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.

The fact that it was used so much more per airframe then every other aircraft just shows how great it is Seaward. If it wasn't such an exceptional CAS platform, they wouldn't be using it at a 2:1 ration per airframe then they do every other aircraft.

 djones520 wrote:
The fact that it was used so much more per airframe then every other aircraft just shows how great it is Seaward. If it wasn't such an exceptional CAS platform, they wouldn't be using it at a 2:1 ration per airframe then they do every other aircraft.

Actually, I think use/inventory ratio is still topped by the Harrier.

And it also depends entirely on how you're generating your numbers. Non-E F-15s are considered CAS-capable, for example, but they didn't get a ton of CAS time. The B-1B also gets factored into that, kind of hilariously.

 Seaward wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.

Yeah. As I said, he's not the designer of the F-15. He's barely the co-designer of the F-16.

And he and Boyd were wrong. F-16s are meat on the table for F-15s. There's a reason the F-15 has the best air-to-air kill ratio of any aircraft in history (something like 250/0); it turns out maneuverability and energy retention aren't all you need to be an effective air superiority aircraft. Avionics and BVR weapons systems play a huge role.

One could argue that they were actually correct... the F-16 ended up getting the same gold-plating type deal that the F-15 had and the final product ended up being drastically different from what they originally wanted to design. Boyd himself was, much like the F-15, disgusted with the result. Its discussed in his biography/biographies.

Abrams is 1 foot longer and wider than an M48 patton

Without the governor the Abrams can reach a top speed of 105 mph, With it it tops out on road at 45 mph. 15mph faster than the patton
During desert storm the Abrams crews were told to slow down because they were outpacing their supply chain.

The purpose of any MBT is to engauge other Tanks...

This is not WW2 the main weapon is not the machinegun anymore.

I don't believe anything you just stated was factually correct.

Hull Length of the M60 Patton (because that would be the closest equivalent of the Patton to the Abrams) - 22'-9"
Hull Length of the M1 Abrams - 26'-2"

Width of the M60 Patton - 11'-11"
Width of the M1 Abrams - 12'

Top Speed of the M1 Abrams with Governor - 45mph over improved surface
Top Speed of the M1 Abrams without Governor - 60mph over improved surface, severe damage to the drivetrain and injury to crew likely
Top Speed of the M60 Patton - 35mph over improved surface

During Desert Storm the armored formations almost outran their supply lines because nobody had anticipated how quickly they would be able to move due to a lack of resistance, not because they were unaware of what the rate of advance of an M1 Abrams was. Correlation does not equal causation.

The purpose of armor, as per the Army's own Armored Warfare Doctrine, is not to oppose enemy tanks, and even in WW2 the tanks primary weapon was not the machine gun, and in any case, for much of recent history American (and British) armor has been deployed in Iraq (and to a much more limited extent, Afghanistan) to support infantry and counterinsurgency operations, not to fight enemy armored columns. Beyond that, modern Armored Warfare Doctrine very much promotes the concept of a combined arms approach to warfare and the utilization of armored units to support infantry, as well as to utilize armor to achieve breakthrough against the enemy at a concentrated point. Besides, both the M60 and the M1 carry HE rounds specifically to handle enemy infantry

Beyond that, you ignore the fact that the Abrams is roughly 20 tons heavier than an M60 (which severely limits its ability to utilize existing road/bridge infrastructure), more logistically intensive, more expensive, and has only rarely been used by the US in the role it was actually intended for (although in those circumstances it was quite successful at it).

I'll take What is an IFV? for 200

An Infantry Fighting Vehicle? You mean those things that are typically used in units known as 'mechanized infantry' in order to help the infantry keep pace with the armored units they are typically fielded in conjunction with?

Lets continue Pierre sprey compairsons with our own versions

Lets not, so that I don't have to point out the obvious logical fallacy you have utilized which basically disqualifies the validity of your argument.

But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down.

During Gulf War 1 it didn't seem like they had too many issues operating in areas defended by SAM sites, provided that there were Wild Weasels around to support them. Its come up a couple times in the various memoirs I've read (mostly those of F-16 pilots mind you). In any case, that all depends, I think, on the ability to provide effective CAS from altitude which is what they would *like* the F-35 to do. Considering that 5 US operators were recently killed by a high-altitude CAS strike delivered by a B-1 a couple weeks back, supposedly due to inability of the crew to accurately determine the location of said operators, I don't put much faith in the concept. The B-1 is a multi-crew vehicle equipped with the same Sniper pod that every other coalition aircraft has. If they couldn't figure it out, what makes you think a lone F-35 pilot will be able to do the same while multitasking? A-10s and F-16s both have reported taking small arms fire while going in 'low and slow' (or as low and slow as possible in the case of the F-16), and I'm sure the same can be said for F-15E and F/A-18 crews, if the F-35 has to drop that low, I am 100% positive that the same will be said to them, they are stealthy, but that doesn't matter at all to the Mk I standard issue eyeball.

Beyond that, I've not heard of any instances where they weren't used over concerns of survivability. Publicly available information seems to indicate that, if anything, they are overused considering they have provided a number of sorties out of proportion with the actual number of airframes available/relative to other aircraft operating in theater.

Once the air was sanitized, yes. We could'v used old A-1 Skyraiders to the same effect. (And we more or less will be, once the Light Air Support program and the A-29 get back on track.)

If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The fact that it was used so much more per airframe then every other aircraft just shows how great it is Seaward. If it wasn't such an exceptional CAS platform, they wouldn't be using it at a 2:1 ration per airframe then they do every other aircraft.

Actually, I think use/inventory ratio is still topped by the Harrier.

And it also depends entirely on how you're generating your numbers. Non-E F-15s are considered CAS-capable, for example, but they didn't get a ton of CAS time. The B-1B also gets factored into that, kind of hilariously.

If by hilariously, you mean to the detriment of our own personnel, then yes. Also the B-52 and the B-2 have been used to provide CAS strikes in the past.

chaos0xomega wrote:
One could argue that they were actually correct... the F-16 ended up getting the same gold-plating type deal that the F-15 had and the final product ended up being drastically different from what they originally wanted to design. Boyd himself was, much like the F-15, disgusted with the result. Its discussed in his biography/biographies.

Not really. An F-16 with worse avionics and no AMRAAM capability doesn't exactly scream air dominance. It screams, "We're pretty sure those guys in flight suits still fight like it's World War II."

During Gulf War 1 it didn't seem like they had too many issues operating in areas defended by SAM sites, provided that there were Wild Weasels around to support them.

The same would be true of F-4U Corsairs.

In any case, that all depends, I think, on the ability to provide effective CAS from altitude which is what they would *like* the F-35 to do. Considering that 5 US operators were recently killed by a high-altitude CAS strike delivered by a B-1 a couple weeks back, supposedly due to inability of the crew to accurately determine the location of said operators, I don't put much faith in the concept. The B-1 is a multi-crew vehicle equipped with the same Sniper pod that every other coalition aircraft has. If they couldn't figure it out, what makes you think a lone F-35 pilot will be able to do the same while multitasking?

The fact that the B-1B isn't the only alternative, and Hornets/Rhinos/Vipers/Strike Eagles have all been doing CAS for the last ten years. Seriously, 80% of all CAS in OEF/OIF were done by something other than A-10s, if we go by the numbers above. Continuing to pretend like it's the only viable option is starting to border on the ludicrous.

Lancers would never be my first choice for a CAS hop. Their crews don't train for them nearly as much as everybody else, they fly a completely different profile that doesn't lend itself well to the mission, etc.

And the Sniper pod doesn't do all that much for not hitting your own guys if the TACP on the ground doesn't have what they need to get the video down.

A-10s and F-16s both have reported taking small arms fire while going in 'low and slow' (or as low and slow as possible in the case of the F-16), and I'm sure the same can be said for F-15E and F/A-18 crews, if the F-35 has to drop that low, I am 100% positive that the same will be said to them, they are stealthy, but that doesn't matter at all to the Mk I standard issue eyeball.

Getting downed by small arms fire is a one-in-a-million thing. Basing our fleet requirements around the possibility is a bit like using the lottery as your retirement plan.

Beyond that, I've not heard of any instances where they weren't used over concerns of survivability. Publicly available information seems to indicate that, if anything, they are overused considering they have provided a number of sorties out of proportion with the actual number of airframes available/relative to other aircraft operating in theater.

It depends on the time frame you're looking at. They weren't used at all in the opening stages of either Iraq or Afghanistan, at least not on anything even kind of defended. They saw a lot of use up until 2006, when the F-16 massively took over in the "most-used fixed-wing CAS platform" category.

I don't normally agree with Hagel, but he was spot on when he said, "The A-10 is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses."

If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.

That's incorrect.

If by hilariously, you mean to the detriment of our own personnel, then yes. Also the B-52 and the B-2 have been used to provide CAS strikes in the past.

Just about everything has. Which, again, doesn't play well to the, "Oh my God, only the A-10 can do it!" crowd.

And no, that's not what I meant. Pointing out one instance of a B-1B doing blue on blue isn't proof of anything. The A-10's had its share of friendly fire incidents as well. Hell, there's video on YouTube of some of them.

If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.

That's incorrect.

Cite your sources please, as I double checked this from a few different sources just to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering. The current plan is to acquire 20 aircraft for the Afghani AF.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/02/dn-super-tucano-wins-afghanistan-light-air-support-bid-022713/

A new development.

http://www.latimes.com/business/aerospace/la-fi-f35-fighter-jet-fire-20140623-story.html

At least the guys in the plane were fine. Always a good thing to read.

Hopefully its not a design flaw...

Also, interesting, the 33FW's vice is a Navy Captain.

A question to some of the jet-heads here if I may!

How do the F-22 and F-35 compare to some of the international competition in their respective roles?

So, for example
- The Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale
- Sukhoi SU-35 and Sukhoi PAK
- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)

 Pacific wrote:

- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)

Not sure about the others, but I'm VERY sure that Japan doesn't have anything on the drawing board, since they buy a few of the US fighters and maintain a small number of craft in keeping with their WW2 treaty.

There are a couple of Japanese jet fighters of their own design, mostly used as patrol craft, and reading about it some combined Mitsubishi/McDonald Douglas projects of modified F-15s and F-16s.

And a 5th generation fighter in the works. Here we go.. knew I wasn't going nuts..!
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1084

Japan has substantially increased its military spending over the past few years, and Prime Minister Abe is really pushing for a reversal of the post-WW2 treaties. The way that China is expanding its sphere of influence in that part of the world, I can imagine the US probably not doing that much to stop them, and support what is now a trusted ally.

Pacific wrote:A question to some of the jet-heads here if I may!

How do the F-22 and F-35 compare to some of the international competition in their respective roles?

So, for example
- The Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale
- Sukhoi SU-35 and Sukhoi PAK
- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)

The F-22 and F-35 are better. Everything except the PAK-FA's 4th/4.5th generation. And the PAK-FA is kinematically impressive, but might not even make the Very Low Observable designation, if the Indians are to be believed.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)

Not sure about the others, but I'm VERY sure that Japan doesn't have anything on the drawing board, since they buy a few of the US fighters and maintain a small number of craft in keeping with their WW2 treaty.

JSDF is actually a very well established Air Force, probably the best Far Eastern (not counting Australia in this) one in terms of equipment and training.

They have over 200 F-15's, about 90 F-2's (defense based F-16's) and about 80 F-4's. That's just their combat aircraft, they've got very good recon and logistic capabilities as well being able to conduct air refueling, anti-submarine ops, early warning and battlefield control. In terms of training, when I was stationed at Misawa their Air Wing of F-4's and F-2's was in the air just as often as our F-16's, so they certainly don't lack in terms of flight hours either.