading an advanced country and for some reason couldn't spare a real aircraft carrier? What? As I said anyway, taking away all the other numerous problems with this thing, it's SAM bait in the rear angle-- completely pointless. It will get marines, sailors, and airmen killed. No question.
Silverthorne,
I whole-heartedly agree with ever word you've posted, but I have one point to make: To a Marine, any acquisition program that nets them something new, or something that might be moderately useful to them, is "going well" ;P
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for. The stealth aspect and really the bird itself isn't our fault. We needed a new VTOL to replace the aging harrier fleet and we got handed this.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
Anyway, there was a quote a few years back, I believe by a Marine General actually that was to the effect of "In the future, fighter aircraft are going to be so expensive that we will have one plane for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. It will spend half the year with the Air Force on the East Coast, half the year with the Navy on the West Coast, and one day every leap year with the Marines flying from one side of the country to the other."
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yeah actually that's a very good point, it's not a stealthy CAS/Ground attack bird that's the problem. It's that it's a stealthy ground attack/CAS/air superiority fighter/cuisinart bird.
This takes me back to the flying tank controversy of the 80s.
I should think that a big carrier can carry several squadrons of planes which are specialist in different areas -- air superiority, penetration and strike, ground support, etc (there may be some overlap). Wouldn't that be better than one plane which is fairly good at lots of things but basically a compromise?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for. The stealth aspect and really the bird itself isn't our fault. We needed a new VTOL to replace the aging harrier fleet and we got handed this.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
And yet in reality nine times out of ten in our regular operations (past a major war/joint deployment like OIF/OEF) we're more likely to be able to call Santa Clause for direct support then the Airforce and we haven't figured out a way to get A-10s on carriers yet... or steal enough A-10s to put some squadrons together for that matter. So we bring the most effective CAS we can with us. If we can get the 'Hogs? Groovy, the Devil's Cross is sexier then most playboy playmates otherwise as long as ANGLICO's getting a response when they pick up the phone for aerial delivery of hurt no one gives a good goddamn what that support looks like.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yeah actually that's a very good point, it's not a stealthy CAS/Ground attack bird that's the problem. It's that it's a stealthy ground attack/CAS/air superiority fighter/cuisinart bird.
This takes me back to the flying tank controversy of the 80s.
I should think that a big carrier can carry several squadrons of planes which are specialist in different areas -- air superiority, penetration and strike, ground support, etc (there may be some overlap). Wouldn't that be better than one plane which is fairly good at lots of things but basically a compromise?
Well when it comes to full size Naval carriers that's how we did things up till around the 90s... the MEUs on the other hand have a little less room to work with, but still manage a wide variety of helos, with harriers and now F-35s for spice.
I should think that a big carrier can carry several squadrons of planes which are specialist in different areas -- air superiority, penetration and strike, ground support, etc (there may be some overlap). Wouldn't that be better than one plane which is fairly good at lots of things but basically a compromise?
There is some room for effective/efficient overlap, one airframe being suitable to several uses... but trying to shoehorn an air superiority airframe into a close air support role shouldn't be done, the qualities that make for a good CAS platform make for a gakky air superiority fighter, and vice versa. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean that an aircraft shouldn't have the capability for role conversion (switch out its sensors, weapon hardpoints, etc.) to be used for something other than their intended in the event of a serious clusterfeth situation where you need to fill a serious capability gap NOW, but it should never be considered a serious substitute. Thats one of the things that the aircraft industry (or maybe just the Pentagon) seems to have not yet learned by the way, the avionics are separate from the air frame.... I've heard it argued that we need to keep funding the F-35 for reasons such as its AESA radar or helet HUD, because its so awesome and advanced and has all these awesome capabilites, etc. etc. etc.... well, none of those things are exclusive to the F-35, those are electronics systems that can theoretically function in any airframe (though some modification might be required). No reason why we can't axe the plane and still keep what goes into the plane...
And yet in reality nine times out of ten in our regular operations (past a major war/joint deployment like OIF/OEF) we're more likely to be able to call Santa Clause for direct support then the Airforce and we haven't figured out a way to get A-10s on carriers yet... or steal enough A-10s to put some squadrons together for that matter. So we bring the most effective CAS we can with us. If we can get the 'Hogs? Groovy, the Devil's Cross is sexier then most playboy playmates otherwise as long as ANGLICO's getting a response when they pick up the phone for aerial delivery of hurt no one gives a good goddamn what that support looks like.
Have we had a deployment in the past few decades where the Air Force wasn't there in some capacity already? We already have A-10s positioned in Europe and South Korea, and if need be the Air Force has demonstrated its ability to make absurdly long flights to anywhere in the world within 17 hours of a major crisis... in fact the Air Force has a faster response time than the Marines or Navy does in that regard.
As for "no one gives a good goddamn what the support looks like", well.. I wish that was true yet oddly enough I've heard more than a fair few stories of people bitching because they had one platform providing CAS instead of another.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
Sad but true... they want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 though... such a HUGE step down in capability. Apparently at some point last year the Air Force determined that the F-35B (which it was considering replacing the A-10 with) couldn't come anywhere close to generating the same number of sorties as an A-10, so they are (for now) sticking with the F-35A as a replacement...
I actually think the F-35B would be a good thing for the Air Force, for doctrinal reasons rather than for actual utility.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
Sad but true... they want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 though... such a HUGE step down in capability. Apparently at some point last year the Air Force determined that the F-35B (which it was considering replacing the A-10 with) couldn't come anywhere close to generating the same number of sorties as an A-10, so they are (for now) sticking with the F-35A as a replacement...
I actually think the F-35B would be a good thing for the Air Force, for doctrinal reasons rather than for actual utility.
Yeah there really isn't anything that comes close YET, but it's important that they keep trying so we don't end up with our pants down.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.
Fairchild Republic went out of business and was bought up by other companies... I'm not sure who would have production rights to the airframe anymore... in the 90s the company was acquired by ze Germans, and then was sold to the Israelis at a later date, the original production facilities in the US have been shut down AFAIK. I would love for their to be a second production run of an updated design. Some people have thrown around the idea of building a variant with a downgraded main cannon (BLASPHEMY!) that fired smaller rounds, since the large milk jugs they currently fire are better suited to hunting tanks and vehicles and are really overpriced for taking out Joe Towelhead and/or infantry. Also there was a proposed 2-seat variant which might be useful too...
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
Sad but true... they want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 though... such a HUGE step down in capability. Apparently at some point last year the Air Force determined that the F-35B (which it was considering replacing the A-10 with) couldn't come anywhere close to generating the same number of sorties as an A-10, so they are (for now) sticking with the F-35A as a replacement...
I actually think the F-35B would be a good thing for the Air Force, for doctrinal reasons rather than for actual utility.
Yeah there really isn't anything that comes close YET, but it's important that they keep trying so we don't end up with our pants down.
Unfortunately the Brasses idea of trying is the F-35...
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.
I've heard an explanation of this from a defense analyst and I didn't understand a word of it. Airplane production is weird and apparently there is a reason why this can't happen. I am not the one to ask.
And yet in reality nine times out of ten in our regular operations (past a major war/joint deployment like OIF/OEF) we're more likely to be able to call Santa Clause for direct support then the Airforce and we haven't figured out a way to get A-10s on carriers yet... or steal enough A-10s to put some squadrons together for that matter. So we bring the most effective CAS we can with us. If we can get the 'Hogs? Groovy, the Devil's Cross is sexier then most playboy playmates otherwise as long as ANGLICO's getting a response when they pick up the phone for aerial delivery of hurt no one gives a good goddamn what that support looks like.
Have we had a deployment in the past few decades where the Air Force wasn't there in some capacity already? We already have A-10s positioned in Europe and South Korea, and if need be the Air Force has demonstrated its ability to make absurdly long flights to anywhere in the world within 17 hours of a major crisis... in fact the Air Force has a faster response time than the Marines or Navy does in that regard.
As for "no one gives a good goddamn what the support looks like", well.. I wish that was true yet oddly enough I've heard more than a fair few stories of people bitching because they had one platform providing CAS instead of another.
Pretty much every MEU we go on, otherwise why bother bringing our own air assets? I'd also like to see the Airforce get assets for something besides an airstrike into place in that time frame. Meanwhile the Marine Corps can drop a battalion on the shore in question within 24 hours for most things.
Why don't they just do a second production run? You know, like sane people do.
I've heard an explanation of this from a defense analyst and I didn't understand a word of it. Airplane production is weird and apparently there is a reason why this can't happen. I am not the one to ask.
Because the factory no longer exists. The company is gone, the experienced workers (who know all the minor things you had to change from the blueprints to make it all work properly) are gone, the factory hardware (which you need to efficiently assemble a plane) is gone, many of the component parts are gone (for example, good luck finding sufficient quantities of some random obsolete computer chip that hasn't been produced in decades), etc. In theory you could overcome these obstacles and get the A-10 back into production, but you're going to be spending almost as much time and effort as creating a new, similar, plane from scratch and you won't get all the benefits of things like modern electronics.
You would at least start with a full set of engineering plans and the knowledge that the plane was combat proved.
Surely with all the difficulties, it would still be cheaper to build more A10s, substituting modern avionics and engines where required, than to make a completely new design.
Kilkrazy wrote: substituting modern avionics and engines where required,
I am not sure this is an easy thing. Once you start swapping things, you start to find places where certain entire design concepts were used specifically to accommodate the thing you just swapped out. So now you have to swap those out, etc etc and next thing you know, you just have an extra expensive totally different plane.
I mean, I've had times where a warhammer list unraveled and had to be completely redesigned because I swapped 2 things and this is an entire AIRCRAFT.
Kilkrazy wrote: substituting modern avionics and engines where required,
I am not sure this is an easy thing. Once you start swapping things, you start to find places where certain entire design concepts were used specifically to accommodate the thing you just swapped out. So now you have to swap those out, etc etc and next thing you know, you just have an extra expensive totally different plane.
I mean, I've had times where a warhammer list unraveled and had to be completely redesigned because I swapped 2 things and this is an entire AIRCRAFT.
Depends what you are swapping, surely?
I assume the basic airframe and tanks, conduits, undercarriage and cannon, etc. would be retained.
Engines might be more difficult though in the case of the A10 they are in pods so you probably could change the entire pod. Modern avionics must be smaller and lighter than 1970s/80s.
Aircraft like the Harrier and B52 have been in service for decades and been upgraded or redesigned considerably.
If nothing else at least with an A10 you have working samples that could be disassembled and examined.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.
....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.
Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.
....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.
Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?
I believe so but that doesn't get back all th money we've already spent on them. The question is are we wasting more money by buying them or not buying them at this point?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.
....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.
Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?
I believe so but that doesn't get back all th money we've already spent on them. The question is are we wasting more money by buying them or not buying them at this point?
You're not only buying the end-result plane...
The know-how, research into building these advanced planes pushes the technological needle forward.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.
....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.
Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?
You can thank the NDP for that one. Initially Harper wanted to spend more on it. On a plane not rated for our cold weather...
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.
....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.
Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?
I believe so but that doesn't get back all th money we've already spent on them. The question is are we wasting more money by buying them or not buying them at this point?
You're not only buying the end-result plane...
The know-how, research into building these advanced planes pushes the technological needle forward.
For America....We just give you a big pile of Loonies and hope we get a plane that works. We don't make anything up here.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.
....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.
Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?
You can thank the NDP for that one. Initially Harper wanted to spend more on it. On a plane not rated for our cold weather...
It's not rated for it, meaning we don't know if it can fly in our northern weather. We know it will need cold weather upgrades for a lot of equipment, tho, and that won't be available until a few years after roll-out.
It's not rated for it, meaning we don't know if it can fly in our northern weather. We know it will need cold weather upgrades for a lot of equipment, tho, and that won't be available until a few years after roll-out.
Kilkrazy wrote: substituting modern avionics and engines where required,
I am not sure this is an easy thing. Once you start swapping things, you start to find places where certain entire design concepts were used specifically to accommodate the thing you just swapped out. So now you have to swap those out, etc etc and next thing you know, you just have an extra expensive totally different plane.
I mean, I've had times where a warhammer list unraveled and had to be completely redesigned because I swapped 2 things and this is an entire AIRCRAFT.
Depends what you are swapping, surely?
I assume the basic airframe and tanks, conduits, undercarriage and cannon, etc. would be retained.
Engines might be more difficult though in the case of the A10 they are in pods so you probably could change the entire pod. Modern avionics must be smaller and lighter than 1970s/80s.
Aircraft like the Harrier and B52 have been in service for decades and been upgraded or redesigned considerably.
If nothing else at least with an A10 you have working samples that could be disassembled and examined.
I know the C-130J model included a complete avionics upgrade and significant changes and new tech had to be added because of the new engines. They also had to add a several hundred pound weight to the nose of the bird, with the lighter avionics, even with all the shiny new toys they added, she lost something ridiculous weight wise.... 500 lbs or so in the nose?
See the black area at the base of the tail boom? That's a pressure system that inflates to break ice away from that area, on the old Herc models anything that went past the props got shredded but with the new "racing props" as we referred to'em at the school house they had a different pattern for the force they exerted behind them so the Herc's anti/de icing systems had to be completely redesigned.
It's ok, we've only ever been invaded by one country....
The canadian nation has never been invaded.
Now... if you want to talk pre-independance, then look towards the British as well.
Well that's great news for the "nation of Canada" but Canada has been invaded a couple of times. I shall "look towards the British" whatever that means.
While we enjoy being neighbours we also don't want to be one your immediate needs list. One of the reasons why Canada shouldn't approve the Keystone pipeline is that would make us a very important part of America's fuel security, and based on America's history when it comes to fuel security and security in general I would rather we fly below the radar so to speak.
Kilkrazy wrote: I assume the basic airframe and tanks, conduits, undercarriage and cannon, etc. would be retained.
Not necessarily. All the factory stuff to make the airframe is gone, so you'd have to re-start from scratch. And then you find out that, say, the tires you used to use are no longer produced so you have to re-design the landing gear to work with new ones. And oops, you just changed something so now you have to re-test everything.
Engines might be more difficult though in the case of the A10 they are in pods so you probably could change the entire pod.
And then you changed the aerodynamics, as well as the weight and balance of the plane (something VERY critical on a plane, moving the center of gravity around is a very bad thing). And you've probably run into things like the fuel pipes to the new engines are in a slightly different location, which just happened to be occupied by a structural element in the original design, so you have to re-design the airframe. And looks like that's more rounds of testing to make sure you got it right.
Modern avionics must be smaller and lighter than 1970s/80s.
Which is more changes. Weight and balance again (unless you want to carry dead weight to replace the old stuff), and then you have to design entirely new systems to interface with your hardware. Some things like basic instruments can be bought off the shelf, but you've still got engines/weapons/etc which will require entirely new avionics. And of course all of this will have to be designed and tested and tested again, probably with as many bugs as an entirely new plane.
Aircraft like the Harrier and B52 have been in service for decades and been upgraded or redesigned considerably.
But that's an upgrade to an existing plane, not re-starting production from scratch.
If nothing else at least with an A10 you have working samples that could be disassembled and examined.
Which takes time and effort. The problem isn't that it's impossible to build a new A-10, it's that once you start doing things like dismantling and analyzing existing planes you quickly approach the time and money required to make an entirely new design that takes full advantage of all of the technological progress since the A-10 was first designed. So you end up with new-production A-10s that cost 80% as much as building an A-11 which will be a far superior plane.
It's ok, we've only ever been invaded by one country....
The canadian nation has never been invaded.
Now... if you want to talk pre-independance, then look towards the British as well.
Well that's great news for the "nation of Canada" but Canada has been invaded a couple of times. I shall "look towards the British" whatever that means.
Since confederation happened, and Canada became it's own country, Canada has not been invaded by a foreign power. Prior to that the US did attempt an invasion during the war of 1812, and the Revolutionary War. Before that the British invaded Canada, when it was under the rule of France. How do you think Canada came to belong to Britain? So more then one nation has invaded what became Canada, but no country has ever attempted an invasion of Canada.
Ratbarf wrote: While we enjoy being neighbours we also don't want to be one your immediate needs list. One of the reasons why Canada shouldn't approve the Keystone pipeline is that would make us a very important part of America's fuel security, and based on America's history when it comes to fuel security and security in general I would rather we fly below the radar so to speak.
But that's a whole other topic I digress.
Um... if ya'll don't build that keystone thingy... well... we'll boycott buying your Maple Syrup!
It's ok, we've only ever been invaded by one country....
The canadian nation has never been invaded.
Now... if you want to talk pre-independance, then look towards the British as well.
Well that's great news for the "nation of Canada" but Canada has been invaded a couple of times. I shall "look towards the British" whatever that means.
Since confederation happened, and Canada became it's own country, Canada has not been invaded by a foreign power. Prior to that the US did attempt an invasion during the war of 1812, and the Revolutionary War. Before that the British invaded Canada, when it was under the rule of France. How do you think Canada came to belong to Britain? So more then one nation has invaded what became Canada, but no country has ever attempted an invasion of Canada.
The Great State of Texas stands ready to correct that error. 2,000 pickup up driving rednecks fueled by cervesas and buckshot are ready to go!
The Great State of Texas stands ready to correct that error. 2,000 pickup up driving rednecks fueled by cervesas and buckshot are ready to go!
Fallout plot ready to happen I just hope I get put in the Vault 11.
Q. Okay, let's pick up where we left off, Kate.
A. Katherine.
Q. Sorry, right. Katherine. I keep forgetting.
A. My husband calls me Kate.
Q. You were telling us of a discussion you allegedly had with Roy Gottlieb of the Justice Bloc.
A. Not allegedly. Had. We've been through this.
Q. It's still just your word against his, Ms. Stone. But please, the discussion.
A. [Sighs] He said my husband's name had come up in their meetings.
Q. The candidate endorsement meetings?
A. Yes. They were going to endorse him. He wouldn't say why, but I know my husband had a regular poker game with some of them, and he'd been on a winning streak lately.
Q. And according to you, what did Mr. Gottlieb offer?
A. He said he could sway his bloc. Prevent the endorsement. But only if I...
Q. Only if you what, Katherine?
A. Only if I...
Q. Only if you performed sexual favors.
A. Yes.
Q. Was this just for Mr. Gottlieb?
A. No. All the bloc leadership. Their friends.
Q. And you agreed.
A. What else could I do? They had a majority.
Q. How long did this go on before the endorsements came out?
A. I don't know. A month, maybe.
Q. And when they came out, and your husband was endorsed despite your supposed agreement, was that when you decided to kill members of the bloc?
A. Yes. I thought, their majority is pretty slim. If I thinned things out a little, especially in the leadership, someone else might get elected.
Q. Assuming you weren't caught.
A. No, Mr. Miles. I expected to be caught. That was my best chance. Now they'll elect me.
Q. A confessed murderer? You think voters would be willing to risk putting you in charge?
A. They have to pick somebody and live with their reasons.
Q. Yes, but-
A. Wait and see.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for. The stealth aspect and really the bird itself isn't our fault. We needed a new VTOL to replace the aging harrier fleet and we got handed this.
I don't think swept-wings were the problem, it was variable sweep wings, like on the F-111, F-14, and B-1.
And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...
The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.
Then why not take a few mil off the F-35 allocation and have the manufacturer build us some new ones? For the cost of 1 F-35 we could get what, a couple dozen 'hogs?
The F35 is bad for reasons unrelated to what we're talking about. It's overdesigned to do too much for too many things.
If one was to sit down and design "A replacement for the role of the A-10, nothing more or less", they would end up with something better than the A-10. The issue with the newer planes is that nobody could stick to the "nothing more or less" part.
Not saying that this is the best way to do things, but I think we should just go back to the WW2 mindset...
We come up with plane A to be a fighter, an enemy shoots it down with their fighter, so we engineer a new fighter to defeat their fighter, and in six months time, we have engineered, tested, and built a few thousand of fighter B... rinse and repeat.
Thus far, there really isn't much out there to beat an A-10, so why replace it? Same thing with the F-15.. Just keep the contracts open, so that way we can still manufacture brand new airframes, instead of maintaining old ones... This way, we can still keep a "fresh" fleet of aircraft, and can relegate or properly take care of older systems.
Well in the JSF documentary that I watched (admittedly it was probably biased and I didn't do any homework on their sources) the opinion that one was left with at the end of the film was that the F-35 was chosen over the X-32 just because of it's looks.
The X-32 looks like a big happy puppy of a plane. One that will kill you and all of your friends. Happily.
dogma wrote: What changes would make to the A-10 in order to make it a better CAS platform?
* Apply all of the lessons learned in 40 years of operating the A-10. I'm not an A-10 pilot so I don't know what they would be, but unless your engineers are completely incompetent there's no way you can start from the A-10 plus 40 years of experience and somehow fail to make any improvements. And, unlike a new-production A-10, you aren't stuck with the constraints of having an existing design to modify and you're free to incorporate everything from the beginning.
* Modern engines with better fuel efficiency = longer range and/or loiter time. And who knows, you might even be able to get better thrust out of the deal.
* Modern electronics. Sure, a new-production A-10 might have some of this benefit, but it wouldn't be as well integrated (see the C-130 example where the old hardware had to be replaced by a 500 lb block of dead weight to avoid balance problems) and developing new avionics is going to eat a lot of your cost savings.
* Modern fly-by-wire technology with all those nice things we've learned about automating improvised controls when the main control surfaces have been destroyed (for example, lose your ailerons and the computer will automatically translate stick commands for a turn into differential thrust from the engines to make the turn), a nice benefit for a plane that really cares about durability.
* New airframe designed with all the benefits of modern computer modeling technology and materials science. That probably means some combination of stronger and/or lighter, better handling, better speed/fuel efficiency, some degree of reduced radar cross section (probably going to need external payload so no true stealth), etc.
* Design from the beginning to use modern factory technology (robots, CAD, etc) to bring the per-unit cost down. Of course you could build your new A-10 factory with this in mind, but completely re-inventing the assembly line is going to do a lot to remove the cost savings from starting with an existing design.
In short, unless you believe that the A-10 is a gift from god, the divinely perfect CAS aircraft which can not possibly be improved on, an entirely new design will be better than simply resuming production of the A-10.
Q. Okay, let's pick up where we left off, Kate.
A. Katherine.
Q. Sorry, right. Katherine. I keep forgetting.
A. My husband calls me Kate.
Q. You were telling us of a discussion you allegedly had with Roy Gottlieb of the Justice Bloc.
A. Not allegedly. Had. We've been through this.
Q. It's still just your word against his, Ms. Stone. But please, the discussion.
A. [Sighs] He said my husband's name had come up in their meetings.
Q. The candidate endorsement meetings?
A. Yes. They were going to endorse him. He wouldn't say why, but I know my husband had a regular poker game with some of them, and he'd been on a winning streak lately.
Q. And according to you, what did Mr. Gottlieb offer?
A. He said he could sway his bloc. Prevent the endorsement. But only if I...
Q. Only if you what, Katherine?
A. Only if I...
Q. Only if you performed sexual favors.
A. Yes.
Q. Was this just for Mr. Gottlieb?
A. No. All the bloc leadership. Their friends.
Q. And you agreed.
A. What else could I do? They had a majority.
Q. How long did this go on before the endorsements came out?
A. I don't know. A month, maybe.
Q. And when they came out, and your husband was endorsed despite your supposed agreement, was that when you decided to kill members of the bloc?
A. Yes. I thought, their majority is pretty slim. If I thinned things out a little, especially in the leadership, someone else might get elected.
Q. Assuming you weren't caught.
A. No, Mr. Miles. I expected to be caught. That was my best chance. Now they'll elect me.
Q. A confessed murderer? You think voters would be willing to risk putting you in charge?
A. They have to pick somebody and live with their reasons.
Q. Yes, but-
A. Wait and see.
Peregrine wrote: In short, unless you believe that the A-10 is a gift from god, the divinely perfect CAS aircraft which can not possibly be improved on
I think this is a reasonable summation of the finest aircraft ever built.
Q. Okay, let's pick up where we left off, Kate.
A. Katherine.
Q. Sorry, right. Katherine. I keep forgetting.
A. My husband calls me Kate.
Q. You were telling us of a discussion you allegedly had with Roy Gottlieb of the Justice Bloc.
A. Not allegedly. Had. We've been through this.
Q. It's still just your word against his, Ms. Stone. But please, the discussion.
A. [Sighs] He said my husband's name had come up in their meetings.
Q. The candidate endorsement meetings?
A. Yes. They were going to endorse him. He wouldn't say why, but I know my husband had a regular poker game with some of them, and he'd been on a winning streak lately.
Q. And according to you, what did Mr. Gottlieb offer?
A. He said he could sway his bloc. Prevent the endorsement. But only if I...
Q. Only if you what, Katherine?
A. Only if I...
Q. Only if you performed sexual favors.
A. Yes.
Q. Was this just for Mr. Gottlieb?
A. No. All the bloc leadership. Their friends.
Q. And you agreed.
A. What else could I do? They had a majority.
Q. How long did this go on before the endorsements came out?
A. I don't know. A month, maybe.
Q. And when they came out, and your husband was endorsed despite your supposed agreement, was that when you decided to kill members of the bloc?
A. Yes. I thought, their majority is pretty slim. If I thinned things out a little, especially in the leadership, someone else might get elected.
Q. Assuming you weren't caught.
A. No, Mr. Miles. I expected to be caught. That was my best chance. Now they'll elect me.
Q. A confessed murderer? You think voters would be willing to risk putting you in charge?
A. They have to pick somebody and live with their reasons.
Q. Yes, but-
A. Wait and see.
What is this magnificent thing?
It's one of the transcripts you find in a Vault in New Vegas. Basically, the Vault in question was a psychotic social experiment that demanded the residents choose one of their own to enter a suicide chamber every year. The first overseer, who had the burden of breaking this news to the residents, was the first chosen as a sacrifice, and so the leadership position became linked traditionally with that of the sacrifice: they'd choose a leader who would then enter the chamber after ruling for a year. The events in the transcript culminated in civil war that all but destroyed the vault's population. What happens next:
Spoiler:
The last four survivors (the leaders of the factions, one of whom was the woman in that transcript) refuse to sacrifice one of their own, deciding to it just wasn't worth living anymore. The computer plays a prerecorded message congratualating them on being shining examples of humanity, and unlocks the door to leave, warning them to "check with your overseer to be sure it's safe to go outside, your safety is our top priority." What happened in the suicide chamber? A swarm of robots shot the sacrifice with machine guns. There are several dozen skeletons in the chambers that held the robots. And people call 40k grimdark.
Q. Okay, let's pick up where we left off, Kate. A. Katherine. Q. Sorry, right. Katherine. I keep forgetting. A. My husband calls me Kate. Q. You were telling us of a discussion you allegedly had with Roy Gottlieb of the Justice Bloc. A. Not allegedly. Had. We've been through this. Q. It's still just your word against his, Ms. Stone. But please, the discussion. A. [Sighs] He said my husband's name had come up in their meetings. Q. The candidate endorsement meetings? A. Yes. They were going to endorse him. He wouldn't say why, but I know my husband had a regular poker game with some of them, and he'd been on a winning streak lately. Q. And according to you, what did Mr. Gottlieb offer? A. He said he could sway his bloc. Prevent the endorsement. But only if I... Q. Only if you what, Katherine? A. Only if I... Q. Only if you performed sexual favors. A. Yes. Q. Was this just for Mr. Gottlieb? A. No. All the bloc leadership. Their friends. Q. And you agreed. A. What else could I do? They had a majority. Q. How long did this go on before the endorsements came out? A. I don't know. A month, maybe. Q. And when they came out, and your husband was endorsed despite your supposed agreement, was that when you decided to kill members of the bloc? A. Yes. I thought, their majority is pretty slim. If I thinned things out a little, especially in the leadership, someone else might get elected. Q. Assuming you weren't caught. A. No, Mr. Miles. I expected to be caught. That was my best chance. Now they'll elect me. Q. A confessed murderer? You think voters would be willing to risk putting you in charge? A. They have to pick somebody and live with their reasons. Q. Yes, but- A. Wait and see.
What is this magnificent thing?
It's one of the transcripts you find in a Vault in New Vegas. Basically, the Vault in question was a psychotic social experiment that demanded the residents choose one of their own to enter a suicide chamber every year. The first overseer, who had the burden of breaking this news to the residents, was the first chosen as a sacrifice, and so the leadership position became linked traditionally with that of the sacrifice: they'd choose a leader who would then enter the chamber after ruling for a year. The events in the transcript culminated in civil war that all but destroyed the vault's population. What happens next:
Spoiler:
The last four survivors (the leaders of the factions, one of whom was the woman in that transcript) refuse to sacrifice one of their own, deciding to it just wasn't worth living anymore. The computer plays a prerecorded message congratualating them on being shining examples of humanity, and unlocks the door to leave, warning them to "check with your overseer to be sure it's safe to go outside, your safety is our top priority." What happened in the suicide chamber? A swarm of robots shot the sacrifice with machine guns. There are several dozen skeletons in the chambers that held the robots. And people call 40k grimdark.
F:NV is just awesome. Just awesome.
What's even better is that you figure it out gradually. At first you find their campaign presentation, and you wonder why the hell they keep telling everyone that they are horrible horrible candidate for the post, that they have no qualification, and that they are just great people who don't deserve to get elected. Then you get this transcript, and then figure it all out a few ones latter.
In short, unless you believe that the A-10 is a gift from god, the divinely perfect CAS aircraft which can not possibly be improved on, an entirely new design will be better than simply resuming production of the A-10.
You didn't make that case. You explained how you would improve the A-10, which is what I requested, but then you moved into some nonsense about A-10 reproduction.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It's one of the transcripts you find in a Vault in New Vegas. Basically, the Vault in question was a psychotic social experiment that demanded the residents choose one of their own to enter a suicide chamber every year. The first overseer, who had the burden of breaking this news to the residents, was the first chosen as a sacrifice, and so the leadership position became linked traditionally with that of the sacrifice: they'd choose a leader who would then enter the chamber after ruling for a year. The events in the transcript culminated in civil war that all but destroyed the vault's population. What happens next:
Spoiler:
The last four survivors (the leaders of the factions, one of whom was the woman in that transcript) refuse to sacrifice one of their own, deciding to it just wasn't worth living anymore. The computer plays a prerecorded message congratualating them on being shining examples of humanity, and unlocks the door to leave, warning them to "check with your overseer to be sure it's safe to go outside, your safety is our top priority." What happened in the suicide chamber? A swarm of robots shot the sacrifice with machine guns. There are several dozen skeletons in the chambers that held the robots. And people call 40k grimdark.
Cool, thanks. Got that game and never got into it like the previous Fallout. After reading that I'd get right back into it, if I thought I could find the time.
In short, unless you believe that the A-10 is a gift from god, the divinely perfect CAS aircraft which can not possibly be improved on, an entirely new design will be better than simply resuming production of the A-10.
You didn't make that case. You explained how you would improve the A-10, which is what I requested, but then you moved into some nonsense about A-10 reproduction.
The A-10 cannot be reproduced end of discussion. If it was remotely possible, I fully believe it would have been done 10 years ago. We talked about this several pages ago and it's pretty much settled. Continuing to produce the A-10 is not a possibility. If it were, we would be fine with it for a very long time. Even just the ones we still have could last into the 2030s. That's nearly 60 years for the earliest ones. How crazy is that?
The F35 is bad for reasons unrelated to what we're talking about. It's overdesigned to do too much for too many things.
If one was to sit down and design "A replacement for the role of the A-10, nothing more or less", they would end up with something better than the A-10. The issue with the newer planes is that nobody could stick to the "nothing more or less" part.
One would hope...
* Apply all of the lessons learned in 40 years of operating the A-10. I'm not an A-10 pilot so I don't know what they would be, but unless your engineers are completely incompetent there's no way you can start from the A-10 plus 40 years of experience and somehow fail to make any improvements. And, unlike a new-production A-10, you aren't stuck with the constraints of having an existing design to modify and you're free to incorporate everything from the beginning.
* Modern engines with better fuel efficiency = longer range and/or loiter time. And who knows, you might even be able to get better thrust out of the deal.
* Modern electronics. Sure, a new-production A-10 might have some of this benefit, but it wouldn't be as well integrated (see the C-130 example where the old hardware had to be replaced by a 500 lb block of dead weight to avoid balance problems) and developing new avionics is going to eat a lot of your cost savings.
* Modern fly-by-wire technology with all those nice things we've learned about automating improvised controls when the main control surfaces have been destroyed (for example, lose your ailerons and the computer will automatically translate stick commands for a turn into differential thrust from the engines to make the turn), a nice benefit for a plane that really cares about durability.
* New airframe designed with all the benefits of modern computer modeling technology and materials science. That probably means some combination of stronger and/or lighter, better handling, better speed/fuel efficiency, some degree of reduced radar cross section (probably going to need external payload so no true stealth), etc.
* Design from the beginning to use modern factory technology (robots, CAD, etc) to bring the per-unit cost down. Of course you could build your new A-10 factory with this in mind, but completely re-inventing the assembly line is going to do a lot to remove the cost savings from starting with an existing design.
In short, unless you believe that the A-10 is a gift from god, the divinely perfect CAS aircraft which can not possibly be improved on, an entirely new design will be better than simply resuming production of the A-10.
Thank god you don't design planes... most of what you just listed is heavily superfluous and counter-productive and flat out unnecessary. Basically this is how we ended up with the F-22 and F-35... Incidentally, you'd probably fit right in at the Pentagon ;P
The only improvement, I think, that could be made to the A-10 would be with the cannon. The A-10 wasn't meant so much as a close air support platform as it was a tank-hunter, and thus you have a ridiculously large cannon (around which the rest of the plane was designed) that really isn't necessary for most of the uses we've found for the aircraft the past decade or so. Personally, I'd rather have the current cannon... one of the cool things about the F-35(B only I think) is the ability to mount twin cannons in external pods, .50s IIRC, which makes it great for strafing runs... well, it would be great for strafing runs if it wasn't an F-35 but you know, lol...
Because we've improved in technology and design knowledge since 1970.
What changes would make to the A-10 in order to make it a better CAS platform?
Update the avionics a bit to take better advantage of new technology and smaller computers. Use new materials to lower weight, which increases payload and range.
EDIT: And once again, I see this has been addressed.
Peregrine wrote: In short, unless you believe that the A-10 is a gift from god, the divinely perfect CAS aircraft which can not possibly be improved on
I think this is a reasonable summation of the finest aircraft ever built.
I, uh, may be a bit biased on this one though.
I'll agree with you on this matter. When it comes to CAS, the A-10 is God's personal chariot of war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The Great State of Texas stands ready to correct that error. 2,000 pickup up driving rednecks fueled by cervesas and buckshot are ready to go!
Just make sure you pick your battle. Stick to Quebec, the rest of Canadia is loaded with Northern Rednecks, just as off-putting as you Texans, AND used to the cold.
Peregrine wrote: In short, unless you believe that the A-10 is a gift from god, the divinely perfect CAS aircraft which can not possibly be improved on
I think this is a reasonable summation of the finest aircraft ever built.
I, uh, may be a bit biased on this one though.
I'll agree with you on this matter. When it comes to CAS, the A-10 is God's personal chariot of war.
And the AC-130 is the Virgin Mary's second gift to mankind
Frazzled wrote: The Great State of Texas stands ready to correct that error. 2,000 pickup up driving rednecks fueled by cervesas and buckshot are ready to go!
Just make sure you pick your battle. Stick to Quebec, the rest of Canadia is loaded with Northern Rednecks, just as off-putting as you Texans, AND used to the cold.
You're forgetting Toronto, if Texas decided to invade Toronto I don't think the rest of Canada would be that upset. It's pretty much a city of Hipster's and Swag Artists.
Frazzled wrote: The Great State of Texas stands ready to correct that error. 2,000 pickup up driving rednecks fueled by cervesas and buckshot are ready to go!
Just make sure you pick your battle. Stick to Quebec, the rest of Canadia is loaded with Northern Rednecks, just as off-putting as you Texans, AND used to the cold.
You're forgetting Toronto, if Texas decided to invade Toronto I don't think the rest of Canada would be that upset. It's pretty much a city of Hipster's and Swag Artists.
If Texas (and by extension, the US) decided to invade Canada, first thing we'd obviously have to fix (aside from people speaking French), is your football fields
)
I just hope I get put in the Vault 11.
