Author Topic: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  (Read 129215 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3075
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #885 on: February 13, 2012, 08:37:53 pm »

"F-16s striking ten miles into the kuwaiti theater while we fly deep into Iraq does not compute"

after that day all A-10s were forbidden from deep attack missions and restricted to nearer areas (probably helped the sortie rate as well)all told four A-10s were lost in combat in 1991 with more damaged. Most ROEs until recently prohibited even getting low enough to use the gun, and In Libya upon notice that SA-18s may be in the AO flight restrictions were issued to AC-130s, A-10s and Harriers.

        OA-10A 76-0543
    Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF).  The 23 US combat lost aircraft.  Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.
     
....
   
They are not invincible and its not some "invisible hand" that is making the USAF give up its Hogs. Its per their own recommendations.
You forgot to mention the other stats.
During Gulf War I:
It had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of all the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired off in the entire war. It took out-
900+ Iraqi tanks
1,200+ artillery pieces
2,000+ military vehicles
And it even turned a couple helo's into instant Swiss cheese with the cannon.

During WWII the P-47 killed more ground vehicles than that.  Maybe we should have kept them instead of A-10s. 

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #886 on: February 13, 2012, 08:54:07 pm »
It is curious that the US Army has nothing to say about A-10 being replaced by JSF. 

"Thank you for getting us an airplane that can actually break the speed of sound and get to our soldiers faster when they are in trouble because air force CAS sucks and takes forever already?" Why does the Air force care? They really don't. CAS is not loved by the USAF. its all deep strike baby. If the Army screamed until they turned blue is the USAF really going to apologize and change its mind? The USAF was formed to get away from the army telling it what to do. Its a little bit like moving out of your parents house and marrying that girl they never liked.


Now JSF may end up being excellent fighter or bomber, but it is unlikely to be a good replacement for A-10.  It cannot fly slow and the less said about its endurance, the better.  And what's worst, it is too expensive and fragile to be allowed anywhere close to ground fire.  Which, btw, makes its gun useless for ground support.  So the Army will have to do with occassional SDB falling from the sky, provided that they can get accurate coordinates of the target, and provided that the target is willing to sit still for 15 minutes until JSF can be scrambled.

The Gun on the JSF is based on the same 25MM cannon that is used on the Harrier and AC-130 gunship. useless?

If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still. are you implying that A-10s don't need to be scrambled or that they are magically in the correct area at all times? What on earth are you talking about? In Afghanistan we were advised to schedule USAF CAS 48 hours ahead of when we needed it. 48 hours isn't fast. A-10 pilots don't have wrist watches, they have calenders. It doesn't help that a lot of folks here seem to have comic book version of war and CAS in particular. A-10s try their best to move fast in combat, for obvious reasons. Low and Slow is not the preferred method if it can be avoided. If low and slow is what its all about, get helicopters. Wait let me guess, those are too low and too slow.


"F-16s striking ten miles into the kuwaiti theater while we fly deep into Iraq does not compute"

after that day all A-10s were forbidden from deep attack missions and restricted to nearer areas (probably helped the sortie rate as well)all told four A-10s were lost in combat in 1991 with more damaged. Most ROEs until recently prohibited even getting low enough to use the gun, and In Libya upon notice that SA-18s may be in the AO flight restrictions were issued to AC-130s, A-10s and Harriers.

        OA-10A 76-0543
    Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF).  The 23 US combat lost aircraft.  Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.
     
....
   
They are not invincible and its not some "invisible hand" that is making the USAF give up its Hogs. Its per their own recommendations.
You forgot to mention the other stats.
During Gulf War I:
It had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of all the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired off in the entire war. It took out-
900+ Iraqi tanks
1,200+ artillery pieces
2,000+ military vehicles
And it even turned a couple helo's into instant Swiss cheese with the cannon.

During WWII the P-47 killed more ground vehicles than that.  Maybe we should have kept them instead of A-10s.

Don't forget the B-29. It had some pretty impressive stats too, why did we ever develop a replacement? The B-52 will never wipe out as many cities as the B-29. B-29s rocked.

Technology marches on people

Sferrin, Thanks for that video! If you notice to the Brits have no Comms with the A-10 so their only hope is to fall back. Visual ID with the naked eye is a last resort in combat, because its far to easy to make a mistake.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 09:08:52 pm by TaiidanTomcat »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #887 on: February 14, 2012, 07:08:25 am »
Is it just me, or do I have the impression some people here are discussing something that was never really ever part of the JSF package, namely A-10-type missions for the F-35??

What?? Next you'll be telling us that the F-35 doesn't make a good maritime patrol/ASW or SAR platform!

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #888 on: February 14, 2012, 10:08:40 am »
If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still.

I fully recognize the need for the F-35 and while I have my concerns over the problems encountered thus far in testing and the weight of the aircraft, I am generally supportive of the program. That said, replacing the A-10 with the F-35 in my eyes has nothing to do with the F-35 being superior for CAS, rather a matter of budget. The same thing that drove attempts to replace the A-10 with F-16 variants in the past.

Now the 25mm GAU-22/A would certainly be more capable against ground targets than the 20mm M61 Vulcan series, but a mere 180 or 220 rounds of ammunition isn't much compared to the 1,100+ 30mm rounds the A-10 and its GAU-8/A have to work with. The A-10 doesn't need to be at full throttle or fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. A pilot would fire in short bursts because at 4,200 rounds per minute a short burst is already sending a lot of destructive force down range.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3075
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #889 on: February 14, 2012, 05:06:56 pm »
If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still.

I fully recognize the need for the F-35 and while I have my concerns over the problems encountered thus far in testing and the weight of the aircraft, I am generally supportive of the program. That said, replacing the A-10 with the F-35 in my eyes has nothing to do with the F-35 being superior for CAS, rather a matter of budget. The same thing that drove attempts to replace the A-10 with F-16 variants in the past.

Now the 25mm GAU-22/A would certainly be more capable against ground targets than the 20mm M61 Vulcan series, but a mere 180 or 220 rounds of ammunition isn't much compared to the 1,100+ 30mm rounds the A-10 and its GAU-8/A have to work with. The A-10 doesn't need to be at full throttle or fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. A pilot would fire in short bursts because at 4,200 rounds per minute a short burst is already sending a lot of destructive force down range.

No other current US fighter has as many rounds as the A-10, and only the Harrier has anything bigger than 20mm.  That's life. 

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #890 on: February 14, 2012, 06:18:46 pm »
To me its not that CAS isn't important, its just that is has evolved. Nothing is going to replace a Battleship for armor and guns, but Aircraft Carriers don't need armor or guns to beat them.  You can scream until your blue in the face that nothing will truly replace the A-10 and your right, but it doesn't need to be replaced because the mission has changed. Its not about replacing the A-10 so much as it is about fulfilling the modern CAS role.  Besides there are still going to be A-10s, just not so many of them. Not unlike the B-52, They are still around but the days of needing hundreds of them has passed. Nothing will replace the SR-71 for recon...except spy satellites.  It's simple evolution.

Offline tacitblue

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #891 on: February 17, 2012, 03:16:52 pm »
If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still.

I fully recognize the need for the F-35 and while I have my concerns over the problems encountered thus far in testing and the weight of the aircraft, I am generally supportive of the program. That said, replacing the A-10 with the F-35 in my eyes has nothing to do with the F-35 being superior for CAS, rather a matter of budget. The same thing that drove attempts to replace the A-10 with F-16 variants in the past.

Now the 25mm GAU-22/A would certainly be more capable against ground targets than the 20mm M61 Vulcan series, but a mere 180 or 220 rounds of ammunition isn't much compared to the 1,100+ 30mm rounds the A-10 and its GAU-8/A have to work with. The A-10 doesn't need to be at full throttle or fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. A pilot would fire in short bursts because at 4,200 rounds per minute a short burst is already sending a lot of destructive force down range.

No other current US fighter has as many rounds as the A-10, and only the Harrier has anything bigger than 20mm.  That's life.

180 rounds ain't much! 

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #892 on: February 20, 2012, 06:16:57 am »
They will at least be the deadliest 25mm shells ever, some new prefragmented all purpose shell is being designed for the plane. Weight wise 180 x 25mm rounds is non trivial too. If you need more then that, drop a bomb. All the more so since such a wide range of very small 5-40lb class kind of guided bombs are being worked on to handle situations when a 250lb or 500lb weapon doesn't make sense.


Anyway the USAF has very large numbers of armed drones which can do CAS very nicely, and the Army really can't complain now that it's getting Grey Eagle drones which have about nearly as much payload as a WW2 fighter bomber. A Grey Eagle calling in GMLRS strikes and firing its own weapons at targets which cannot wait ~2 minutes for GMLRS will take care of time critical situations a lot better then an A-10 with 1/5th the loiter time could.

Offline unclejim

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #893 on: February 20, 2012, 10:35:35 am »
"technology marches on"


Silly argument, if all that new tech is just reinventing the wheel. Or lining the contractors (and polititians,elected and otherwise)pockets. I understand the need to replace warn out equipment, and bring worthwhile new technology into service. Just lets be sure we are getting what we pay for, folks. :)

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • ***
  • Posts: 113

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 634
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #895 on: February 20, 2012, 08:25:21 pm »
Or lining the contractors ... pockets.


Also known as employing people... ::)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3075
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #896 on: February 20, 2012, 08:57:41 pm »

Offline harrier

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 549
  • BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
    • Work profile
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #897 on: February 21, 2012, 01:45:05 am »
Other stores/pylons picture/story:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a82516784-4f4f-40d6-8a23-c5ccd65ffa91&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest




I seem to recall that putting underwing pylons right near the wingtip causes much more drag than a wingtip rail. With high span loading the tip vortices will be strong, and those AIM-9X rails look like they will have strong side washes on them.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 01:48:57 am by harrier »
BAe P.1216 Supersonic ASTOVL Aircraft: www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

100 Years  - Camel, Hurricane, Harrier: www.kingstonaviation.org

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3075
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #898 on: February 21, 2012, 02:28:34 am »
I seem to recall that putting underwing pylons right near the wingtip causes much more drag than a wingtip rail. With high span loading the tip vortices will be strong, and those AIM-9X rails look like they will have strong side washes on them.

I'll bet they're still better than the Super Hornet's air brakes, I mean "pylons".  :D

Offline Thorvic

  • The Scratchbuilding Demigod
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
Re: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
« Reply #899 on: February 21, 2012, 10:06:42 am »
How come the pylons are so big and chunky, as they look like they have slapped Super Hornet ones on rather than something more refined are they carrying kit that could have been carried internally in the wing or mounted seperately as part of weapon rail ?