5 ms·

The F-35 was a bad idea. In theory it made sense: fast, high tech, and stealthy. Then reality settled in: The plane can only really support a small handful of

The F-35 was a bad idea. In theory it made sense: fast, high tech, and stealthy. Then reality settled in: The plane can only really support a small handful of missiles, nothing close to the Arsenal the Navy's F-18 used to be able to haul into battle. It's fast, sure, but that comes at a cost to fuel efficiency, so while infantry in remote Afghanistan can get air support in less time than a pizza, "one pass, haul ass" means that if the air strike wasn't perfect, they need to call in a second strike group and wait again, not to mention the immense cost for the first few jets and bombs. The military is trying too hard to make a one-size-fits-all solution, when there has been one for close air support since Vietnam: the rugged and powerful A-10. In fact, with more and more of the fighters being forcibly retired, special ops teams are rightfully concerned, since they could previously rely on the A-10 to make 10+ passes before having to refuel, giving ground forces a significant advantage. The moral of the story is that more tech, more cost, and more complexity does not always culminate in more value. We have become so accustomed to the notion that things will always get more advanced, and therefore better, that we have forgotten to look to the past to replicate the same success in the future.

mrweasel 11y ago
It makes you wonder what it would cost to built updated versions of the A-10 and F-18.
- taf2 11y ago
  Pretty sure the F-18 has been getting updates - google f-18 stealth.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    True, although the stealth capabilities are nowhere near the F-22 or F-35. Still, it helps to pack more than a couple missiles or bombs when the enemy inevitably discovers that you've dropped in to say hello.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    The EA-18 is probably the most interesting aircraft the air force has. At the rate technology is advancing, electronic warfare seems like it'll win over passive stealth.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      The Navy operates the EA-18G, not the Air Force.
- imglorp 11y ago
  Fairchild is long gone, having been bought years ago and lines closed and moved. You'd be starting almost at scratch.
- Recurecur 11y ago
  The F-15 Silent Eagle is also interesting, and is a far better fighter than the F-18. I really like the B-1R concept, too bad it'll never be built.
spatulan 11y ago
The A-10 is a disaster that needs to be retired. It's completely incapable of facing modern air defences, so is useless against enemies like China or Russia, and has operating costs 30 times higher than a dedicated COIN aircraft like the Super Tucano, meaning you have a lot fewer aircraft supporting your troops than you should have, or end up spending way too much money.
- talmand 11y ago
  Calling it a disaster is a bit much. I don't think anyone expects the A-10 to face modern air defenses from China or Russia. It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place. Since it appears the US military does have an interest in something like the Tucano, it would stand to reason that the A-10s currently in service will be used for that role until a replacement is ramped up.
  - Recurecur 11y ago
    "It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place." No, it was designed to kill tanks, not personnel. Its 30mm cannon is complete overkill for that role. Apaches are MUCH better for ECAS, and GPS guided bombs are fine for the general CAS role (with troops cuing the targets by laser cartography).
    - talmand 11y ago
      This is how I've understood the aircraft: "aircraft designed solely for close air support, including attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets." Essentially, a prime mission objective is to loiter over an area and provide air support. Something most fast-moving aircraft are not exactly made to do. If a request comes in to target a tank; the plane kills the tank. If a request comes in to target a truck; the plane shreds the truck, and whatever happens to be inside, to shreds. If a request comes in to strafe a defensive position; then the plane puts big holes in those defenses. As for personnel, the plane may not kill them but it sure as heck puts a good scare into them. Stories indicate friendly soldiers like seeing, and hearing, the plane in the area during a firefight. It has more uses than the bullets it fires. Also, keep in mind that the A-10 can carry other weapons than just the cannon it's built around. Now, is it expensive in today's world for that purpose? Probably so. Apaches are nice too. I'm sure one day someone will consider them an expensive disaster as well.
mercer 11y ago
Your comment reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
nutate 11y ago
Note that the A-10 was designed post Vietnam and saw its first active service in the 1991 Gulf War, not in a jungle. It happened to do well. I find the engineering management of the A-10 quite interesting. The plane has done well, it is loved, but it's also had the most friendly fire kills of any aircraft of the modern era. There is a engineering case study review of the creation of the program, the multiple attempts and successful killing of the project in the 80s here (note that was for construction, taking our current planes out of service is a work in progress since they will be flightworthy through most of the 2020s): http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf

mrweasel 11y ago

It makes you wonder what it would cost to built updated versions of the A-10 and F-18.

taf2 11y ago
Pretty sure the F-18 has been getting updates - google f-18 stealth.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  True, although the stealth capabilities are nowhere near the F-22 or F-35. Still, it helps to pack more than a couple missiles or bombs when the enemy inevitably discovers that you've dropped in to say hello.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  The EA-18 is probably the most interesting aircraft the air force has. At the rate technology is advancing, electronic warfare seems like it'll win over passive stealth.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    The Navy operates the EA-18G, not the Air Force.
imglorp 11y ago
Fairchild is long gone, having been bought years ago and lines closed and moved. You'd be starting almost at scratch.
Recurecur 11y ago
The F-15 Silent Eagle is also interesting, and is a far better fighter than the F-18. I really like the B-1R concept, too bad it'll never be built.

spatulan 11y ago

The A-10 is a disaster that needs to be retired. It's completely incapable of facing modern air defences, so is useless against enemies like China or Russia, and has operating costs 30 times higher than a dedicated COIN aircraft like the Super Tucano, meaning you have a lot fewer aircraft supporting your troops than you should have, or end up spending way too much money.

talmand 11y ago
Calling it a disaster is a bit much. I don't think anyone expects the A-10 to face modern air defenses from China or Russia. It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place. Since it appears the US military does have an interest in something like the Tucano, it would stand to reason that the A-10s currently in service will be used for that role until a replacement is ramped up.
- Recurecur 11y ago
  "It's current use is similar to what it was designed for in the first place." No, it was designed to kill tanks, not personnel. Its 30mm cannon is complete overkill for that role. Apaches are MUCH better for ECAS, and GPS guided bombs are fine for the general CAS role (with troops cuing the targets by laser cartography).
  - talmand 11y ago
    This is how I've understood the aircraft: "aircraft designed solely for close air support, including attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets." Essentially, a prime mission objective is to loiter over an area and provide air support. Something most fast-moving aircraft are not exactly made to do. If a request comes in to target a tank; the plane kills the tank. If a request comes in to target a truck; the plane shreds the truck, and whatever happens to be inside, to shreds. If a request comes in to strafe a defensive position; then the plane puts big holes in those defenses. As for personnel, the plane may not kill them but it sure as heck puts a good scare into them. Stories indicate friendly soldiers like seeing, and hearing, the plane in the area during a firefight. It has more uses than the bullets it fires. Also, keep in mind that the A-10 can carry other weapons than just the cannon it's built around. Now, is it expensive in today's world for that purpose? Probably so. Apaches are nice too. I'm sure one day someone will consider them an expensive disaster as well.

mercer 11y ago

Your comment reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

nutate 11y ago

Note that the A-10 was designed post Vietnam and saw its first active service in the 1991 Gulf War, not in a jungle. It happened to do well. I find the engineering management of the A-10 quite interesting. The plane has done well, it is loved, but it's also had the most friendly fire kills of any aircraft of the modern era. There is a engineering case study review of the creation of the program, the multiple attempts and successful killing of the project in the 80s here (note that was for construction, taking our current planes out of service is a work in progress since they will be flightworthy through most of the 2020s): http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf