- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The A-10 Warthog video the Air Force may not want you to see
Posted on 9/12/15 at 11:08 am to Volvagia
Posted on 9/12/15 at 11:08 am to Volvagia
quote:
Its rather disturbing to me how they deflect the air superiority issues with "well its not really meant for that, the F-22 is."
"Multi-role" is the classic military industrial complex "bait and switch" - they jack up the costs (and profit margin) per unit, sell it in the final analysis on the "air superiority" aspect, and when the plane underperforms, they go, "Well - it's not really meant for that".
When we want to, we can make a dedicated strike aircraft that its crews AND the folks the platform serves absolutely fall in love with (the Warthog, coincidentally enough) - but what they always prefer to do is to make a platform that no one likes except some of the people making it or making money off of it (F-35).
1
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:16 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
"Multi-role" is the classic military industrial complex "bait and switch"
quote:
When we want to, we can make a dedicated strike aircraft that its crews AND the folks the platform serves absolutely fall in love with
Yep, cause the F-16 hasn't been a great multi-role aircraft and it's pilots/maintainers absolutely hate it.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:19 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
either be grounded or crash before getting into the fight.
Stupid post is stupid.
quote:
The Army will fly the A-10 for as long as it is viable to do so - all the USAF has to do is say they don't want to fly it anymore.
The Army has no clue how to run an air service. Go see my earlier post about their total mismanagement of C-130s when we gave them some in Afghanistan.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:23 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I think the need for a medium range strike platform like the 35 is going to be diminishing or going away in the next 10 to 15 years anyway. Like I stated earlier.
You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
quote:
Long range bombers can launch cruise missiles from a safe distance.
That may be true, but when the adversaries are making their SAM systems, command and control assets, and other high valued targets mobile, long range cruise missiles are ineffective. If it takes the cruise missile an hour to fly to the target but the enemy can move the target within 30 minutes, what good is the missile doing? You have to have penetrating assets that can release weapons that will get on target before the target can move.
You also aren't going to take out hardened and/or buried targets with a cruise missile.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:27 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Meh - in the real world, they're never going to do that mission. USAF is going to clear the airspace with F-22s for the next 20 or 30 years - and then the strikes will occur in cleared airspace.
I'm guessing you get your military planning expertise from an XBox game. You don't kill an IADS (Integrated Air Defense System) with F-22s alone. Taking out the IADS is specifically what the F-35 is needed for.
quote:
ave a tough time overcoming its current reliablity and safety profile
They've already overcome most of the issues and have the other fixes identified. Just like any other aircraft that is in the test phase (which the F-35 is).
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:28 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
Yep, cause the F-16 hasn't been a great multi-role aircraft
Meh - as long as you're in the brief strike window.
And then they miss - a lot.
quote:
t's pilots/maintainers absolutely hate it.
I'm sure the flyboys and wingwipers love it - it sure was fast and sexy in its day, not like the old, broken down, slow as hell, unsexy A-10. And it wasn't terrible from a cost/performance standpoint. The F-35 is - just terrible - it was fine, in theory, but reality is often a cold cup of coffee.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:29 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
I'm guessing you get your military planning expertise from an XBox game.
With all due respect, frick you.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:30 pm to Volvagia
quote:
they cut F-22 production due to costs. So we just have ~200 of them.
And that's why we still have F-15C's. The F-22 was supposed to replace them, but when the production was cut short we didn't get enough to do that.
quote:
Meanwhile, they are actively stating that the -35 is a replacement to current platforms which are air superiority fighter
Name me one "Air Superiority fighter" the AF has said the F-35 is going to replace. Since the only two true Air Superiority fighters we have are the F-15C and F-22A, you can't because the F-35 is not replacing either.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:32 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
With all due respect, frick you
Back at you brother.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:35 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
as long as you're in the brief strike window.
I don't even know what you mean by this.
quote:
And then they miss - a lot
Yep, the F-16 sure messes up a JDAM.
quote:
The F-35 is - just terrible - it was fine, in theory, but reality is often a cold cup of coffee.
So you've personally seen it in action and know all of its capabilities that will be there when it completes test? If not, this is an absurd statement that only relies on UNCLASS reports from often very biased sources.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:45 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
that only relies on UNCLASS reports from often very biased sources.
What else do you recommend?
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:52 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
What else do you recommend?
I recommend not bashing something when you only know a sliver of information and no personal expertise to fall back on.
Like I said before, I think the price tag is way too high. I also believe we are trying to buy way too many of them. However, the aircraft will have some phenomenal capabilities and we do NEED what it will bring to the fight. So if you want to bash the price tag, be my guest and I'll even join that chorus. But I will never agree that the capabilities it will bring to the fight are garbage or unnecessary.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:52 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
I don't even know what you mean by this.
F-16 sorties are allocated for fairly narrow windows - now, when we're on offense and precisely on the time schedule, all usually goes as planned. But, when things get dicey - let's just say ground components would love a little more certainty of availability, thus their trust of organic helicopters and the, 'can orbit until out of ammo' A-10, over fast movers which, again, while fast and sexy, are geared more for the air component's mission, first, with close air support (particularly when close air support counts) as an afterthought, mainly as lip service.
Just my experience over almost 30 years.
This post was edited on 9/12/15 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:57 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
I think the price tag is way too high.
Of course that's the overriding concern - if the aircraft was even remotely reasonable, the criticism would be more muted.
But, we knew this would happen when we stopped at 185 or so F-22s when we really needed 300 - now we're going to have to do with 1,000 or so F-35s (with all the warts), instead of 3,500 or so.
quote:
, the aircraft will have some phenomenal capabilities and we do NEED what it will bring to the fight.
Drones are the future of close air support, to be quite honest with you - just on cost, support needs, risk to operator and the number of platforms we can field at once. I'm sure the aircraft will - ultimately - be competent and capable - by sheer brute force the Army made the Bradley "not" suck - but at what cost? That's what I've been saying about the F-35 since very early. Do we need these capabilities at this cost? Or does just the Air Force need them?
Sorry for the Army bias, but it is what it is.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 4:59 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
F-16 sorties are allocated for fairly narrow windows
OK, you're talking about CAS VULs. I'm not talking about CAS. Obviously most of us will agree that the A-10 is the best CAS platform we currently have and the AF completely screwed up the PR message when it even suggested that the F-35 would "replace" the A-10.
quote:
fast movers which, again, while fast and sexy, are geared more for the air component's mission, fist, with close air support (particularly when close air support counts) as an afterthought, mainly as lip service.
That's because like I said earlier, we have to gain and maintain air superiority before CAS is even a question. What the AF needs (in addition to the F-35) is a true replacement for the A-10. Just like in addition to the LRS-B, we will need a replacement for the B-1 or B-52 whichever is not replaced by the LRS-B. There always has to be a "next" or else you end up where we are today with a fleet that would be like taking F-86s and B-29s into Desert Storm.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 5:04 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
the aircraft will - ultimately - be competent and capable - by sheer brute force the Army made the Bradley "not" suck - but at what cost?
Yes, but the Army did a lot of that as "after the fact" bolt-ons. The F-35 program already has those capabilities in it; just some haven't been developed yet because the aircraft is still in a test phase (at least for the AF).
quote:
Do we need these capabilities at this cost? Or does just the Air Force need them?
The Joint force needs these capabilities. I'm sure the grunts in the field don't want to go back to being able to be attacked from the air and I'm sure the Navy doesn't want their carriers being sunk either. The F-35 will be used to attack the IADS so we can have freedom of maneuver and dismantle the adversaries air capabilities so they can't bring them to bear on us.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 5:10 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
That's because like I said earlier, we have to gain and maintain air superiority before CAS is even a question.
Fair enough and nobody really opposes us air-to-air (although Russia could on a limited basis, and China could, just on numbers) - so, we've pivoted to IADS reduction - following, largely, the Israeli model (hell, they were using drones for that mission over 30 years ago) - Israeli tactics using U.S. anti-radiation missiles cracked the old Soviet style IADS umbrella - and it is just a matter of alerting, illuminating and eliminating the systems - just as I think drones are the future of CAS - drones will carry out a lot of these SEAD/Wild Weasel type missions of the future - just based on risk profile.
And this will be done before any fast moving strike aircraft will be sortied as you suggest - and the battlefield moves too quickly, today, for that to be the long-term plan. Someone will already have a decisive advantage on the ground by the time all of this happens on the USAF timeline against a foe of regional parity in combat power.
This post was edited on 9/12/15 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 9/12/15 at 5:23 pm to hawgfaninc
Not reading the whole thread to see if it's been mentioned.
Chad Hennings flew those. It was the only plane big enough for his 6'6 body into.
If Germans:
Chad Hennings flew those. It was the only plane big enough for his 6'6 body into.
If Germans:
Posted on 9/12/15 at 5:55 pm to FlyingTiger06
What you are talking about?
They extended the F-15 retirement yes, but the F-35 is still its intended replacement.
At times they try to soften the blow with language like F-22 with F-35 support.
They extended the F-15 retirement yes, but the F-35 is still its intended replacement.
At times they try to soften the blow with language like F-22 with F-35 support.
This post was edited on 9/12/15 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 9/12/15 at 6:27 pm to Volvagia
quote:
They extended the F-15 retirement yes, but the F-35 is still its intended replacement.
Nope. Lockheed Martin wants that to be true, but not the AF's position. F-35 "replaces" the A-10, F-15E, and F-16.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News