4 ms·

Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35.

craftinator 5y ago
> Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? Doesn't matter. The A-10 is a fully functional aircraft, which puts it far, far ahead of the F-35. > I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35. For some reason, they tried to design the F-35 to do everything. What the original comment is saying, I believe, is that the A-10 and F-22 were very successful and capable aircraft, and between them could handle most all of the situations the F-35 was supposed to be able to handle (but can't). If we spent even a fraction of the cost of the F-35 on updating their design, they could be even more capable.
- atonse 5y ago
  Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It’s pretty much a view held by some factions of the military. Except a lot of the talk is about upgrading F-15s and A10s. We really don’t have a replacement for the A10 which is an incredible workhorse and almost universally loved for its close air support capability. Unless it’s getting downvoted because the two things aren’t at odds. It would cost orders if magnitude less to just upgrade the A10s and others.
  - craftinator 5y ago
    HN doesn't like a realist, apparently. Also, another funny point to this discussion, my opinion on this subject comes directly from a number of Marine Corps pilots and senior decision makers, who I spent a decade working with. I was pretty excited about the F-35 program at first, but after hearing from those who actually had to fly them, and those that were involved in assessing their combat capabilities... Well, let's say that people whose lives depend on the F-35 do not trust them.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  They wanted to replace the A-10s because they are very vulnerable to modern anti-air systems. A near peer would whack em out of the sky pretty quickly. The solution is not the F-35, we just need a low RCS A-10.
  - chipsa 5y ago
    Ok, what does your low RCS (that'd be stealth) A-10 look like? Let's put it at medium altitude so that we don't have to try to armor it against manpads. Then we can probably make it single engine, so we can get a bit cheaper mx. Let's skip the fuck off huge gun, because it's raison d'etre was killing tanks, but even when it was designed, it was only good against the rear or side of a tank, not the front, and that was 50 years ago. If we use a smaller gun, we can save the weight for more useful things, like guided bombs. It's going to need much better sensors, since we want it at medium altitude, so let's make sure to integrate them. If we make it supersonic capable, we can increase the radius it can work over when on station. I think I'm back at a F-35 now.
    - captainredbeard 5y ago
      I'm not a professional airplane designer so bear with me. This is drawn from my reading of the textbook "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel Raymer. The challenge is you want something that can linger and pick at targets on the ground with ease. This necessitates a low stall speed, requiring the use of a straight wing. The aerodynamic characteristics of anything resembling supercruise demand a swept wing, which would destroy the "lingering" aspect. So you can't get a good CAS with an airframe that works well for a fighter role. The gun on the A-10 is useful for strafing runs against infantry, not just concentrated fires against MBTs. To do that, you need a substantial round + LOTS of ammo. The F-35 just doesn't have enough internal storage capacity to service this need. So you've got to keep the gun. It also has barely any external mounting capability for bombs, rockets, and missiles. So, I'd say it would be something that looks a whole lot like an A-10 but with CAD assisted fuselage shape changes to minimize RCS + new materials + new avionics. I have no idea how to mitigate MANPADs as I'm unaware of what they use for targeting solutions. The distinct twin-tail on the A-10 was picked to provide a shroud for heat emissions from the engines (c.f. Raymer) to mitigate those types of attacks but I imagine that near peers have increased their capabilities.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
flohofwoe 5y ago
It's the other way around, the F-35 was supposed to not only replace the F-16, but also the A-10... and the F/A-18, and probably a couple other aircraft types in other NATO countries.
mcv 5y ago
Of course it can't, but the F-35 was meant to replace the A-10, as well as a host of other fighters (F-16, F-15, F-18, Harrier, and probably more). But with stealth. Some standardisation in fighter design doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, and you can certainly question why you'd need all three of the F-15, F-16 and F-18. But also the A-10 and the Harrier? Those are very different planes with very different roles. I think cramming those two requirements in there is what sunk the F-35. There's no way to make one fighter do all of that and do it well.

> Isn't the A-10 an entirely different kind of fighter? Doesn't matter. The A-10 is a fully functional aircraft, which puts it far, far ahead of the F-35. > I don't see how a close air support plane would replace the F-35. For some reason, they tried to design the F-35 to do everything. What the original comment is saying, I believe, is that the A-10 and F-22 were very successful and capable aircraft, and between them could handle most all of the situations the F-35 was supposed to be able to handle (but can't). If we spent even a fraction of the cost of the F-35 on updating their design, they could be even more capable.

atonse 5y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It’s pretty much a view held by some factions of the military. Except a lot of the talk is about upgrading F-15s and A10s. We really don’t have a replacement for the A10 which is an incredible workhorse and almost universally loved for its close air support capability. Unless it’s getting downvoted because the two things aren’t at odds. It would cost orders if magnitude less to just upgrade the A10s and others.
- craftinator 5y ago
  HN doesn't like a realist, apparently. Also, another funny point to this discussion, my opinion on this subject comes directly from a number of Marine Corps pilots and senior decision makers, who I spent a decade working with. I was pretty excited about the F-35 program at first, but after hearing from those who actually had to fly them, and those that were involved in assessing their combat capabilities... Well, let's say that people whose lives depend on the F-35 do not trust them.
captainredbeard 5y ago
They wanted to replace the A-10s because they are very vulnerable to modern anti-air systems. A near peer would whack em out of the sky pretty quickly. The solution is not the F-35, we just need a low RCS A-10.
- chipsa 5y ago
  Ok, what does your low RCS (that'd be stealth) A-10 look like? Let's put it at medium altitude so that we don't have to try to armor it against manpads. Then we can probably make it single engine, so we can get a bit cheaper mx. Let's skip the fuck off huge gun, because it's raison d'etre was killing tanks, but even when it was designed, it was only good against the rear or side of a tank, not the front, and that was 50 years ago. If we use a smaller gun, we can save the weight for more useful things, like guided bombs. It's going to need much better sensors, since we want it at medium altitude, so let's make sure to integrate them. If we make it supersonic capable, we can increase the radius it can work over when on station. I think I'm back at a F-35 now.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    I'm not a professional airplane designer so bear with me. This is drawn from my reading of the textbook "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel Raymer. The challenge is you want something that can linger and pick at targets on the ground with ease. This necessitates a low stall speed, requiring the use of a straight wing. The aerodynamic characteristics of anything resembling supercruise demand a swept wing, which would destroy the "lingering" aspect. So you can't get a good CAS with an airframe that works well for a fighter role. The gun on the A-10 is useful for strafing runs against infantry, not just concentrated fires against MBTs. To do that, you need a substantial round + LOTS of ammo. The F-35 just doesn't have enough internal storage capacity to service this need. So you've got to keep the gun. It also has barely any external mounting capability for bombs, rockets, and missiles. So, I'd say it would be something that looks a whole lot like an A-10 but with CAD assisted fuselage shape changes to minimize RCS + new materials + new avionics. I have no idea how to mitigate MANPADs as I'm unaware of what they use for targeting solutions. The distinct twin-tail on the A-10 was picked to provide a shroud for heat emissions from the engines (c.f. Raymer) to mitigate those types of attacks but I imagine that near peers have increased their capabilities.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

flohofwoe 5y ago

It's the other way around, the F-35 was supposed to not only replace the F-16, but also the A-10... and the F/A-18, and probably a couple other aircraft types in other NATO countries.

mcv 5y ago

Of course it can't, but the F-35 was meant to replace the A-10, as well as a host of other fighters (F-16, F-15, F-18, Harrier, and probably more). But with stealth. Some standardisation in fighter design doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, and you can certainly question why you'd need all three of the F-15, F-16 and F-18. But also the A-10 and the Harrier? Those are very different planes with very different roles. I think cramming those two requirements in there is what sunk the F-35. There's no way to make one fighter do all of that and do it well.