hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
Sidenote to your sidenote: I offer that the laws that the DOJ/FBI are tasked to enforce regarding information protection are horribly out of date, and that Congress has no interest in changing them.
Replace the F-35 with . . . an updated Super Hornet ?
- Thread starter RDoug
- Start date
Sidenote to your sidenote: I offer that the laws that the DOJ/FBI are tasked to enforce regarding information protection are horribly out of date, and that Congress has no interest in changing them.
ryan1234
Desensitized Member
You're absolutely right. There is, in fact, a much bigger piece to US strategic posture with the F-35 in terms of operating concepts, foreign military sales, etc. Stories, or scripts, are used to sell nearly everything in Washington. However, trying to fit the objectively complex into a black and white cost analysis via story for the average person is nearly impossible. I don't think it necessarily takes a TS/SCI to understand how the F-35 really fits into the stable, but it sure takes a more comprehensive understanding of warfare, strategy, and international relations - something many armchair fighter pilots don't really care to cultivate. Don't get me wrong, there are problems in acquisitions, but some of the counter arguments against the F-35 are ridiculous at best.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Well the genpub only has articles like this to go by.
https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-st...r-be-ready-for-combat-852317be3368#.ja06sxdxa
ryan1234
Desensitized Member
My point was it may take a little more than a 500 word article...
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Ai...words=the+influence+of+air+power+upon+history
https://www.amazon.com/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-1972/dp/1591145198
https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Sc...words=the+structure+of+scientific+revolutions
https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-His...=1482800338&sr=1-1&keywords=strategy+freedman
http://chicagoboyz.net/blogfiles/OsingaBoydThesis.pdf
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Stick-Li...&qid=1482800456&sr=1-1&keywords=the+big+stick
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strate...d=1482800573&sr=1-3&keywords=strategy+luttwak
https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Air-P...482800626&sr=1-1&keywords=limits+of+air+power
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Well, this part of the general public read these articles besides several others:
https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/...s-against-multiple-a-4-aggressors-every-time/
and this:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...he-f-35-stealth-fighter-the-worlds-best-16790
and this:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/what-the-f-35-v-f-16-dogfight-really-means-think-pilots/
and this:
https://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/
and this:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...rs-controversial-dogfighting-report/81170580/
and:
PLANS for Australia’s next generation F-35 fighter jets to be tested against old A-10 attack jets have been criticized by a prestigious test pilot.
"While critics of the F-35 welcome a showdown with the purpose-built ground-attack A-10, US fighter pilot Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Wood doesn’t share the same enthusiasm.
As commander of the US Air Force’s 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron — a division tasked with developing new tactics for frontline fighters — Lt-Colonel Wood believes the showdown would not deliver any reasonable insights as results could be skewed.
“You run the risk of drawing unrealistic conclusions,” Lt-Colonel Wood toldCombat Aircraft.
According to the fighter pilot, the two jets have too many vast differences to make for a reasonable comparison — the A-10 is a slow and sturdy twin engine, while the F-35 is a fast and flimsy single-engine plane.
“When you try to have a comparative analysis of a single-mission platform like the A-10 against a platform like the F-35, which is fundamentally designed from the ground up to do something completely different,” he said.
“What I would say is that it’s very important to compare apples to apples.” To emphasize his point, Lt. Wood referred back to a 2015 report detailing a mock dogfight between an F-35 and F-16.
In the test, the nimble F-16 outperformed its sluggish, hi-tech opponent in offensive, defensive and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet. While admitting the F-16 dominated in maneuvering parameters of the test, Lt-Colonel Wood said it wasn’t an indication of failure for the F-35.
“The F-35 was built with stealth to be able to go places that no one else can go and to be lethal without anyone seeing it,” he said. “Those are two very different design points. So, what if I draw a conclusion that the F-35 can be [out maneuvered] by the F-16 — therefore the F-16 is better?
“Let’s throw in a couple enemy [surface-to-air missiles]. Then let’s see how the F-16 by itself does.” Lt-Colonel Wood said the findings of this test were prime example of why the two fighter jets should not be compared.
“You can design tests if you have inside knowledge to showcase strengths and weaknesses and abuse them to your own bias if you wanted to do a disingenuous comparative analysis,” he said.
While he will not be conducting the test between the A-10 and F-35, Lt-Colonel Wood predicted the findings will show both jets can successfully provide close air support, but would use different methods to achieve the goal.
In fact, the fighter pilot said the non-stealthy A-10 would require more risk as it would have fly very low in order to avoid being detected by enemy radars. “A-10 guys don’t like radar threats,” he said.
“We enjoy the tactics that they force, being down at 100 feet, but when you pop over that ridge line and you’re exposed, you are just sitting there trundling towards the target thinking, ‘Don’t find me. Don’t find me. Don’t find me. OK, good. Bombs are off. Let’s get the hell out of here’.”
Comparatively, the F-35’s speed and stealth would allow the fighter to attack from much higher in the sky. “I am able to locate and plot the threat relative to the target and can assess whether an attack is tactically feasible or not,” he said. “If it is, I can take out the target without the threat knowing I’m there and egress without being targeted.”
However, if testing for ground support of troops, Lt-Colonel Wood said the A-10 would have the advantage as it carries more than a thousand rounds of ammunition for its 30-millimetre cannon, while the F-35 carries just 181 rounds for its own 25-millimetre gun.
Australia has already purchased two Lockheed Martin-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with an additional 16 aircraft are expected to be purchased by 2019."
But what do I know, I am just a regular joe blow part of the general public.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/...s-against-multiple-a-4-aggressors-every-time/
and this:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...he-f-35-stealth-fighter-the-worlds-best-16790
and this:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/what-the-f-35-v-f-16-dogfight-really-means-think-pilots/
and this:
https://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/
and this:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...rs-controversial-dogfighting-report/81170580/
and:
PLANS for Australia’s next generation F-35 fighter jets to be tested against old A-10 attack jets have been criticized by a prestigious test pilot.
"While critics of the F-35 welcome a showdown with the purpose-built ground-attack A-10, US fighter pilot Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Wood doesn’t share the same enthusiasm.
As commander of the US Air Force’s 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron — a division tasked with developing new tactics for frontline fighters — Lt-Colonel Wood believes the showdown would not deliver any reasonable insights as results could be skewed.
“You run the risk of drawing unrealistic conclusions,” Lt-Colonel Wood toldCombat Aircraft.
According to the fighter pilot, the two jets have too many vast differences to make for a reasonable comparison — the A-10 is a slow and sturdy twin engine, while the F-35 is a fast and flimsy single-engine plane.
“When you try to have a comparative analysis of a single-mission platform like the A-10 against a platform like the F-35, which is fundamentally designed from the ground up to do something completely different,” he said.
“What I would say is that it’s very important to compare apples to apples.” To emphasize his point, Lt. Wood referred back to a 2015 report detailing a mock dogfight between an F-35 and F-16.
In the test, the nimble F-16 outperformed its sluggish, hi-tech opponent in offensive, defensive and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet. While admitting the F-16 dominated in maneuvering parameters of the test, Lt-Colonel Wood said it wasn’t an indication of failure for the F-35.
“The F-35 was built with stealth to be able to go places that no one else can go and to be lethal without anyone seeing it,” he said. “Those are two very different design points. So, what if I draw a conclusion that the F-35 can be [out maneuvered] by the F-16 — therefore the F-16 is better?
“Let’s throw in a couple enemy [surface-to-air missiles]. Then let’s see how the F-16 by itself does.” Lt-Colonel Wood said the findings of this test were prime example of why the two fighter jets should not be compared.
“You can design tests if you have inside knowledge to showcase strengths and weaknesses and abuse them to your own bias if you wanted to do a disingenuous comparative analysis,” he said.
While he will not be conducting the test between the A-10 and F-35, Lt-Colonel Wood predicted the findings will show both jets can successfully provide close air support, but would use different methods to achieve the goal.
In fact, the fighter pilot said the non-stealthy A-10 would require more risk as it would have fly very low in order to avoid being detected by enemy radars. “A-10 guys don’t like radar threats,” he said.
“We enjoy the tactics that they force, being down at 100 feet, but when you pop over that ridge line and you’re exposed, you are just sitting there trundling towards the target thinking, ‘Don’t find me. Don’t find me. Don’t find me. OK, good. Bombs are off. Let’s get the hell out of here’.”
Comparatively, the F-35’s speed and stealth would allow the fighter to attack from much higher in the sky. “I am able to locate and plot the threat relative to the target and can assess whether an attack is tactically feasible or not,” he said. “If it is, I can take out the target without the threat knowing I’m there and egress without being targeted.”
However, if testing for ground support of troops, Lt-Colonel Wood said the A-10 would have the advantage as it carries more than a thousand rounds of ammunition for its 30-millimetre cannon, while the F-35 carries just 181 rounds for its own 25-millimetre gun.
Australia has already purchased two Lockheed Martin-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with an additional 16 aircraft are expected to be purchased by 2019."
But what do I know, I am just a regular joe blow part of the general public.
Last edited:
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Yes, a blog post written by a former Marine O-3 who drove tanks should definitely be a definitive work on which to form opinions regarding matters of combat airpower.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Holy crap people, I said LIKE this article, not that that article is the end all be all. Y'all are sensitive about your toys.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Not my toy -- I'm retired.
Someday...my problems... will be somebody else's problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar thing happened in the A-10 vs A-7 flyoff in the mid 1970s.
That one test, based on specific parameters to be followed, was designed to see where the F-35 needs tweaks to its flight control systems and related software, with regards to what limits are allowed, what the jet can be allowed to do, etc. As well as get an idea of how the F-35 would fight against other aircraft.
The test was not a one-on-one, no holds barred, all out death match dogfight between two pilots with no useful test data gathered. For the armchair fighter pilots to judge a particular plane's complete air-air abilities based on one test with specific parameters, is dumb. But hey, look at who is doing the judging. I personally don't know the F-35s full abilities in any way, but I don't hinge everything on a singular test.
Yup. There is no singular method to providing Close Air Support. There are many, many methods to do it; hence why so many platforms perform that mission, in their own ways. With each having their own strengths and weaknesses, depending on what's trying to be accomplished and what the threats are to that accomplishment.
In an environment where there is a competent and present radar threat, the A-10 would be forced low. Otherwise, with those not existing, it can sit in the standard medium altitude wheel. But, since a radar threat environment is being discussed here, he's right, the Hog would have to go low. And it's not just popping over a ridge in the target area and being exposed, it's being exposed the second one crosses into enemy territory when low level and anyone can shoot at you with anything from an AK-47 to a MANPAD and on up, much less a ZPU, ZSU, or double digit mobile SAM such as a Gauntlet, sitting in the target area for protection. Then, you also have to fly back outbound through the same stuff.
Assuming there's time to use the gun in a high(er) threat environment like that. Generally, the gun isn't the initial weapon used. I would always try to get rid of the heavyweight chit before ever employing the gun, as having 500lb bombs hanging under the wings, made for a very sluggish jet, even at low altitudes. So getting rid of that chit first was always preferred, then rockets (target/situation allowing), and gun. Usually just ended up with AGM-65 Mavericks left over by that time, and I wouldn't use those for general CAS anyway. So by the time the gun use comes around, it's likely the 3rd or 4th employment pass. In an Afghan situation, 3rd or 4th pass is doable. In a higher radar threat with any kind of AAA/SAMs, a 3rd or 4th......and maybe even a 2nd......pass will likely get you shot up or shot down, as any element of surprise is long gone, and the ground gunners always possess the advantage over you. So like anything, it depends.
Last edited:
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
That is why I listed all the links that I did above from legit sources and with analysis by the test pilots themselves and others in the Military involved with this fighter. There are more, that was just a sample of what I have read. We are very fortunate indeed to have current and former Military pilots on this forum giving their opinions, sharing their experience and also stating the facts, the history and explanations of many elements/subjects for us also. I know I really appreciate their efforts and them taking the time to do so.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
I've largely changed my opinion of the F-35 AIRCRAFT due what's been said (and by who) on this forum. Whether the aircraft, assuming its full capabilities are ever reached, are worth the cost, both financially and what it's done to the AF as a whole, is still undecided. You could say the F-35 is already costing lives as money that would have gone to maintenance and training is going into the Lockheed coffers.
It's a two pronged argument, but both are related: capability of the jet, vs cost of the program. I guess it comes down to "what is the price of a capability?" Or what should be the price? I honestly don't know the answer to that, as the budgeting/acquisitions side of the equation are outside my bank of knowledge. I know the capabilities side. However like anything else, any program that comes with high cost, will likely come at the cost of other programs/systems, etc. What we can afford to rob from to Peter to pay Paul, is what the flag level people get paid to determine, as there's no unlimited budget, and we are not a 1980s military when budgets were large. The F-117 went away not just because of the F-22 coming out capabilities-wise, but because it was money being spent that was not going to the F-22.
"Is it worth it" is a very legitimate question, and the answer will likely be very different from different perspectives and different segments. All of which likely have very legitimate concerns.
Last edited:
knot4u
Repeat Offender
I wonder if your opinion might be swayed if we were engaged in an actual battle for air superiority. I'd be thankful that the guys/girls were using the best we can offer, regardless of cost. If you're going to expect these people to defend you the least you can do is provide them with the best possible equipment.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Well what about the people right now fighting without the best possible equipment because the money is going to the F-35? In my 6 years in the AF the only thing we ever heard from the Top was "You have to do more with less!"
knot4u
Repeat Offender
Having not served my opinion is barely relevant, but I'd like to think that the bravest amongst us are receiving the very best that our brightest minds can deliver.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
As a side note, how are you enjoying civilian life? Is it more of the same? Better? Worse?