100% i'd like to know who gave THAT order
Posted on 01/14/2016 9:49:39 AM PST by SandRat
I feel bad for that.
Yep, a pointy nose fast-jet isn’t going to get it done like the A-10, that’s for sure.
100% i'd like to know who gave THAT order
Sorry, blogs that use biased or outdated information don’t interest me. There was no “mock dogfight”. It was a flight designed to see how the aircraft handled in certain flight envelopes. The F35 referenced in the article is a designated “flight sciences” aircraft with limited capability, limited systems and limited flight envelope. It is not reflective of the operational fleet in general. Tactics dictate that our aircrews have BVR, First look, First Kill capability. The F35 incorporates these when fully missionized.
In addition to being fully coated with stealth materials, the pilot would typically have sensors on board a fully capable aircraft and wouldn’t have to “turn his head” to find the “enemy”. The aircraft is essentially made “transparent” through the use of numerous sensors placed around the aircraft.
But in the interest of fairness, here’s a counter to your blogger: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16/
Doc Nelson referenced in the above article is a previous active duty fighter pilot and flight test pilot in F16s, F22s and now the F35. I think his words should hold much more credence than a blogger.
Is it a 1 for 1 replacement for an A10? Hell no. I don’t believe anyone who claims to be experienced in aviation claiming such. If they do, they expose themselves as either ignorant or deceitful.
I don’t know of one person involved with the F35 who believes it is an A10 replacement. It brings first STRIKE capability, suppression of AA and once attained, then bomb trucking. More like a combination of F117 and F16 than anything else. And I’m not even getting into its avionics capabilities.
Yeah, it kills me how a bunch of Freepers hit the threads complaining about media bias then come here believing every line of crap from the ongoing smear campaign against every new weapon system since Vietnam (which is so predictable you can set your watch to it). The B-2 can’t function in the rain, the F-15 is an overpriced dog, the F-16 “electric jet’s” complex electronics are unmaintainable in a wartime footing (even though it’s been perpetually deployed for the last 25 years), the AV-8 Harrier is “The Widowmaker”, the AWACS is a piece of junk that won’t work and will be the first to die in any war, the CVN aircraft carrier was proven by World War II to be obsolete, need I go on? Then people who have actually WORKED in the aerospace industry for 20+ years try to dispel a few myths and get attacked, get called government stooges, and are accused to being in love with a piece of techno-garbage. Not too impressive, FR, I expected more from you people.
And like you, I’m not going to get into the sensors on the F-35. Just suffice to say: there are serious people in the industry that want to UPGRADE the E-8 JSTARS to sensors that the F-22 and F-35 have.
What people don’t realize is that the Air Force doesn’t “want to” retire the A-10, they were forced into making the horrible choice of dumping a new 5th generation aircraft that is coming on line or dumping the A-10. It’s impossible to make a good choice there. It’s like putting a gun to your head and telling you to decide between losing an arm and losing a leg.
The only reason that the Air Force has even entertained the notion of using an F-35 for CAS is because the alternative is to just walk away from the entire CAS mission outright. (I still hold the view that dropping JDAMs from an F-15 Strike Eagle, F-16, or B-1 is not truly CAS; it works when taking out moronic islamics that have no Air Force and can’t find reverse on a Russian tank but it’s a workaround, not a viable option against a well-equipped enemy that knows what they’re doing).
I searched a while to find that one page to counter the dozens that was similar to the one she posted...that’s how prevalent the bias is out there.
Plus, it’s a “gray” program...some you get to hear about, some you don’t...and the media makes damn sure you hear about anything negative.
Should have seen the U-2 thread from a couple of years back...more ignorance and stupidity on that thread alone to fill the Great Lakes...
This is why I rarely, if ever engage on aviation threads any more. People don’t want to learn, they want to quibble, they want to denigrate...they’re not interested in learning the facts.
Yep, but that doesn’t matter...someone, somewhere said the F35 is going to be the A-10 replacement and justifiably, all hell broke loose. But that doesn’t give people license to lie about the F35.
But it is Washington that is responsible for this mess because of their constant mismanagement and lack of a budget...the sequestration crap has hit the services harder than any other function of government, it’s what RATS do and POS RINO’s support.
So, the media says “the USAF announced it is going to retire the A10 in favor of the F35.” and like good lemmings, the people believe it. No on looks at the back story as to WHY!
The F35 is not an optimum CAS aircraft, neither were the F15, the F16 and F22 in their original form...but the aircraft were made to be modestly successful and the F15 actually spun off into the SE as you mention.
The F35 will come into its own at some point in the future, just like the rest, including the A10. The A10 hasn’t gotten where it’s at in static form...many upgrades and enhancements have subsequently made it the great platform it has become for its mission.
Yep, and I jumped right into it on this one. I should know better, most people have their opinions the second they get to a thread. They’ll play up the posts that agree with their preconceived notions and attack anybody who differs, even here at FR.
You should see the article I posted a few years ago titled “Man Tased For Speeding”. Yeah, those dirty cops just want to write you tickets and beat you up. And they dream of the opportunity to shoot you. Even with a video, it’s sad how many people didn’t pick up on the fact that after the guy was out of the car, he wouldn’t take his hands out of his pockets and was only tased after attempting to flee the traffic stop.
I’m not happy how dumbed-down FR has been getting lately.
And like a good little politician, she’s right there to jump in and take credit for the turnaround. This has a lot more to do with Chuck Hagel leaving and Zero being distracted with other problems.
The F35 will come into its own at some point in the future, just like the rest, including the A10. The A10 hasn’t gotten where it’s at in static form...many upgrades and enhancements have subsequently made it the great platform it has become for its mission.
Yep, just like the F-111. It was a damn good aircraft and did some very notable things in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Most people have never heard of that. An EF-111 even got an Iraqi Mirage F1 kill. But it wasn't always that way, the F-111 had big problems when it came on line in the Vietnam war. It took a lot of early losses and had the reputation of being a big pig that was only built because it was made in LBJ's backyard (Fort Worth, Texas). It took some time, work, and upgrades to make the F-111 a great aircraft.
It meets the requirements the Airforce, Navy and Marines gave the contractors. Blame the military if you don’t like it. They do. No one ever claimed it would kill tanks better than an A-10. They just claimed it would kill them as well as we need in this modern era. I disagree, but that does not mean the plane has a problem. It is all in how they define the requirements. Contracts build what they are told or they don’t get paid.
‘Dog fight failure’ is a biased and inaccurate representation of what happened. It preformed how they expected based on the parameters of the test, which were not in its favor. It may come as a shock to you but you aren’t the only one with an irrational anti-F-35 bias. Some analysts do too.
The aircraft is exactly as capable as they original planners wrote into the specification (or pretty close anyway). If you don’t like what was in that then blame the military analysts for misidentifying what they need. Personally I would trust their opinion over yours.
“So, the media says “the USAF announced it is going to retire the A10 in favor of the F35.†and like good lemmings, the people believe it. No on looks at the back story as to WHY!”
No kidding! We retired torpedo bombers in favor of multi role aircraft... that does not mean anyone thought the new planes could drop torpedoes better. It is a whole lot more complicated than that.
“It took some time, work, and upgrades to make the F-111 a great aircraft.”
Same with P-51. And the B-17. And the darn near every other aircraft. These days they just cost more and take longer so people who know next to nothing have plenty of time to read articles they hardly understand and start regurgitating them. In 20 years, if the same people are alive they will bitch and moan about the F-57 and still wax nostalgic for whatever plane was their favorite.
“People don’t want to learn, they want to quibble, they want to denigrate...they’re not interested in learning the facts.”
They read an article somewhere that confirmed their bias and they want to sound smart. Debating the pros and cons of a weapon system can be fun. But as soon as some starts throwing around hyperbole like ‘total failure’ the there is no intelligent discourse going on. Even the infamous Brewster Buffalo was not a ‘total failure’.
You called that. There's a poster above hollering at me that the F-35 can't make a such-and-such turn that the F-15 and F-16 can, it can't do this, it can't do that. The capabilities are classified, so how the hell does he know that? At that point, I didn't reply and had already left the thread in disgust. It doesn't mean I know everything, but I've worked in military aviation as an aerospace engineer for the last 20 years. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with people who only read headlines and the first paragraph of any article or who only want to quote the NY Times to you is the fool's errand. Throw in nostalgic emotion about their favorite jet growing up and you might as well be herding 100 cats.
And the accident rates were downright horrendous. The B-47, for example, took peacetime losses that would be completely intolerable today. Over the B-47's lifetime, 203 aircraft were lost, killing 464 crewmen. In 1957 & 1958 alone, 49 B-47s were lost, killing 122 crewmen. We don't see anything like that today. It's a testament to better aircraft but also a warning about complacency. In military aviation today, you're a lot more likely to have a peacetime accident than in one forward-deployed. Of course, it's been a LONG time since we've fought a worthy opponent in that arena.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.