GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10

Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.

or a new design.

Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?

One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole
design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts
interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.

One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I
know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.

Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47
will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.

Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlfor more 411
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job
as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
medals and gets them in bar fights.