Gordon England to Kill F-35A-project

[Guest pfcem]

Personally i don't so much see the logic. With the amount of airframes the USAF is planning to buy, the costs in R&D would be realised over the production run. I read recently that the C version would be around $15 mil more expensive than the purely land based variant.

 

As long as they buy more than say 130 (which theres no question they will), then it will end up being cheaper than the $2 bill than they'll spend in R&D.

 

Or am i missing something ?

248871[/snapback]

I agree (though the last numbers I saw indicate the cost difference to be $10-15million) that the additional cost of procuring F-35Cs for the USAF would far outweight any R&D savings.

[gewing]

I've always liked the thought of an ASF-14 multirole, and a small stealthy multirole* Hi-Lo mix. This combination compliments each other, and would be decent for both carrier based and land based combat aircraft.

Course, it would have had to have been in the works in the early 90's for it to be applicable now...

*Think single engined F-23, wide spectrum stealth and supercruise instead of optimized for ground attack like JSF

248870[/snapback]

 

 

 

iirc the JSF will have limited supercruise, and to be honest, I don't think any airforce really would want to take it on in the air.

 

It may not be an F-22, but it will be pretty capable. I remember being AMAZED by the diagram someone posted showing the external stores positions and capabilities of the JSF. SURE, that will be for "non stealthy" situations, but it will still be usefull.

 

If nothing else, imagine the JSFs launching externally carried standoff munitions to engage air defense points, then stealthily following them in.

 

I wonder if I still have that drawing? ok, found it.

 

Though in some ways I liked the Boeing design better, I think the IRST system of the Chosen plane is a far more general purpose system. and a stealthy aircraft that can pick out a target by IRST and then launch an Amraam at it is NOT something to scoff at. IMHO, of course.

[Samson]

I just wish that for once a weapons system program would run smoothly.

 

I hope UAV development of the future is a bit faster and slicker given no human factory to worry about.

[Guest pfcem]

I just wish that for once a weapons system program would run smoothly.

249107[/snapback]

Me too.

 

Unfortunately that would require removing to many "safeguards" from the developement/procurement loop.

 

 

 

I hope UAV development of the future is a bit faster and slicker given no human factory to worry about.

249107[/snapback]

I am sure UCAVs will have their own problems/issues that will prevent their developement from running smoothly.

[Red Ant]

Why?  It is optimised to be a fighter.  What is needed is a more jack-of-all trades aircraft capable to fulfilling several roles equally well.

248839[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah sure, pour billions worth of taxpayer money and several decades of developmental work into the project and then cancel it just when it's about to pay off. Absolutely BRILLIANT!!

Edited November 22, 2005 by Red Ant

[FlyingCanOpener]

Yeah sure, pour billions worth of taxpayer money and several decades of developmentary work into the project and then cancel it just when it's about to pay off. Absolutely BRILLIANT!!

249578[/snapback]

 

We did it to the Comanche, why not now?

[Red Ant]

We did it to the Comanche, why not now?

249583[/snapback]

 

Because it's stupid?

[Samson]

I would tend to agree.

 

There seem to be no major flaws with the F35 (or F22) for that matter. They seem to work and are near fruition!!!

 

To cancell them now is not a good idea.

 

To buy last gen fighters when the next gen are available is not a good idea either.

 

Comanche had problems, V22 has problems, cancell the programs with problems.

 

But for the love of all that is Holy, at least buy the weapons that work!!!!

 

These fighter are going to be the last fighters to be developed with a human (at least a likely senario) and need to last a long time. Lets just buy the damn things, sell off the older equipment and move on!!!!

 

I am still a bit skeptical though on how the F35 is suposed to replace the A10....

 

I would like to see a more A10 like aircraft, but that may be the realm of a UAV soon enough?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Because it's stupid?

249587[/snapback]

 

The question was rhetorical. Should have added a ...

[PanzerLeo]

I am still a bit skeptical though on how the F35 is suposed to replace the A10....

 

I would like to see a more A10 like aircraft, but that may be the realm of a UAV soon enough?

249593[/snapback]

 

I totally agree on the first, but definately disagree with the second. The A-10 excells at Close Air Support (CAS) missions. CAS is a delicate process between a pilot and a Forward Air Controller (FAC) or Joint Terminal Air Controller (JTAC). take one of the two out.......no CAS. UAV's might well be able to perform strike missions soon (Air Interdiction), but CAS.......not yet, and not in the near future.

[Guest pfcem]

I totally agree on the first, but definately disagree with the second. The A-10 excells at Close Air Support (CAS) missions. CAS is a delicate process between a pilot and a Forward Air Controller (FAC) or Joint Terminal Air Controller (JTAC). take one of the two out.......no CAS. UAV's might well be able to perform strike missions soon (Air Interdiction), but CAS.......not yet, and not in the near future.

249599[/snapback]

I agree, UCAVs should be able to perform strikes on known, fixed targets but proper CAS requires a cooperative effort. UCAVs are a long, long way off from being able to detection & deferentiate targets well enough for proper CAS.

[Chris Werb]

UCAVs are already delivering ordnance on targets - even quite small targets in built up areas in support of troops in contact. If you arbitrarily define CAS to include a traditional FAC and an armed plane with a pilot in it, sure, UCAVs are not providing CAS and never will.

 

What matters are timely and effective on-target effects. Traditional CAS has been going away for a long time, thanks to a combination of extreme risk aversion and the deployment of longer ranged sensors and weapons that don't require the targeting or launch platforms to be close to the target. Highly responsive and accurate artillery systems have also made CAS less necessary.

[PanzerLeo]

What matters are timely and effective on-target effects. Traditional CAS has been going away for a long time, thanks to a combination of extreme risk aversion and the deployment of longer ranged sensors and weapons that don't require the targeting or launch platforms to be close to the target.  Highly responsive and accurate artillery systems have also made CAS less necessary.

249682[/snapback]

 

CAS is the projection of Airpower on the ground, while friendly forces are nearby. Your statement that traditional CAS has been going away is totally off target, because: Read reports from OIF, OEF and OP Anaconda. CAS is the ground units best hope when the sh*t hits the fan. Also look at missions like ISAF and SFIR: CAS is important, because you do not know when the enemy strikes, or even who the enemy is. The main reasons for detailed integration and coordination of ground forces manouevre and airstrikes, is that an aircraft has a really hard time figuring out who is what, and where.

risk aversion? Is OIF risk aversion, or do ppl want to stay alive during the fight?

long range sensors and standof weapons? They cannot support a batallion on the ground.

[Talyn]

One of the reasons there is a cost difference between the F-35A (Air Force) model and the F-35C (Navy) model is simple economics. The planned buy for the "A" (~1,300+) is much higher than the planned buy of the "C" (~400). With economy of scale costs being much lower when you produce alot vs. when you produce only a few. That is one of the reasons why the F/A-22 per unit cost is so high, since the production numbers have decreased from the number planned to replace the F-15C. That all being said, by standardizing on the "C" model and having a production run of ~1,700 for the USA + more for foreign buyers the ~10-15 mil per unit cost difference should be reduced significantly. Plus maintenance & spares costs should go down.

 

IMO the "A" model is the best to drop since it has lesser range & payload capability than the "C". Plus, the "A's" performance would decline more over time since all aircraft gain weight as they are modified & it has a smaller wing than the "C".

 

The VSTOL "B" serves a distinct role that could not be done by either the A or C models. It will inherently have lower performance but that's the trade off for VSTOL ops in the Marine CAS role and to operate off of small carriers.

 

Regards,

 

Talyn

[Chris Werb]

CAS is the projection of Airpower on the ground, while friendly forces are nearby. Your statement that traditional CAS has been going away is totally off target, because: Read reports from OIF, OEF and OP Anaconda. CAS is the ground units best hope when the sh*t hits the fan. Also look at missions like ISAF and SFIR: CAS is important, because you do not know when the enemy strikes, or even who the enemy is. The main reasons for detailed integration and coordination of ground forces manouevre and airstrikes, is that an aircraft has a really hard time figuring out who is what, and where.

risk aversion? Is OIF risk aversion, or do ppl want to stay alive during the fight?

long range sensors and standof weapons? They cannot support a batallion on the ground.

250115[/snapback]

 

By and large, what we're seeing is not traditional CAS requiring traditonal CAS planes. You can put a bomb right where you want it now from virtually any platform and that platform doesn't have to be heavily armoured and eyeball-to-eyeball with the enemy.

 

CAS is also not usually the first call when the shit hits the fan because manned planes of any description generally aren't where you want them and (with a few exceptions) hang about for very long. Artillery of one sort or another is far more likely to take the first call unless you're talking exceptional circumstances like SF up some mountain valley in XXXXstan - longer ranged, more accurate, more deployable artillery systems are fast eroding even that niche. When artillery can't take the call, a JDAM can just as easily come from a loitering B-52. UCAVs can outloiter even the B-52 in the real world. I don't recall complaints that 'standoff weapons' like JDAM failed to support battalions on the ground. OTOH I do recall A-10s and F/A-18s killing the wrong people.

[JOE BRENNAN]

By and large, what we're seeing is not traditional CAS requiring traditonal CAS planes.  You can put a bomb right where you want it now from virtually any platform and that platform doesn't have to be heavily armoured and eyeball-to-eyeball with the enemy.

250232[/snapback]

I agree with you. The reason CAS in the past required a manned a/c was limitation in the system for communicating the target coordinates from the real targetter, the foward observer/FAC, to the weapon's deliverer in case of a plane. Due to those limitations the CAS pilot was forced to separately acquire the target (by seeing it based on FAC instruction, or some marker for it like a smoke munition). OTOH a workable system existed from late 19th or early 20th century to directly communicate target coordinates to artillery units, and so nobody says indirect artillery fire doesn't work, the gunners have to also see the target.

 

Now it's becoming more and more workable for the observer to determine and communicate target coordinates directly to an attacking plane and its weapons which now can strike known coordinates precisely. This makes CAS a relatively UCAV friendly mission in fact. On interdiction missions behind FEBA where the plane is supposed to find non-fixed targets itself, an unmanned platform is still limited; likewise air combat; but neither forever probably. To the extent a CAS plane feeds back a bird's eye view to the FAC as a recon asset, directly sending the imagery to the ground is better than verbal descrpption, and again amenable to an unmanned platform, though it's the trend for both manned and unmanned.

 

On Iraq it's been said a couple of times (or quote from web articles) that A-10's are getting used a lot there: not so, recently there were no A-10's in Iraq, and one among many assets during active phase. Until the ongoing refit of A-10's to carry JDAM and fully integrate the Litening pod, it's a less capable CAS platform in many scenarios than fast jets w/ JDAM and advanced E/O pods.

 

Joe

Edited November 23, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[EchoFiveMike]

CAS is the projection of Airpower on the ground, while friendly forces are nearby. Your statement that traditional CAS has been going away is totally off target, because: Read reports from OIF, OEF and OP Anaconda. CAS is the ground units best hope when the sh*t hits the fan. Also look at missions like ISAF and SFIR: CAS is important, because you do not know when the enemy strikes, or even who the enemy is. The main reasons for detailed integration and coordination of ground forces manouevre and airstrikes, is that an aircraft has a really hard time figuring out who is what, and where.

risk aversion? Is OIF risk aversion, or do ppl want to stay alive during the fight?

long range sensors and standof weapons? They cannot support a batallion on the ground.

250115[/snapback]

 

 

For me and the rest of my Bn, CAS was a complete and utter non-player. I would offer that in an insurgency in general, CAS is a wasted effort for 95% of engagements. Unless you are conducting an assault on known savage hideouts, CAS will never be on station when needed unless you're willing to burn prohibitive amounts of money on fuel and maintainance.

 

And our artillery is among the world's worst hardware. And it's control measures are utter crap right now too. S/F....Ken M

[PanzerLeo]

Consider the following:

Arty is very useful in a full-scale-war situation. The attack on Iraq was over pretty soon. But the "occupation" is taking much longer. Arty is too indiscriminate for this situation.

 

A JDAM is a great weapon, IF you are able to produce a very exact coordinate of the target AND the enemy decides to remain stationary.

 

In current ops, arty is of little help, and JDAM has many limitations. You now either need an LGB ground-lased, buddy-lased or self-lased. preferably one that is not too big (mk 82)

[EchoFiveMike]

Consider the following:

Arty is very useful in a full-scale-war situation. The attack on Iraq was over pretty soon. But the "occupation" is taking much longer. Arty is too indiscriminate for this situation.

 

A JDAM is a great weapon, IF you are able to produce a very exact coordinate of the target AND the enemy decides to remain stationary.

 

In current ops, arty is of little help, and JDAM has many limitations. You now either need an LGB ground-lased, buddy-lased or self-lased. preferably one that is not too big (mk 82)

250354[/snapback]

 

 

Arty is too indiscriminate?? And a 2000lb JDAM or other aerial delivered ordnance isn't?? With the exception of MOUT, where artillery effects are often of limited use, artillery worked great for us, if only there would have been fewer asshats with approving authority. Who actually schleps a laser designator still? Only FAC's, pretty much, and they're never in the right place at the right time. So you back to delivery based on a mark combined with a talk on. All of which assumes you even have a bird on station, which is damned near never.

 

Generating a target grid is simple, everyone has GPS, down to fireteam leaders. Call your location and a polar plot, the COC can Falconview a target grid from that in 10 seconds, we did it all the time. If you have those LSR Thermals it's point and click.

 

Our biggest issue was ALWAYS time on target. Nothing came remotely close to artillery or mortars, and those were hamstrung by stupid procedures. Unless you were planning a big blue arrow operation(company sized or larger) and could schedule aircraft via JTAR, you didn't have CAS, period. The only exception was whne the Army had Apaches running up and down Tampa, then you could put up a flare and get all sorts of aircraft, and assuming they didn't kill you first, you could have them kill the enemy. But that was a happy coincidence, not something you plan on. S/F.....Ken M

[Rubberneck]

A-10's are used in A-stan still, but AH-64 are the aerial weapon of choice here. Loiter time and all that...

[PanzerLeo]

Your experiences are interesting, but I think we are not on the exact same subject here.

You seem to talk from a large operation's point of view. In that case, I agree that it's much easier and more reliable to simply have arty standing by at your command. However, I have more experience conducting smaller ops. And usually, there's no fire battery 10 miles behind my position to support me. The fact that you almost never had aircraft when you needed them says nothing about the effectivenes of CAS, but more about the planning and availability of assets in the operation. I can ensure you, that for your negative experiences with CAS, there are 10ppl with very positive ones.

 

Arty is too indiscriminate??  And a 2000lb JDAM or other aerial delivered ordnance isn't??  ...........

250365[/snapback]

A JDAM is not always 2000lbs, it can be a 500lbs mk82 as well. Or even inert if you wish. The point is that a single bomb neutralizes an enemy strongpoint, but not the rest. Very little collateral damage compared to a mortar platoon's fire-for-effect.

 

 

Generating a target grid is simple, everyone has GPS, down to fireteam leaders.  Call your location and a polar plot, the COC can Falconview a target grid from that in 10 seconds, we did it all the time. .........

 

250365[/snapback]

generating a target grid is NOT simple. Not if you want to do it accurately, anyway. When using arty, you can afford the grid to be off by 100-300ft. Adjust fire, right 50, add 100....fire for effect...and you're done.

A JDAM needs to be given an exact target grid. Miss an MBT by 50ft with a 2000lbs JDAM, an there's no effect on the target. There are numerous examples known (involving soft targets) where a near miss meant 1 JDAM wasted.

 

Again, i'd like to emphasize the need for less collateral damage, in peace support ops as well as full-scale war. After all, if you want to rebuild a country, there has to be something left over to rebuild! The local population will not welcome you to their home with open arms when you've just blown up their family. Even if you removed the evil dictator.

[Jim Martin]

Irony of ironies, the Marine Corps pioneered CAS in...insurgencies (the Banana Wars).

 

For me and the rest of my Bn, CAS was a complete and utter non-player.  I would offer that in an insurgency in general, CAS is a wasted effort for 95% of engagements. 

250301[/snapback]

[EchoFiveMike]

Irony of ironies, the Marine Corps pioneered CAS in...insurgencies (the Banana Wars).

Yeah, but that was back before SAM's and AAA and also back when planes (and pilots) didn't cost anything. And that was also back when you didn't have 100's of patrols in the field, all reliant upon firepower from supporting arms to get the job done with minimal casualties. Sure, we can still do things like that, but do we want to?

 

You seem to talk from a large operation's point of view. In that case, I agree that it's much easier and more reliable to simply have arty standing by at your command. However, I have more experience conducting smaller ops. And usually, there's no fire battery 10 miles behind my position to support me. The fact that you almost never had aircraft when you needed them says nothing about the effectivenes of CAS, but more about the planning and availability of assets in the operation. I can ensure you, that for your negative experiences with CAS, there are 10ppl with very positive ones.

 

Actually, small(sniper team is my experience) ops is where I want artillery support, because chances are I'm not going to be doing anything for a long time and having aircraft burning holes in the sky is hideously expensive, thus all the politicians get butt-hurt about spending the money, which means you don't have CAS available when you need it. This presumes you're not actually conducting a targeted raid, you're patrolling and looking for contact, which you may or may not make. Micro level or macro level, for fighting an insurgency, which is basically a giant "economy of force" exercise, I want something I can always have available but not always burning up giant amounts of money for zero gain. This damned near defines artillery. I agree, if you are conducting a set piece assault and need to hit a hard point target, then CAS is a better fit but that's a tiny fraction of the targets in an insurgency.

 

Lets look at facts about what we(the US) have available. There's 120k troops in Iraq, figure 1000 elements of all types outside the wire at any given point in time. You're going to have air on call for every one of those elements? And trust me, if it's not on call, dedicated to you, it's going to be a royal CF when the guns start going off because every level from Bn to Corps will start putting their thumb in the pie. BTDT. Sure, if you're TF626 and have EA-6B's, AC-130's and F15E's's on call 24/7 whenever you leave the wire, great, but realize that 99% of units don't have that level of support. Lots of rotary wing CAS is great, loved the Hell outta it, but it's fairly slow, has low loiter time and every hadji with a rifle shoots at them. During a company sized attack on a platoon patrol base Nov 12-13,2004, my Bn got two AH-1's shot to shit while they were conducting RWCAS in support of that PB. Look at Op Anaconda in A-stan as another example of the hazards of RWCAS.

 

A JDAM is not always 2000lbs, it can be a 500lbs mk82 as well. Or even inert if you wish. The point is that a single bomb neutralizes an enemy strongpoint, but not the rest. Very little collateral damage compared to a mortar platoon's fire-for-effect.

Airburst artillery/mortars has very little collateral damage compared to any air delivered ordnance, save perhaps Hellfire/ViperStrike. Collateral damage defined as shit that looks bad on TV and makes torpid folks on the homefront get all scared that we're hurting people. Locals(uninvolved) generally were nowhere to be found when it went down, so blowing the holy Hell out of the landscape was the only evidence that someething actually went on there.

 

generating a target grid is NOT simple. Not if you want to do it accurately, anyway. When using arty, you can afford the grid to be off by 100-300ft. Adjust fire, right 50, add 100....fire for effect...and you're done.

A JDAM needs to be given an exact target grid. Miss an MBT by 50ft with a 2000lbs JDAM, an there's no effect on the target. There are numerous examples known (involving soft targets) where a near miss meant 1 JDAM wasted.

 

Well thanks, you make my point for me. While we can disagree about the ease of generating accurate grids, I can agree that you need to be on target, and as you say, you can simply do a repeat with artillery. CAS has many more areas for a single point failure (plane, pilot, ordnance, comm, etc etc) . And none of this occurs in a vacuum. My supporting arms were always there to facilitate maneuver so I can close with and kill the savages. I submit this is the proper way to look at it. CAS is nice, works great when everything works properly. I offer that in combat, lots of shit goes south in a hurry, and that this isn't the place to add additional hassle to the guy in the fight,. which is why I favor artillery over CAS for fighting the fight we have now, which happens to be an insurgency. Which is drifted off the topic of the F35 and UCAV's. S/F....Ken M

[Chris Werb]

If CAS now equals JDAM, traditional CAS has pretty much gone away. You can hang a JDAM on most US fixed wing combat aircraft these days. If what you're willing to admit that we no longer need eyeballs in the cockpit most of the time, and you want one big bang a few metres from the target, you might as well give the mission to unitary GMLRS - which are already being used in Iraq.

[PanzerLeo]

If CAS now equals JDAM,

250696[/snapback]

 

It doesn't, mostly it means GBU-12.

 

There is of course a difference in both views, but both are understandable. When you've had no CAS when you need it, it s*cks donkeyballs. From my point of view, it's the job of specalists like me to prove you wrong when your unit is in the thick of it

 

Anyway, you're right.....we were talking about the F-35.......