4 ms·

Care to elaborate?

by GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago

Care to elaborate?

ddorian43 13y ago
probably beacuse over-budget, too late, tries to do everything, too pricey
- chiph 13y ago
  And under-performs. Frankly, for the type of wars we're likely to fight in the foreseeable future, the most common mission would call for something like a cheap prop-driven plane with a ton of ordnance hardpoints. Take the flight surfaces off, stuff 3-4 of them into a C-17 and fly them to the theater of operations, go to work. But the aviator community would hate it.
  - msandford 13y ago
    Or an A-10 Warthog. It's basically what you described but with fairly robust jet engines.
    - qbrass 13y ago
      It sounded more like the description of the AC-130.
      - infinotize 13y ago
        AC-130 is significantly more of a sitting duck to infantry-deployable surface to air missiles. They have to be fairly low and fly in slow circles with the broadside facing the target. It would be hard to imagine a better missile target. One was shot down in the gulf war by one such infantryman/SAM and all 14 crew were killed. A-10s can loiter and provide extended ground support, but can come in/leave quickly, maneuver well, use terrain to hide from ground fire, etc.
        qbrass 13y ago
        I agree with you, but the original description was that of a cargo plane turned into an assault platform. I was assuming the intention was creating something more along the lines of the Flying Fortress, but the AC-130 was the closest thing I could think of that's still in service.
  - peckrob 13y ago
    Pilot here. The aviator community loves pretty much anything that flies and won't get us killed doing it. :) The role you're describing is currently filled - very well, I might add, by the A-10. It can fly low and slow (has a stall speed of right around 140mph), it's heavily armored and can carry massive amounts of armament. Not to mention an enormous gun that can decimate pretty much anything in its path. They're slated for retirement soon, though. Long term, I think this role will eventually be filled by drones.
    - chiph 13y ago
      I'm not 100% sold on drones. Yes, they work, they're cheap, and they don't expose squishy & expensive pilots to danger. But even with frequency-agile radios, they're vulnerable to jamming and ASAT missiles taking out important stuff in orbit. I was expecting someone to jump in with the dog-fight argument against using low & slow aircraft. Unlike in Vietnam, today's missiles are reliable and effective, so even a prop plane can engage and defeat a jet at extended ranges... as long as positive hostile ID can be made early enough.
fasteddie31003 13y ago
It is a huge waste of money ~$200m each. The project has been plagued with technical problems (it doesn't meet its performance specifications, it has structural problems, etc.). It does not perform any better than current fighter planes in war game simulations. It is being made for a war that we will never fight with fighter planes. I wonder if America has fought its last human controlled air-to-air dog fight, or it will be extremely rare. And it was shoved down the Pentagon's throat by lobbyists. Take a look for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  > I wonder if America has fought its last human controlled air-to-air dog fight, or it will be extremely rare. Yes. Drones and long-range weapons delivery (either high energy or SCRAM-driven missiles). Fighter jets? Might as well call out the buggy whips and horse drawn carriages. Obligatory A-10 shoutout: We still need something that can provide air-to-ground support to ground troops with a long dwell time, but high-speed cruise to fast deployment (shamelessly stolen from The Avengers: http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg).
  - philwelch 13y ago
    There is a F-35 variant that's designed to provide close air support, but it's the USMC variant and it's designed to replace the Harrier, which is little consolation to the Army. Of course, designing the same airframe to replace both the Harrier and the F-16 is a ridiculous notion and the F-35 suffers for it.

Care to elaborate?

ddorian43 13y ago

probably beacuse over-budget, too late, tries to do everything, too pricey

chiph 13y ago
And under-performs. Frankly, for the type of wars we're likely to fight in the foreseeable future, the most common mission would call for something like a cheap prop-driven plane with a ton of ordnance hardpoints. Take the flight surfaces off, stuff 3-4 of them into a C-17 and fly them to the theater of operations, go to work. But the aviator community would hate it.
- msandford 13y ago
  Or an A-10 Warthog. It's basically what you described but with fairly robust jet engines.
  - qbrass 13y ago
    It sounded more like the description of the AC-130.
    - infinotize 13y ago
      AC-130 is significantly more of a sitting duck to infantry-deployable surface to air missiles. They have to be fairly low and fly in slow circles with the broadside facing the target. It would be hard to imagine a better missile target. One was shot down in the gulf war by one such infantryman/SAM and all 14 crew were killed. A-10s can loiter and provide extended ground support, but can come in/leave quickly, maneuver well, use terrain to hide from ground fire, etc.
      - qbrass 13y ago
        I agree with you, but the original description was that of a cargo plane turned into an assault platform. I was assuming the intention was creating something more along the lines of the Flying Fortress, but the AC-130 was the closest thing I could think of that's still in service.
- peckrob 13y ago
  Pilot here. The aviator community loves pretty much anything that flies and won't get us killed doing it. :) The role you're describing is currently filled - very well, I might add, by the A-10. It can fly low and slow (has a stall speed of right around 140mph), it's heavily armored and can carry massive amounts of armament. Not to mention an enormous gun that can decimate pretty much anything in its path. They're slated for retirement soon, though. Long term, I think this role will eventually be filled by drones.
  - chiph 13y ago
    I'm not 100% sold on drones. Yes, they work, they're cheap, and they don't expose squishy & expensive pilots to danger. But even with frequency-agile radios, they're vulnerable to jamming and ASAT missiles taking out important stuff in orbit. I was expecting someone to jump in with the dog-fight argument against using low & slow aircraft. Unlike in Vietnam, today's missiles are reliable and effective, so even a prop plane can engage and defeat a jet at extended ranges... as long as positive hostile ID can be made early enough.

fasteddie31003 13y ago

It is a huge waste of money ~$200m each. The project has been plagued with technical problems (it doesn't meet its performance specifications, it has structural problems, etc.). It does not perform any better than current fighter planes in war game simulations. It is being made for a war that we will never fight with fighter planes. I wonder if America has fought its last human controlled air-to-air dog fight, or it will be extremely rare. And it was shoved down the Pentagon's throat by lobbyists. Take a look for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...

toomuchtodo 13y ago
> I wonder if America has fought its last human controlled air-to-air dog fight, or it will be extremely rare. Yes. Drones and long-range weapons delivery (either high energy or SCRAM-driven missiles). Fighter jets? Might as well call out the buggy whips and horse drawn carriages. Obligatory A-10 shoutout: We still need something that can provide air-to-ground support to ground troops with a long dwell time, but high-speed cruise to fast deployment (shamelessly stolen from The Avengers: http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg).
- philwelch 13y ago
  There is a F-35 variant that's designed to provide close air support, but it's the USMC variant and it's designed to replace the Harrier, which is little consolation to the Army. Of course, designing the same airframe to replace both the Harrier and the F-16 is a ridiculous notion and the F-35 suffers for it.