3 ms·

I worry the author suffers from confirmation bias. Does the bad press miss the point? So much that "point" is the cost per aircraft is nutso for what you get.

I worry the author suffers from confirmation bias. Does the bad press miss the point? So much that "point" is the cost per aircraft is nutso for what you get. Something that's stealth, dogfight, and close-in air support. And perhaps the article is right, the stealth is fantastic. Lets you fire without being seen. But after you've fired it, then what? Now everyone knows where you are and a potential dog fight is coming. It's well known its dog fighting is weak even compared to other older fighters, but maybe it's also fair to say dog fighting is a thing of the past[1]. Being a stealth mobile missile battery... Is a good long range offense a strong defense? These kinds of things can only be tested, so... jury's still out. My personal criticism comes in the close in air support, what good is all that money that was dumped into stealth doing as it just hovers above in plain view/access? Also, it does a poor job at flying slowly. It's just not specialized in it. Time will tell if the price tag is even close to being justified, but I'm still a strong skeptic. [1] https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/f-35-pilot-heres-what-people-dont-understand-about-dogfighting-and-how-the-f-35-excels-at-it/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/f-35-pilot-heres-wha...

bsder 5y ago
> My personal criticism comes in the close in air support, what good is all that money that was dumped into stealth doing as it just hovers above in plain view/access? Also, it does a poor job at flying slowly. It's just not specialized in it. This is probably a valid criticism, but aren't the current generation of military helicopters simply way better than jets could ever be at this? And they have the advantage that they can land and evacuate people.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  > This is probably a valid criticism No it is not. The poster is appears to mistakenly believe that F-35B's would hover for purposes of close air support. It would never do that because the VTOL capabilities of the F-35B are exclusively for short range take off and landing. The US has around 10 Amphibious Assault Ship which now thanks to the F-35B's are among some of the most capable carriers in the world. Factor in the ability to take off from rapidly constructed airbases throughout the pacific and the F-35B is one of the most dangerous airplanes currently in production. A squadron could sneak up from completely unexpected directions from bases which had not existed in your satellite reconnaissance just a day ago.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Yes, a lot of people forget that the F-35B dropped the cost of building a "carrier" equipped with supersonic jets by an order of magnitude. You can use the saved money to buy a lot of F-35Bs.
- irjustin 5y ago
  A-10's still hold the sentiment as the best CAS. There are actually better fighters on a $/hr basis. The A-10 is a bit pricy to maintain. The A-29, propeller plane, holds a promising position[0]. Helicopters tend not to be the platform of choice, but I'm not well versed enough to know why. Many times it comes down to which branch flies helicopters vs fixed winged aircraft. And simply that branch doesn't have the "rights" to fly the right kind of craft given the mission... weird stuff. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa...
  - hajile 5y ago
    Minutes matter. An apache helicopter has a cruising speed of around 165mph while the A-10 has a cruising speed of around 340mph. The army had a helicopter design (Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne) back in the 1960s that in it's final prototype tests was going 255mph. The Air Force got upset and politics killed it off. The Lockheed/Sikorsky S-97 Raider seems to use a lot of the same design ideas (pusher propeller, fixed rotor, small wings) and is very fast (250mph cruise speed), but almost 50 years later. Maybe politics are less of an issue this time around. I suppose the v22 Osprey could play the CAS role, but it seems much too expensive. You can buy almost 6 Apache helicopters for the cost of one v22 (13m vs 75m per unit). That cost is an issue because -- adjusted for inflation -- the A-10 cost 16.5m per unit and can withstand much more damage before needing replacement.
onepointsixC 5y ago
The price point argument holds little merit considering that the A variants are cheaper than modernized F-16's. At best you can claim the flight hour costs are much worse, and that's a good point but unfortunately that is the cost of stealth. >It's well known its dog fighting is weak even compared to other older fighters It's more nimble than a combat loaded F-16. Sure it isn't super maneuverable like a F-22, but it actually is able to do maneuvers which other planes need thrust vectoring to achieve. >And perhaps the article is right, the stealth is fantastic. Lets you fire without being seen. But after you've fired it, then what? Now everyone knows where you are and a potential dog fight is coming. You misunderstanding the nature of the F-35's first shot advantage. It is not merely remaining unseen and firing first. Even if a AWAC's or L band ground radar directs you toward a F-35 it will be the first to fire because it can get a firing solution on a 4th gen before it can get one on the F-35. Furthermore, it's also not a forgone conclusion that an adversary would know where it is after firing. A F-35 pilot could have moved serious distance in that time from whatever heading the missile originated. With stealth the pace of combat is dictated by the pilot who actually has situational awareness.
rascul 5y ago
> Also, it does a poor job at flying slowly. It's just not specialized in it. That doesn't seem like a role the Air Force is very concerned about. The USAF has been trying to kill off their best low and slow flying close air support aircraft for awhile now. [0] The planes are made to lay down hell [1] and take a beating that would destroy just about any other aircraft [2], and the ground troops love it. [3] Supposedly the F-35 is going to fill the role of the A-10 in the future but I just don't see how that's possible. [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34907462/air-force-wants-to-retire-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-congress-opposition/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34907462... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nUhDvcGXgs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nUhDvcGXgs [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hKgloWQHd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hKgloWQHd8

bsder 5y ago

> My personal criticism comes in the close in air support, what good is all that money that was dumped into stealth doing as it just hovers above in plain view/access? Also, it does a poor job at flying slowly. It's just not specialized in it. This is probably a valid criticism, but aren't the current generation of military helicopters simply way better than jets could ever be at this? And they have the advantage that they can land and evacuate people.

onepointsixC 5y ago
> This is probably a valid criticism No it is not. The poster is appears to mistakenly believe that F-35B's would hover for purposes of close air support. It would never do that because the VTOL capabilities of the F-35B are exclusively for short range take off and landing. The US has around 10 Amphibious Assault Ship which now thanks to the F-35B's are among some of the most capable carriers in the world. Factor in the ability to take off from rapidly constructed airbases throughout the pacific and the F-35B is one of the most dangerous airplanes currently in production. A squadron could sneak up from completely unexpected directions from bases which had not existed in your satellite reconnaissance just a day ago.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Yes, a lot of people forget that the F-35B dropped the cost of building a "carrier" equipped with supersonic jets by an order of magnitude. You can use the saved money to buy a lot of F-35Bs.
irjustin 5y ago
A-10's still hold the sentiment as the best CAS. There are actually better fighters on a $/hr basis. The A-10 is a bit pricy to maintain. The A-29, propeller plane, holds a promising position[0]. Helicopters tend not to be the platform of choice, but I'm not well versed enough to know why. Many times it comes down to which branch flies helicopters vs fixed winged aircraft. And simply that branch doesn't have the "rights" to fly the right kind of craft given the mission... weird stuff. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa...
- hajile 5y ago
  Minutes matter. An apache helicopter has a cruising speed of around 165mph while the A-10 has a cruising speed of around 340mph. The army had a helicopter design (Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne) back in the 1960s that in it's final prototype tests was going 255mph. The Air Force got upset and politics killed it off. The Lockheed/Sikorsky S-97 Raider seems to use a lot of the same design ideas (pusher propeller, fixed rotor, small wings) and is very fast (250mph cruise speed), but almost 50 years later. Maybe politics are less of an issue this time around. I suppose the v22 Osprey could play the CAS role, but it seems much too expensive. You can buy almost 6 Apache helicopters for the cost of one v22 (13m vs 75m per unit). That cost is an issue because -- adjusted for inflation -- the A-10 cost 16.5m per unit and can withstand much more damage before needing replacement.

onepointsixC 5y ago

The price point argument holds little merit considering that the A variants are cheaper than modernized F-16's. At best you can claim the flight hour costs are much worse, and that's a good point but unfortunately that is the cost of stealth. >It's well known its dog fighting is weak even compared to other older fighters It's more nimble than a combat loaded F-16. Sure it isn't super maneuverable like a F-22, but it actually is able to do maneuvers which other planes need thrust vectoring to achieve. >And perhaps the article is right, the stealth is fantastic. Lets you fire without being seen. But after you've fired it, then what? Now everyone knows where you are and a potential dog fight is coming. You misunderstanding the nature of the F-35's first shot advantage. It is not merely remaining unseen and firing first. Even if a AWAC's or L band ground radar directs you toward a F-35 it will be the first to fire because it can get a firing solution on a 4th gen before it can get one on the F-35. Furthermore, it's also not a forgone conclusion that an adversary would know where it is after firing. A F-35 pilot could have moved serious distance in that time from whatever heading the missile originated. With stealth the pace of combat is dictated by the pilot who actually has situational awareness.

rascul 5y ago

> Also, it does a poor job at flying slowly. It's just not specialized in it. That doesn't seem like a role the Air Force is very concerned about. The USAF has been trying to kill off their best low and slow flying close air support aircraft for awhile now. [0] The planes are made to lay down hell [1] and take a beating that would destroy just about any other aircraft [2], and the ground troops love it. [3] Supposedly the F-35 is going to fill the role of the A-10 in the future but I just don't see how that's possible. [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34907462/air-force-wants-to-retire-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-congress-opposition/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34907462... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nUhDvcGXgs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nUhDvcGXgs [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hKgloWQHd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hKgloWQHd8