4 ms·

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,

by 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.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    The truth of our fighting in the Middle East is that it is political not existential. No one in Afghanistan or Syria presents a serious threat to the security of the U.S. Our military goes there to defend allies, enhance long-term stability, and deny resources to terrorists. But when architecting the military, the #1 consideration has to be the deterrence of existential threats. That means planning for contested air space (contested everything, really). The U.S. is the uncontested strongest military in the world. It would probably be a mistake to take that for granted, though, by making all our decisions in the context of expeditions to the Middle East.

by poof131 11y ago

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.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  The truth of our fighting in the Middle East is that it is political not existential. No one in Afghanistan or Syria presents a serious threat to the security of the U.S. Our military goes there to defend allies, enhance long-term stability, and deny resources to terrorists. But when architecting the military, the #1 consideration has to be the deterrence of existential threats. That means planning for contested air space (contested everything, really). The U.S. is the uncontested strongest military in the world. It would probably be a mistake to take that for granted, though, by making all our decisions in the context of expeditions to the Middle East.