Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.

Try again. Quite a few came back quite severely shot up... and were flying again the next day.

Yes, because they didn't lose their control surfaces. Or else they wouldn't be able to fly. I mean unless the A-10 has a magical ability to control it'self without any control surfaces unlike very other plane in existance.

And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.

Until some part of that magnificent avionics package goes down, or the datalinks to the ground forces are jammed, or until someone realizes that with only two bombs the F-35 has to REALLY make their shots count...

And why exactly are any of those going to happen? Or is this another of the "technology sucks eyeball best grrrr" things.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And why exactly are any of those going to happen? Or is this another of the "technology sucks eyeball best grrrr" things.

Here's a link with the math, you may find it interesting, but I found it boring. In a nutshell, well, jammers.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a439490.pdf


Any time you have a hunk of Russian junk sporting one of these:



You've probably lost contact with ground personnel.


As far as going after the planes themselves:

While they've been very short on specifics re cyberwarfare vulnerabilities of the F-35 and it's variants, apparently several software packages have apparently proven vulnerable to cyber attack. The only thing I've been able to find anything specific on is the Autonomic Logistics Information System, which may permit pilots and ground crews to be fed bad information or be a back door allowing sabotage of other systems.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22877042/navy-f35-helmet-bug/

Think they'll fix it this time??

Its amazing that its taking this long...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.

Try again. Quite a few came back quite severely shot up... and were flying again the next day.

Not when their control surfaces fail though
As you can probably imagine, flying an airplane without controls is kinda... difficult.

Tell it to the Israeli F-15 pilot who landed safely without a wing.

The A-10 was built to take damage and come home. And it does that with bells on. I repeat, several were quite severely shot up and not only flew home but flew missions THE NEXT DAY.

Lord knows what's going to happen to the F-35 the first time it takes a hit, CAS or not. Probably fall out of the sky. Certainly won't be stealthy anymore and there goes it's one advantage over legacy platforms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what happens when the A-10s control surfaces fail? I know, it crashes like any other plane.

Try again. Quite a few came back quite severely shot up... and were flying again the next day.

Yes, because they didn't lose their control surfaces. Or else they wouldn't be able to fly. I mean unless the A-10 has a magical ability to control it'self without any control surfaces unlike very other plane in existance.

Airliners are now designed to be flown entirely on engine control inputs via the flight computer if the control surface hydraulics fail. So there are already aircraft flying EVERY DAY that can fly without any control surfaces, and the odds are you've actually flown in one.

And, again, it won't *be* low and slow where it can be shot at by MANPADS, AA guns, small SAM sites, ect. That's the whole point.

Until some part of that magnificent avionics package goes down, or the datalinks to the ground forces are jammed, or until someone realizes that with only two bombs the F-35 has to REALLY make their shots count...

And why exactly are any of those going to happen? Or is this another of the "technology sucks eyeball best grrrr" things.

What makes you think they CAN'T happen? First law of combat is Murphy's. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible moment. How many times has your personal computer crashed? How many smart phones have you gone through? And remember, neither of those are ROUTINELY subjected to the eight-plus g's of stress of ACM.

One last thing. How does an F-35 provide CAS across a mile wide battlefront... with two bombs. Hmmm?

 Vulcan wrote:

Tell it to the Israeli F-15 pilot who landed safely without a wing.

Is that all?



Ladies and gents, my I present the pinnacle of American aviation, and reigning number one champ of 'Holy gak, we made it back to base!' the Boeing B-17 'All American'.



Almost cut in half by a collision with a 109, All American made it 300 miles back to base.

There was so little holding the plane together she fell apart during landing.

 Vulcan wrote:


Tell it to the Israeli F-15 pilot who landed safely without a wing.

Yeah, and people have been doing that since the fething 40s. The means some control surfaces are out but not all of them. Do you actually know what it would mean if all control surfaces were knocked out? That means no pitch, no roll, no elevation. Nothing.

The A-10 was built to take damage and come home. And it does that with bells on. I repeat, several were quite severely shot up and not only flew home but flew missions THE NEXT DAY.

Lord knows what's going to happen to the F-35 the first time it takes a hit, CAS or not. Probably fall out of the sky. Certainly won't be stealthy anymore and there goes it's one advantage over legacy platforms.

And this the whole problem with the argument. You go "look this plane made it back with one wing" and then go "this more advanced plane would just fall out of the sky". Not based on anything other than bias against the platform.

Airliners are now designed to be flown entirely on engine control inputs via the flight computer if the control surface hydraulics fail. So there are already aircraft flying EVERY DAY that can fly without any control surfaces, and the odds are you've actually flown in one.

If some of them fall yes engine control can greatly help. If everything fails, you are a bit screwed. You can make it to a runway, maybe. But you won't be able to operate effectively in a war zone.

What makes you think they CAN'T happen? First law of combat is Murphy's. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible moment. How many times has your personal computer crashed? How many smart phones have you gone through? And remember, neither of those are ROUTINELY subjected to the eight-plus g's of stress of ACM.

I'll be honest I've yet to have a smartphone break on me because I tend to be careful with my electronics.

But here's another problem with your argument as a whole, of course if everything goes wrong the plane can't do anything. That's true with any plane. What if the GAU has a malfunction. What if all the plane's control surfaces freeze up. What if they pilot can't find the target with his old sensor tech? See I can do this too!

One last thing. How does an F-35 provide CAS across a mile wide battlefront... with two bombs. Hmmm?

If it's only taking two bombs that means we are dealing with a situation that requires stealth. If it requires stealth then that makes our current CAS aircraft useless. In a situation where there is no danger, then we pull out something less stealthy with more firepower. Do I really have to explain this to you?

If the F-35 doesn't dare bring it's pylon based weaponry that means we are dealing with something that can detect any non-stealth plane. And F35 with Pylon weaponry is still a hell of a lot more stealthy than an F-16, Super Hornet, A-10 ect. So that most probably means strikes against heavy SAM emplacements. Or strikes in areas where we have not yet secured air superiority. Neither of those we are going to send an A-10 in these days. Back when it was designed and built, being tough was enough. Nowadays, against modern SAMs not so much.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And this the whole problem with the argument. You go "look this plane made it back with one wing" and then go "this more advanced plane would just fall out of the sky". Not based on anything other than bias against the platform.

Its based on the fragility of the platform. The F-35 simply has far less ability to sustain damage and still function.

Now could it take damage and still fly? Probably, depending on the specifics of the damage. But the point is it is less likely to be able to do so. A-10s are far more durable.

Its the classic trade-off between Stealth and Durability. if you are more stealthy, you have to give up durability.


Its definitely worth having a stealth fighter like the F-35, but we need to be mindful of its limitations. It is NOT a ground support aircraft and we should NEVER attempt to use it as one. And focusing too much on aircraft like this means we are going to be in trouble if we need stuff that can provide CAS in a hot warzone. We shouldn't ever assume we'll only ever be bombing 3rd world nations with Russian hand-me-down air defenses. That is how we'll lose WW3, but not having gear that can pick on something its own size.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And this the whole problem with the argument. You go "look this plane made it back with one wing" and then go "this more advanced plane would just fall out of the sky". Not based on anything other than bias against the platform.

Its based on the fragility of the platform. The F-35 simply has far less ability to sustain damage and still function.

Does it? What is the proof of that? I mean it will probably take less damage than the A-10 before becoming unoprable. But that's just an assumption, not based on any information. And the toughness of the A-10 when it relates to modern air defenses is rather overblown.

Now could it take damage and still fly? Probably, depending on the specifics of the damage. But the point is it is less likely to be able to do so. A-10s are far more durable.

Its the classic trade-off between Stealth and Durability. if you are more stealthy, you have to give up durability.


Its definitely worth having a stealth fighter like the F-35, but we need to be mindful of its limitations. It is NOT a ground support aircraft and we should NEVER attempt to use it as one. And focusing too much on aircraft like this means we are going to be in trouble if we need stuff that can provide CAS in a hot warzone. We shouldn't ever assume we'll only ever be bombing 3rd world nations with Russian hand-me-down air defenses. That is how we'll lose WW3, but not having gear that can pick on something its own size.

I mean the whole point of the F-35 is that it *can* operate in a hot warzone, unlike the A-10. The A-10 is very much a legacy platform, and it's vulnerability to modern air defenses is very much appreciated and considered by our military. There's a reason we kept the A-10 back out of the initial invasions in Iraq. A dedicated modern CAS platform would be a nice thing to have, alltogether though. The F-35 can be a CAS platform if needed, and it's what we have in the event of, as you say, WW3. Something taking into account modern air defenses and stealth technology would be a good comprise. A modern close air support vehicle designed to combat the modern battlefield. and not the battlefield of the 1970s (or the 90s fighting people with tech from the 70s).

The F-35 is not the solution to CAS on the modern battlefield.But it's a solution to a number of other problems as well as being capable in both strike and some CAS missions. But the A-10 is not a solution to CAS on the modern battlefield unless we are trying to get out pilots killed. A new attacker program is needed IMO (probably downgrading to a 25mm cannon as the 35mm doesn't cut it against modern tanks, and it just extra weight and complexity against unarmored troops, and lightly armoured vehicles) with a focus on stealth and guided weaponry to give it defenses against modern SAMs and MANPADs. That can also mount AAMs so it can actually defense it'self against enemy aircraft more effectively. And with our more advanced sensor tech, loiter time isn't as important (you can line up on the targets much faster, don't have to search for them), allowing it to achieve faster speeds, again removing one of the main deficiencies of the A-10 on the modern battlefield.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:


Tell it to the Israeli F-15 pilot who landed safely without a wing.

Yeah, and people have been doing that since the fething 40s. The means some control surfaces are out but not all of them. Do you actually know what it would mean if all control surfaces were knocked out? That means no pitch, no roll, no elevation. Nothing.

Sure. Now tell me how the F-35 is immune to the same problem.

The A-10 was built to take damage and come home. And it does that with bells on. I repeat, several were quite severely shot up and not only flew home but flew missions THE NEXT DAY.

Lord knows what's going to happen to the F-35 the first time it takes a hit, CAS or not. Probably fall out of the sky. Certainly won't be stealthy anymore and there goes it's one advantage over legacy platforms.

And this the whole problem with the argument. You go "look this plane made it back with one wing" and then go "this more advanced plane would just fall out of the sky". Not based on anything other than bias against the platform.

That's a fair point. Of course, your argument is entirely based on "It won't work the way you think, honest it won't..." but we ALL lack the evidence to back it up because the F-35 has not yet seen combat nor suffered battle damage.

Airliners are now designed to be flown entirely on engine control inputs via the flight computer if the control surface hydraulics fail. So there are already aircraft flying EVERY DAY that can fly without any control surfaces, and the odds are you've actually flown in one.

If some of them fall yes engine control can greatly help. If everything fails, you are a bit screwed. You can make it to a runway, maybe. But you won't be able to operate effectively in a war zone.

NO. After an airline crash brought on by a failure of the flight controls it was demonstrated that with careful control of the engines you could successfully fly a routine airline mission without flight surface controls at all. Then the fly-by-wire systems were programmed to do it with the normal cockpit controls instead of relying entirely on the throttles.

And if you're in a shot-up aircraft of ANY kind, you're not going to be operating effectively in a war zone. The A-10 gets props for getting shot up and not only returning to base, but being repaired, re-engined, reloaded, and fighting the next day. I can GUARANTEE the F-35 will not be doing that, not if it's going to remain strealthy.

What makes you think they CAN'T happen? First law of combat is Murphy's. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible moment. How many times has your personal computer crashed? How many smart phones have you gone through? And remember, neither of those are ROUTINELY subjected to the eight-plus g's of stress of ACM.

I'll be honest I've yet to have a smartphone break on me because I tend to be careful with my electronics.

But here's another problem with your argument as a whole, of course if everything goes wrong the plane can't do anything. That's true with any plane. What if the GAU has a malfunction. What if all the plane's control surfaces freeze up. What if they pilot can't find the target with his old sensor tech? See I can do this too!

It's unlikely an A-10 pilot's eyeballs will cease working in mid flight, and if they do he's got bigger problems. It's equally unlikely that an entire platoon's worth of smoke grenades would also simultaneously fail. Low tech solutions fail far less often than high-tech ones.

As far as the gun failing or the flight controls freezing up, demonstrate that the F-35 is LESS likely to have the same problem. Well, I guess the F-35's gun won't fail in a CAS situation; with under 200 rounds it wouldn't be effective anyway so it wouldn't matter if it failed.

One last thing. How does an F-35 provide CAS across a mile wide battlefront... with two bombs. Hmmm?

If it's only taking two bombs that means we are dealing with a situation that requires stealth. If it requires stealth then that makes our current CAS aircraft useless. In a situation where there is no danger, then we pull out something less stealthy with more firepower. Do I really have to explain this to you?

If the F-35 doesn't dare bring it's pylon based weaponry that means we are dealing with something that can detect any non-stealth plane. And F35 with Pylon weaponry is still a hell of a lot more stealthy than an F-16, Super Hornet, A-10 ect. So that most probably means strikes against heavy SAM emplacements. Or strikes in areas where we have not yet secured air superiority. Neither of those we are going to send an A-10 in these days. Back when it was designed and built, being tough was enough. Nowadays, against modern SAMs not so much.

And THAT'S my whole point. You don't waste an A-10 in a high-threat environment, you send in the F-35 to knock back the air defenses. You don't waste an F-35 in a low-threat environment; you send in the bomb trucks so you don't risk losing a hundred-million dollar airframe to pilot error or equipment failure. And once the F-35 has knocked back the air defenses it's no longer a high threat environment. Do I really have to explain this to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And this the whole problem with the argument. You go "look this plane made it back with one wing" and then go "this more advanced plane would just fall out of the sky". Not based on anything other than bias against the platform.

Its based on the fragility of the platform. The F-35 simply has far less ability to sustain damage and still function.

Now could it take damage and still fly? Probably, depending on the specifics of the damage. But the point is it is less likely to be able to do so. A-10s are far more durable.

Its the classic trade-off between Stealth and Durability. if you are more stealthy, you have to give up durability.


Its definitely worth having a stealth fighter like the F-35, but we need to be mindful of its limitations. It is NOT a ground support aircraft and we should NEVER attempt to use it as one. And focusing too much on aircraft like this means we are going to be in trouble if we need stuff that can provide CAS in a hot warzone. We shouldn't ever assume we'll only ever be bombing 3rd world nations with Russian hand-me-down air defenses. That is how we'll lose WW3, but not having gear that can pick on something its own size.

Oh, yes, totally agreed. The F-35 has it's uses - rolling back air defenses should be top of the list. But it literally CANNOT be risked anywhere it might take random damage from ground fire which would fatally compromise it's stealth until it's repaired. Bullet holes make dandy radar reflectors, you know. And since it's stealth capabilities literally CANNOT be repaired except at the factory - the down side of using large pieces of carbon fiber for your skin and frame - it CANNOT be risked to ground fire... and therefore cannot be risked in a CAS capability.

Shouldn't be any need to either. The A-10 does the job just fine once the F-35 does it's job and knocks back the antiair defenses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And with our more advanced sensor tech, loiter time isn't as important (you can line up on the targets much faster, don't have to search for them), allowing it to achieve faster speeds, again removing one of the main deficiencies of the A-10 on the modern battlefield.

Loiter time is actually QUITE important, unless you expect the enemy to NOT dive into their foxholes when an air strike comes in for some reason. If you have just enough loiter time to do one pass and then you're gone, the enemy dives into their foxholes and waits for you to leave. If you can hang around for an hour, either they have to stay up and fighting as you bomb and strafe them repeatedly, or they allow your troops to advance on their positions unopposed...

I'll let you guess which one happened when in Vietnam, between getting CAS from fast-moving jets, and getting CAS from Skyraiders....

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Does it? What is the proof of that? I mean it will probably take less damage than the A-10 before becoming unoprable. But that's just an assumption, not based on any information.
.

Well, from what little I've been able to find out about repairing the F-35, a hole as big around as a soup can renders the plane inoperable. That's anywhere, not just through the pilot. A breach that big also means that, if the plane does get back to base, it has to be sent back to Lockheed due to it's near unrepairability in the field.

I mean, looking at it strictly from a logistics point of view, the F-35 is one of the worst aircraft in recent history. Situations where any other fighter aircraft would be considered lightly damaged, the F-35 is a write off, or at very least is heading back to the factory.

It's bad enough that, and I again underline, the navy is building a special class of transport expressly to ferry F-35s that are damaged back and forth. Not for parts, or fuel, or anything else. Because we have current ships that can do that for at least the next forty years. Expressly for the F-35.

So to recap- the argument has come down to what mission for CAS we want to be covered. For a first world, modern frontline vs equivalent force, we would need a stealthy plane able to attack SAM sites effectively.

Conversely, such a high priced and high tech marvel would be wasted if applied to a counterinsurgency battle much like the one we have today, with 4th rate gear the only opposition for the aircraft.

This seems to dovetail nicely with the existing A-10s, and the upcoming light attack aircraft. The F35 is utilized to neutralize threats, and then just maintains a watch to make sure its more vulnerable (but massively more economical) brethren can operate with impunity. It seems like a surprisingly logical compromise that the Air Force is moving forward with.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
For a first world, modern frontline vs equivalent force, we would need a stealthy plane able to attack SAM sites effectively..

Well, then the F-35 is already out of the running. 2 1k pound bombs are not going to engage a SAM site effectively. Particularly if it's one of those dispersed mobile launcher systems.

It's also fairly useless against aircraft with only two anti-air missiles before it's out.

Honestly, in a WW3 scenario it doesn't matter much what plane you use for CAS (as long as it can suppress enemy ground troops it will be fine). There will be so many targets that any CAS is just going to be a drop on a glowing plate.
What you really want in such a scenario is to just focus on the high-profile targets. You know, big powerful ground radars, command centers, supply depots, that sort of stuff. You aren't going to be making much of a dent in an armoured or infantry division with aircraft (because it is thousands of heavily defended targets), but you can harass and impede that division very effectively by taking out the infrastructure it relies on. And for that job, you really want a F-35 rather than an A-10, because the F-35's stealth gives it a chance of slipping through the enemy's air defense networks. An A-10 on the other hand is 99% likely to get shot down by interceptors, because it is so slow (and modern air defense systems can't be fooled anymore by staying low, on which the A-10 relied for stealth when it was first introduced).
The A-10 is a great plane that definitely has a clear purpose in the Air Force, but it is not fighting in a hypothetical WW3. Rather the purpose of the A-10 is to be a highly reliable, cost-effective support platform in a medium to low threat environment.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Honestly, in a WW3 scenario it doesn't matter much what plane you use for CAS (as long as it can suppress enemy ground troops it will be fine). There will be so many targets that any CAS is just going to be a drop on a glowing plate.
What you really want in such a scenario is to just focus on the high-profile targets. You know, big powerful ground radars, command centers, supply depots, that sort of stuff. You aren't going to be making much of a dent in an armoured or infantry division with aircraft (because it is thousands of heavily defended targets), but you can harass and impede that division very effectively by taking out the infrastructure it relies on. And for that job, you really want a F-35 rather than an A-10, because the F-35's stealth gives it a chance of slipping through the enemy's air defense networks. An A-10 on the other hand is 99% likely to get shot down by interceptors, because it is so slow (and modern air defense systems can't be fooled anymore by staying low, on which the A-10 relied for stealth when it was first introduced).
The A-10 is a great plane that definitely has a clear purpose in the Air Force, but it is not fighting in a hypothetical WW3. Rather the purpose of the A-10 is to be a highly reliable, cost-effective support platform in a medium to low threat environment.

The F-35 does not carry enough firepower, using stealth, to take out any of the above. Not even infrastructure. So, let it slip on through, it's not going to do enough to make it a threat.

The F-35 could fly support for a B-2, though. In that case the F-35 doesn't need to carry the ordnance to take out the hard target, but rather anti-aircraft missiles to protect the B-2 from any intercept that manages to find it.

You wouldn't want to support the B-2 with anything but a stealth fighter, after all, as that would sacrifice the stealth of the B-2 itself.

How can a company with so much experience and so powerful as Lockheed, working for the US government, with so much money, be
1/ That late
2/ be that overcosted ?
Really interested in the F35 story !

 godardc wrote:
How can a company with so much experience and so powerful as Lockheed, working for the US government, with so much money, be
1/ That late
2/ be that overcosted ?
Really interested in the F35 story !

The list of military projects that delivered on specifications, on time and within budget is painfully short (if it's ever happened in modern times).

If you're lucky you end up delivering 1 out of 3.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The F-35 could fly support for a B-2, though. In that case the F-35 doesn't need to carry the ordnance to take out the hard target, but rather anti-aircraft missiles to protect the B-2 from any intercept that manages to find it.

You wouldn't want to support the B-2 with anything but a stealth fighter, after all, as that would sacrifice the stealth of the B-2 itself.

The issue here being the max anti aircraft missiles the F-35 can carry while stealth is max 4. And it can't dog fight, so it's bad at this role too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 godardc wrote:
How can a company with so much experience and so powerful as Lockheed, working for the US government, with so much money, be
1/ That late
2/ be that overcosted ?
Really interested in the F35 story !

The list of military projects that delivered on specifications, on time and within budget is painfully short (if it's ever happened in modern times).

If you're lucky you end up delivering 1 out of 3.

This is actually true of only the US, and that's due to how the US bidding process works. though it has been spreading to NATO allies.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The F-35 could fly support for a B-2, though. In that case the F-35 doesn't need to carry the ordnance to take out the hard target, but rather anti-aircraft missiles to protect the B-2 from any intercept that manages to find it.

You wouldn't want to support the B-2 with anything but a stealth fighter, after all, as that would sacrifice the stealth of the B-2 itself.

The issue here being the max anti aircraft missiles the F-35 can carry while stealth is max 4. And it can't dog fight, so it's bad at this role too.

Don't understand how this discussion has gone on this long... Baron is apparently smarter then all of the smartest heads of Air Forces of the most advanced countries in the world, who keep buying this aircraft. No one should bother arguing this with him anymore.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Honestly, in a WW3 scenario it doesn't matter much what plane you use for CAS (as long as it can suppress enemy ground troops it will be fine). There will be so many targets that any CAS is just going to be a drop on a glowing plate.
What you really want in such a scenario is to just focus on the high-profile targets. You know, big powerful ground radars, command centers, supply depots, that sort of stuff. You aren't going to be making much of a dent in an armoured or infantry division with aircraft (because it is thousands of heavily defended targets), but you can harass and impede that division very effectively by taking out the infrastructure it relies on. And for that job, you really want a F-35 rather than an A-10, because the F-35's stealth gives it a chance of slipping through the enemy's air defense networks. An A-10 on the other hand is 99% likely to get shot down by interceptors, because it is so slow (and modern air defense systems can't be fooled anymore by staying low, on which the A-10 relied for stealth when it was first introduced).
The A-10 is a great plane that definitely has a clear purpose in the Air Force, but it is not fighting in a hypothetical WW3. Rather the purpose of the A-10 is to be a highly reliable, cost-effective support platform in a medium to low threat environment.

Except that's not a CAS mission you're describing. That's deep strike and interdiction, and the A-10 was never really considered for that mission. That's Tornado, F-111, and F-15E mission. The F-35 can do a halfway job of that mission too... halfway because two small bombs means it's probably going to take five or six to carry the payload of a single alternative.

That's why the F-35's primary mission should be rolling back the anti-air so other platforms can take advantage of the opening and carry in several times a stealthy F-35's bombload to do the job.

The F-35 is going to be a magnificent recon aircraft, and vital in the wild weasel/iron hand mission. Beyond that, if it remains stealthy it lacks the weapons loadout for a real combat mission, and if it really loads up on weapons it's not even remotely stealthy anymore.... at which point, why risk it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The F-35 could fly support for a B-2, though. In that case the F-35 doesn't need to carry the ordnance to take out the hard target, but rather anti-aircraft missiles to protect the B-2 from any intercept that manages to find it.

You wouldn't want to support the B-2 with anything but a stealth fighter, after all, as that would sacrifice the stealth of the B-2 itself.

F-22 would be a better choice due to extra range and ordinance. Of course, it's a rather moot point; for any tactical aircraft to reach a truly strategic target you'd send a B-2 after, you'd also have to send in a decidedly UNstealthy KC-135 or KC-10.... and I don't expect that to end well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The F-35 could fly support for a B-2, though. In that case the F-35 doesn't need to carry the ordnance to take out the hard target, but rather anti-aircraft missiles to protect the B-2 from any intercept that manages to find it.

You wouldn't want to support the B-2 with anything but a stealth fighter, after all, as that would sacrifice the stealth of the B-2 itself.

The issue here being the max anti aircraft missiles the F-35 can carry while stealth is max 4. And it can't dog fight, so it's bad at this role too.

Don't understand how this discussion has gone on this long... Baron is apparently smarter then all of the smartest heads of Air Forces of the most advanced countries in the world, who keep buying this aircraft. No one should bother arguing this with him anymore.

Sour grapes indeed.

 djones520 wrote:
Baron is apparently smarter then all of the smartest heads of Air Forces of the most advanced countries in the world, who keep buying this aircraft.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/blog/extended-interview-pierre-sprey

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

https://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-defence-f35/italy-says-wont-buy-more-f-35-fighter-jets-may-cut-existing-order-idUSKBN1JW28M


I can keep posting more links, but I think you get the point. Maybe I should explain why people are buying a gak plane to you?

NATO. The US has been pressuring it's NATO allies hard to help defray the costs of the F-35. However, those countries are starting to walk away from their orders, some buying Russian Su-57 or US F-18s instead.

There is also the issue that makes me question their sanity, the fact that the aircraft cannot be repaired without sending it back to the US, with Pentagon permission. Currently only Israel, which bought it's with US money, is allowed to repair it's own planes. Which may be an issue if things like this keep up:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/22/f-35-landing-gear-collapses-after-in-flight-emergency/

Military development often, heck always, has politicians mucking about with it. That’s why sometimes we get truly messed up projects that aren’t exactly what was needed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


NATO. The US has been pressuring it's NATO allies hard to help defray the costs of the F-35. However, those countries are starting to walk away from their orders, some buying Russian Su-57 or US F-18s instead.

There is also the issue that makes me question their sanity, the fact that the aircraft cannot be repaired without sending it back to the US, with Pentagon permission. Currently only Israel, which bought it's with US money, is allowed to repair it's own planes. Which may be an issue if things like this keep up:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/22/f-35-landing-gear-collapses-after-in-flight-emergency/

Countries that can't buy hundreds of frames also complain about perfectly good aircraft being forced to stay in the US for the training pool.

Denmark for example expects to keep 5 frames permanently stationed in the US (8 to start with, dropping down to 5 post 2027)

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/rapport-fra-udvalget-for-dimensionering-af-nyt-kampfly-2.pdf

Coming from a pool of 27 that's quite a lot.

Who's buying SU-57s anyway? I read not even the Russians will be manufacturing more than a few as glorified tech demonstrators and even then no one knows when engines will be ready.

jouso wrote:

Who's buying SU-57s anyway? I read not even the Russians will be manufacturing more than a few as glorified tech demonstrators and even then no one knows when engines will be ready.

After the debacle with the US Senate and Turkey's F-35s, the Turks are in talks to buy Su-57s instead.

The Russian Air Force will be manufacturing more than a few, but definitely not nearly as many as they were originally planning as the price has bloated way beyond original expectations. They currently have an initial order of just 12 planes (down from 70), but are expected to follow. The Russian Air Force hasn't lost its ambitions, the costs have just forced it to spread out the acquisition over a longer period. They are still cheaper than comparable American aircraft though, so it would be a good deal for Turkey which is not the kind of country that can afford to buy loads of overly expensive F-35s. Aside from Turkey, India is also highly interested in the Su-57 and has been closely involved in its development. There is a plan that Russia and India will eventually work together on jointly building an export variant for India. India is also working on a fifth-generation jet of its own, but its capabilities to pull that off are dubious at best (so far it only exists as a scale model).

The Su-57 is definitely more than just a glorified tech demonstration however. Even though it hasn't finished development since the engine that is being developed for it has suffered delays (the prototypes you see flying around use an upgraded Su-27 engine), the Su-57 has already seen combat in Syria.

Anyways, for countries with virtually non-existent defense budgets and air forces such as Denmark or the Netherlands, the F-35 program was a massive mistake. Instead of having around a hundred 4 or 4.5 generation jets they will now get only a handful of 5th generation jets with very low payload, who also have to stay in the US for maintenance and repair. Basically, their air forces already had limited capabilities, but now they have no capabilities at all. The Dutch Air Force will go from 61 jets to 37. And given that the F-35 can only carry 4 weapons whilst retaining stealth (and if you aren't retaining stealth, why aren't you flying an F-16?), that is not the kind of air force that can deliver a significant contribution to any conflict. Made worse by the fact that a significant number of those 37 will always be stationed in the Netherlands and the US, and therefore not available for deployment.
The F-35 is an excellent plane, it is just too expensive and too specialised to be useful to small air forces. The Dutch and the Danes would have been much better off with the Saab Gripen or an updated version of their existing F-16s.

We even told Norway that Gripen would be a much better choice and IIRC even their own documents agreed, but NATO politics took the upper hand.

Now we have this beauty from Israel.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-russian-made-anti-aircraft-141600170.html

" Israeli media reported that an Israeli F-35 had been damaged by a bird strike two weeks before (Google translation here). The plane reportedly landed safely, but the Israeli Air Force did admit that it wasn’t sure whether the plane will fly again. "

So... either the F-35 took severe damage from an outdated missile system, OR, it's so fragile that a single bird strike has damaged it so bad the Israelis don't know if it can be repaired.

Either way, not good news for the F-35 in the CAS mission...

 Vulcan wrote:
Now we have this beauty from Israel.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-russian-made-anti-aircraft-141600170.html

" Israeli media reported that an Israeli F-35 had been damaged by a bird strike two weeks before (Google translation here). The plane reportedly landed safely, but the Israeli Air Force did admit that it wasn’t sure whether the plane will fly again. "

So... either the F-35 took severe damage from an outdated missile system, OR, it's so fragile that a single bird strike has damaged it so bad the Israelis don't know if it can be repaired.

Either way, not good news for the F-35 in the CAS mission...

Actually, if you look at Israeli news sources on the incident, they say that the damage was minor and would be repaired within a few days. The missile story is probably just fake news. The F-35's stealth may not be as great as is sometimes claimed, but it is definitely good enough to fool ancient radar technology from half a century ago. No 1960's missile is realistically going to hit a F-35.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
[but it is definitely good enough to fool ancient radar technology from half a century ago. No 1960's missile is realistically going to hit a F-35.

Actually if it's Radar is outside X band and shorter RADAR wavelengths, the F-35 is not stealth. So, actually it's more likely for an older system to lock onto it, since old style RADARs worked at longer wavelengths.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
[but it is definitely good enough to fool ancient radar technology from half a century ago. No 1960's missile is realistically going to hit a F-35.

Actually if it's Radar is outside X band and shorter RADAR wavelengths, the F-35 is not stealth. So, actually it's more likely for an older system to lock onto it, since old style RADARs worked at longer wavelengths.

Aye. Low-wavelength radars can detect a stealth fighter. But it is just detecting. You can't get a lock for a missile that way (the signal is not strong enough). So no, an old radar system can never lock onto a F-35, though it could be potentially used to direct interceptors armed with guns and heat-seeking missiles to secure a kill, if the stealth fighter is detected early enough to allow the interceptors to take off and intercept.
Also, you could potentially get a lock on stealth fighters by combining multiple low-wavelength radar signatures from multiple radars, though such a system is expensive and difficult to deploy because of the massive size of the radars.
Anyways while the newest SAM systems might be a threat, it is well beyond the capability of SAM systems from the 1960's.