5 ms·

How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" if it doesn't have a functi

How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" if it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet [1]. I thought the A-10 is basically a airframe built around a cannon. [1] http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/20...

gherkin0 11y ago
> How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" Probably through a lot of box-ticking. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking
engi_nerd 11y ago
That article is more than a year old and doesn't accurately reflect the current state of the gun. Here's the current state. F-35A test aircraft AF-02 has completed initial test firings of the internal gun on the F-35A variant, both on the ground [1] and in flight [2]. The F-35B and F-35C carry their gun externally, in a centerline gun pod [3]. The gun pod has been tested over the past several years [4] on the ground, and will be tested on those variants later this year. The 2017 date in that article you posted refers to when the cannon on all variants will be integrated with the mission systems software. So just as it is disingenuous to say "the F-35 cannon testing is complete" it's also not completely accurate to say "it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet." The engineering reality is more nuanced than that. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M [3]: http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222_O_GR159_001-copy.jpg http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222... [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU
poof131 11y ago
It’s all smoke. Using the F-35 for CAS is ludicrous. Using 4th and 5th generation aircraft in place of AC-130s [1] and Super Tacanos [2] not only costs more, but is incredibly less effective for the soldiers on the ground. CAS and the F-35 shouldn’t be used in the same sentence. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have cost significantly less (1/4 the total?) if the military hadn’t forced square fighter jets into the round hole of CAS (add up $10k / hr vs $600, plus airborne tankers, plus carriers, plus increased supply costs). Not only did this cost multiples more, provide less effective support to Americans risking their lives on the ground, it damaged the fleet of fighters for other tasks in the future. How many flight hours where burned “in country” on already aging platforms? I know I got some. Senior military aviation leadership boxed themselves into a corner burning up the fleet in ways it shouldn’t have and betting on a do-it-all turd called the F-35. The cannon could fall of this thing and it would be better for everyone. Dog-fighting is dead and people will scream F-4 / Vietnam, but I’d rather have an extra aim-9x than a fucking gun pod in this day and age [3, 4]. So the plane sucks for CAS and the gun pod is irrelevant for BFM. But don’t worry, the plane is so magical who knows. Just know you’re being sold a bill of goods when leadership talks about CAS and the F-35. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- popmystack 11y ago
  How disingenuous can you people be?
- greedo 11y ago
  AC-130 is only used at night, limiting it's ability to perform CAS. Even at night, it can't perform CAS in contested airspace. Neither could a Super Tuc.
  - poof131 11y ago
    If we can't get an uncontested airspace, CAS is probably the least of our concerns. I wouldn't put ground troops in until the main threat was only shoulder launched, which the previously mentioned aircraft should be able to handle. I believe Desert Storm and OIF are better models than Vietnam. High threat CAS isn't were I'd be focusing defense spending at this point in time.
    - greedo 11y ago
      The US lost an AC-130 while operating over Kuwait during Desert Storm. Got caught at sunrise and was shot down with complete loss of life. We can't plan on having air supremacy. It's nice that we've had it since Nam, but counting on it isn't always going to be an option, and we'll need to provide CAS to troops when it's necessary.
      - poof131 11y ago
        Didn’t know about the AC-130. Definitely a risk even in a moderate threat environment. I still don’t believe F-35 is the right platform for CAS. In a medium to high threat environment, I would prefer bombers (perhaps stealthy) or drones (expendable) at altitude with a payload of JDAM and LGBs, than a fighter with just a couple. And rolling in with the gun in a fighter is silly. If the environment is that high threat, limiting collateral damage with gun runs isn’t a concern. I feel like we are building platforms that can beat up medium threats (Iraq/Iran), won’t work against big threats (China), and bankrupt the country against small threats (counter insurgency operations). I’d favor a more diversified set of assets for specific roles and don’t think the F-35 fits the bill.
outworlder 11y ago
Does it really matter if the cannon is working or not? The A-10, despite its age, is more survivable, cheaper to build and run, can operate out of anywhere (those engines high up ingest less foreign material) and has a much longer loiter time. One could argue that today's combat landscape is not ideal for the A-10 and that it wouldn't survive against modern air defenses. Which is a very good point. But, if you are going against modern defenses, what do you need a cannon for? Specially an external one which will ruin your radar signature.
- gozur88 11y ago
  The "A" version cannon is internal. But no, it doesn't matter whether or not the cannon works. It's not what you'd use to engage targets on the ground. Or the air, for that matter.
gozur88 11y ago
The A-10 is obsolete because it's an air frame built around a cannon. The cannon is heavy, and the ammo is heavy. For all that weight the ammo runs out somewhere between 12 and 20 seconds. The most efficient way to destroy things on the ground is with guided missiles and bombs. An F-35 with a brace of SDBs is going to do a lot more damage than an A-10, both because smart bombs are much more effective on a pound-for-pound basis and because it can get on station much more quickly. A strike aircraft with modern optics it can fly above AAA and shoulder launched SAM range and still engage moving targets on the ground. The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel like they haven't been forgotten. Politicians like the A-10, too, because by staving off the ax once again they can make it look like they're doing something to support the little guy on the ground. The Army brass likes the A-10 because they suspect when the shit hits the fan the Air Force will decide the multi-role aircraft all belong in some other role and abandon the Army altogether. But none of that has any bearing on the effectiveness of the air frame itself. Not many people realize the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan. The A-10 was the bee's knees when it was new and we were worried about thousands of Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap. But it's not 1985 any more.
- Gustomaximus 11y ago
  > The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel like they haven't been forgotten. Even if this is entirely true, moral goes a hell of a long way on in the army as does the fear this creates with the enemy. That said I was of the understanding the A-10 was very effective for supporting troops in areas like Afghanistan and similar low tech ground wars. The real issue the Air Force are tasked with protecting the country in the case of a 'real war' with more modernized opponents like China or Russia. In this case and A-10 is old tech and wont deliver much in terms of defense capability hence their lack of interest in maintaining/upgrading it.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Again, the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan. It may have been very effective, but so was the F-16. And there's no reason to keep it around for low tech wars - if we need a dedicated aircraft to destroy mud huts we'd be better off with something cheap and easy to maintain, like Embraer's Super Tucano II.

gherkin0 11y ago

> How can they claim the F35 "shares many—if not necessarily all—of the same close air support capabilities as the $18.8 million A-10" Probably through a lot of box-ticking. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/box-ticking

engi_nerd 11y ago

That article is more than a year old and doesn't accurately reflect the current state of the gun. Here's the current state. F-35A test aircraft AF-02 has completed initial test firings of the internal gun on the F-35A variant, both on the ground [1] and in flight [2]. The F-35B and F-35C carry their gun externally, in a centerline gun pod [3]. The gun pod has been tested over the past several years [4] on the ground, and will be tested on those variants later this year. The 2017 date in that article you posted refers to when the cannon on all variants will be integrated with the mission systems software. So just as it is disingenuous to say "the F-35 cannon testing is complete" it's also not completely accurate to say "it doesn't have a functioning cannon yet." The engineering reality is more nuanced than that. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M [3]: http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222_O_GR159_001-copy.jpg http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120222... [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU

poof131 11y ago

It’s all smoke. Using the F-35 for CAS is ludicrous. Using 4th and 5th generation aircraft in place of AC-130s [1] and Super Tacanos [2] not only costs more, but is incredibly less effective for the soldiers on the ground. CAS and the F-35 shouldn’t be used in the same sentence. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have cost significantly less (1/4 the total?) if the military hadn’t forced square fighter jets into the round hole of CAS (add up $10k / hr vs $600, plus airborne tankers, plus carriers, plus increased supply costs). Not only did this cost multiples more, provide less effective support to Americans risking their lives on the ground, it damaged the fleet of fighters for other tasks in the future. How many flight hours where burned “in country” on already aging platforms? I know I got some. Senior military aviation leadership boxed themselves into a corner burning up the fleet in ways it shouldn’t have and betting on a do-it-all turd called the F-35. The cannon could fall of this thing and it would be better for everyone. Dog-fighting is dead and people will scream F-4 / Vietnam, but I’d rather have an extra aim-9x than a fucking gun pod in this day and age [3, 4]. So the plane sucks for CAS and the gun pod is irrelevant for BFM. But don’t worry, the plane is so magical who knows. Just know you’re being sold a bill of goods when leadership talks about CAS and the F-35. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#AIM-9X

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
popmystack 11y ago
How disingenuous can you people be?
greedo 11y ago
AC-130 is only used at night, limiting it's ability to perform CAS. Even at night, it can't perform CAS in contested airspace. Neither could a Super Tuc.
- poof131 11y ago
  If we can't get an uncontested airspace, CAS is probably the least of our concerns. I wouldn't put ground troops in until the main threat was only shoulder launched, which the previously mentioned aircraft should be able to handle. I believe Desert Storm and OIF are better models than Vietnam. High threat CAS isn't were I'd be focusing defense spending at this point in time.
  - greedo 11y ago
    The US lost an AC-130 while operating over Kuwait during Desert Storm. Got caught at sunrise and was shot down with complete loss of life. We can't plan on having air supremacy. It's nice that we've had it since Nam, but counting on it isn't always going to be an option, and we'll need to provide CAS to troops when it's necessary.
    - poof131 11y ago
      Didn’t know about the AC-130. Definitely a risk even in a moderate threat environment. I still don’t believe F-35 is the right platform for CAS. In a medium to high threat environment, I would prefer bombers (perhaps stealthy) or drones (expendable) at altitude with a payload of JDAM and LGBs, than a fighter with just a couple. And rolling in with the gun in a fighter is silly. If the environment is that high threat, limiting collateral damage with gun runs isn’t a concern. I feel like we are building platforms that can beat up medium threats (Iraq/Iran), won’t work against big threats (China), and bankrupt the country against small threats (counter insurgency operations). I’d favor a more diversified set of assets for specific roles and don’t think the F-35 fits the bill.

outworlder 11y ago

Does it really matter if the cannon is working or not? The A-10, despite its age, is more survivable, cheaper to build and run, can operate out of anywhere (those engines high up ingest less foreign material) and has a much longer loiter time. One could argue that today's combat landscape is not ideal for the A-10 and that it wouldn't survive against modern air defenses. Which is a very good point. But, if you are going against modern defenses, what do you need a cannon for? Specially an external one which will ruin your radar signature.

gozur88 11y ago
The "A" version cannon is internal. But no, it doesn't matter whether or not the cannon works. It's not what you'd use to engage targets on the ground. Or the air, for that matter.

gozur88 11y ago

The A-10 is obsolete because it's an air frame built around a cannon. The cannon is heavy, and the ammo is heavy. For all that weight the ammo runs out somewhere between 12 and 20 seconds. The most efficient way to destroy things on the ground is with guided missiles and bombs. An F-35 with a brace of SDBs is going to do a lot more damage than an A-10, both because smart bombs are much more effective on a pound-for-pound basis and because it can get on station much more quickly. A strike aircraft with modern optics it can fly above AAA and shoulder launched SAM range and still engage moving targets on the ground. The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel like they haven't been forgotten. Politicians like the A-10, too, because by staving off the ax once again they can make it look like they're doing something to support the little guy on the ground. The Army brass likes the A-10 because they suspect when the shit hits the fan the Air Force will decide the multi-role aircraft all belong in some other role and abandon the Army altogether. But none of that has any bearing on the effectiveness of the air frame itself. Not many people realize the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan. The A-10 was the bee's knees when it was new and we were worried about thousands of Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap. But it's not 1985 any more.

Gustomaximus 11y ago
> The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel like they haven't been forgotten. Even if this is entirely true, moral goes a hell of a long way on in the army as does the fear this creates with the enemy. That said I was of the understanding the A-10 was very effective for supporting troops in areas like Afghanistan and similar low tech ground wars. The real issue the Air Force are tasked with protecting the country in the case of a 'real war' with more modernized opponents like China or Russia. In this case and A-10 is old tech and wont deliver much in terms of defense capability hence their lack of interest in maintaining/upgrading it.
- gozur88 11y ago
  Again, the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan. It may have been very effective, but so was the F-16. And there's no reason to keep it around for low tech wars - if we need a dedicated aircraft to destroy mud huts we'd be better off with something cheap and easy to maintain, like Embraer's Super Tucano II.