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

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?

Oh.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

In message , Tiger
writes
William Black wrote:
What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
fits the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to
drop bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may
be pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar,
which is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such
aircraft (as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the
end).

By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS,
included the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to
support the troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at
night as well as by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and
simple.


It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to
fill the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but
deadly gun and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the
reality falls over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others
can't be reached on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where
they're needed get into long conversations about "I see the street, I
think, and some red smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay,
across the street and three houses north of the red smoke... I show two
red smokes now... was that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"

The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
(though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting
on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
effectiveness and longevity...)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

On Jun 11, 4:07 am, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
(though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting
on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
effectiveness and longevity...)

Don't forget the ultimate example of this sort of thing: the A-4
Skyhawk. Heinemann's fanatical devotion to weight saving meant that
you had an excellent air frame capable of holding its own in a
dogfight (as Aggressor pilots proved on numerous occasions). And in
the hands of a determined pilot, well, ask the RN how effective it can
be as an attack aircraft. Unfortunately, it really took until the A4D2
(aka the A4B after the great renaming) to get an airplane that was
functional in more conditions than daylight only- with guided weapons,
adequate navigation systems, etc. The A4D2N (aka A4C), with all sorts
of fancy-pants radars and ECM's and so on was even more useful, and
not surprisingly, 4x as many A4C's were made as A4-nils. Heinemann was
a fantastic designer and I really admire his discipline about weight,
but I think he might have gone a bit too far with mission weight from
time to time.

Chris Manteuffel

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Tiger
writes

William Black wrote:



In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
fits the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to
drop bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may
be pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....


Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar,
which is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such
aircraft (as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the
end).

The cost vs. benifit seems out of wack. You want a $100 milion plane
designed for chasing Migs to drop bombs on Bad guy X. Rather than a $20
million A6 or A10 designed for that purpose 30 years ago? Both in theory
can get hit by the golden BB.Based on combat so far Choppers are a more
likely target for your SA-7. Lower flying, slow. Our losses in rotor
wing craft far excedes any fixed wing losses. Also even recently retired
planes are equiped with flares & chaff to counter missle threats.




By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS,
included the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to
support the troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at
night as well as by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and
simple.


It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to
fill the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but
deadly gun and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the
reality falls over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others
can't be reached on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where
they're needed get into long conversations about "I see the street, I
think, and some red smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay,
across the street and three houses north of the red smoke... I show two
red smokes now... was that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"

All the pricey toys of Saddam's Air defence got few kills. The f-16 may
old enough to drink,but I could take a few down to Venezeula turn
Hugo's shinny new toys into toast in a day.


The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
(though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting
on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
effectiveness and longevity...)

A-10's are lightwieght?

As for the Zero. It's strengths play to a difference in design
philosophy. It was to be used offensively & swiftly like a Katana sword.
It's armor was it's speed & climb. We on the other hand take the suit
of armor approach to planes. Thus we build stuff like the Hellcat or
P47. The LWF program also helped close the quantity gap over our foes.
The f-14 & f-15 had quality, but a $30 million a pop not numbers.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
In message , Tiger
writes
William Black wrote:
What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar, which
is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such aircraft
(as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the end).

By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS, included
the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to support the
troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at night as well as
by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and simple.


It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to fill
the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but deadly gun
and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the reality falls
over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others can't be reached
on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where they're needed get
into long conversations about "I see the street, I think, and some red
smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay, across the street and
three houses north of the red smoke... I show two red smokes now... was
that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"

The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
(though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting on
bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
effectiveness and longevity...)

When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these days
in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to
realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in night/adverse
weather, and being able to use smart weapons.

I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the
advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is
(criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the
A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't
persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big
Cannon).

I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the Skyraider.
But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces CAS
needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers.

It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There will
always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired
CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any
number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't see
something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in
enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll
they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The
problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me, I'd
go with a Saab Gripen NG.

AHS

In article z484k.1094$L03.864@edtnps92,
says...
The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
also over US $100 million.

That A-10 cost was probably for the lst ones built, way back when ??

I can FEDLOG the M35 2-1/2 ton truck and get a price. Last Time I
checked a M35A2 was $47,000 or so..
But you can't order any new ones because the production line is long
gone.


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:50:55 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:



When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these
days
in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to
realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in
night/adverse
weather, and being able to use smart weapons.

I'm fairly reasonable and would not agree that upgraded "Close Air
Support" airframe could or even should be "upgraded" into the role of
an "Air Superiority" fighter. At best the A-10 can be used in a
limited air interdiction role. It is absolutely 100% the wrong tool
for the wrong job in the role of "Air Superiority". The A-10 operates
under the "Low & Slow" method of operation which makes it great for
the Close Air Support Mission fro which it was created, but the entire
design of the Airframe means it will never be a "Go-Fast" fighter.

Up until it actually provided its mission effectiveness (killing tanks
dead) during DS/DS the A-10 was headed out of the Active Duty fleet.

In DS1, the main tank killer was the Buff. Today, the F-16, F-18, F-15E and
soon, the F-35 are much more of an affective armor killer than the A-10.
They are less of a target since they are NOT low and slow. The A-10 is
going out because it's running out of airframe time. The reason it hasn't
already is that it's paid for. But the payment begins to come higher and
higher to keep it in service. When the payment to keep it in services is
exceeded by the cost to get rid of it then it's gone. It's getting very,
very close. Whereas, the B-52 costs less to keep in service than it costs
to replace it.


I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the
advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on
their
factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is
(criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the
A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't
persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big
Cannon).

I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the
Skyraider.
But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces
CAS
needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers.

It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There
will
always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired
CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any
number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't
see
something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in
enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll
they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The
problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me,
I'd
go with a Saab Gripen NG.

Exactly how long do you think a Fighter can not only be kept in
production, but in any type of viable readiness operational capacity.
There will come a point in time that more of the fleet is down for
repairs then operationally capable. The maintenance costs will also
skyrocket as it gets older & older.

To me the absolute most brilliant part of the F-35 is the number of
countries that will have them in operational use, and if they ever
work out the technology transfer issues -- production. This
could/would mean that a F-35 from Canada operating in a joint theater
could be maintained by & have its spares provided for by any other of
the other nations operating the aircraft and participating in the same
theater of operations. This could/should lead to just one set of
maintenance personnel needing to be in the field in a joint operation.
Hell even the pilots could be interchangeable.

To me everything about the F-35 screams lower production & operating
costs because of commonality across all of an allied Air Fleet. Even
the Carrier version is 80% compatible with the land based version. It
is about time that the members of NATO and other treaties got their
collective act together and started using equipment 100% in common.
While Canada may have the intellectual & production ability to design
& build its own native fighter, the costs would be huge, and the
simple question of "Why?" would have to be asked.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
[snip]

Redesign a B747 or A380 with a conveyor belt and a hole in the bottom
so that it can drop scores of smart bombs, one at a time, and you'll
have all the air support you'll need for the ground forces.

Juergen Nieveler

Make the hole in the side rather than the bottom. Civilian aircraft
have large cargo holds whose doors are on the side.

The aircraft have sufficient space to carry bombs, missiles and a gun.

Andrew Swallow

Juergen Nieveler schrieb:

Imagine how many GBU39 you could put inside a B747...

Imagine the militarization costs for comms, data-links, electronic
countermeasures...

add mid-air
refueling, a second flight crew etc. (room wouldn't be much of an
issue), and you'd get a bomb platform that can stay overhead pretty
much all day,

During the Gulf War B-52 made a trip of 35 hours from Louisiana to Iraq
and back.

just waiting for somebody to request for a strike.

And after CAS is requested the ground forces have to wait for a
Jumbo Jet to actually make the strike... A Super Hornet or Strike Eagle
will probably be able to carry about two dozens SDB. That's plenty and
speedy.

I'd advocate an F-22C with:
more powerful, more efficient engines (40,000+ lbs trust each)
IRST, plus the other things that were cut out of the 1980s ATF spec as
the YF-22 was finalized..
improved stealth
larger weapons bay that can hold 8-10 AMRAAMs

Upgrade current F-22A models with as much of the tech that goes into
F-22C as possible.


F-35 is no replacement for F-22
Just like F-16 was no replacement for F-15C, F-15E.



On Jun 10, 1:16 pm, Mike wrote:
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Date: June 6, 2008
Allowing the Air Force to buy more F-22As in exchange for fewer F-35
Lightning IIs does not make sense given the nature of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young told reporters
this week. Any decision on buying more F-22As at the expense of F-35s
would have to be based on operational requirements that the service
identifies, Young said during a June 5 briefing. He will leave this
decision up to the Air Force. “The Air Force has taken some looks at
that and been uncomfortable with cutting some more Joint Strike
Fighters, so that’s coupled [to] a force-structure decision,” Young
said. The “Joint Strike Fighter is totally coupled to the requirements
and force-structure decision. It’s not a law of just buy fewer and see
if everything works out.” Both aircraft have unique capabilities that
are best suited for specific missions, he said. However, when looking
at the current conflict environment, Young said that the F-35 is
probably the better-suited airplane, pointing to the F-35’s ground-
attack capability and datalinks as advantages in the current wars.
“JSF is incredibly capable, half the price of the F-22 . . . I would
agree that any decision to buy more F-22s at the expense of JSF is not
a good choice for the taxpayer,” Young said. “F-22 is still working to
add the air-to-ground capability after the fact and at some
significant cost,” he said. Still, Young warned that future
requirements may change, especially with a new administration taking
power next year. Alluding to the Air Force’s next-generation bomber,
the acquisition czar also repeated comments he made earlier this week
claiming that he would not approve any program he determines is not
likely to stay on-budget and on-time. This week, Young told lawmakers
that he does not believe the Air Force will be able to field the
bomber by 2018 because of funding issues. “I’ve said it before and
I’ll say it again, the 2018 was a nice planning date in the
[Quadrennial Defense Review], it is not a mandatory date . . . the
degree to which the Air Force is willing to fund [the bomber] will
determine the date that [it] will be available,” Young said. Early
cost estimates for the bomber were “significantly less” than
comparable programs, especially given how quickly the service wanted
to field the plane, he said. He is now waiting for the results of a
Defense Science Board review into the costs and schedule for the
program before he will sign off on the program. “I do not want to be
part of another marquee failed program,” he said, adding that he hopes
to use their review in budget decisions about the bomber by 2009. Also
at this week’s briefing, Young told reporters that the C-5 Reliability
Enhancement and Re-engining Program could be challenged by the fact
that many parts for the 40-year-old airlifter are becoming obsolete,
and the service could face a supplier gap. “We are discovering that we
may have some suppliers who want to get out of that business space,”
Young said. “I may have some obsolete parts. [But] I have no authority
to go buy a life-of-type buy for that program” because of a current
law. He noted that, without being able to lock in current parts in a
multiyear deal, he will be forced to find new parts that will have to
be re-qualified and retested, causing the costs to rise by tens of
millions of dollars. “So the law will force me to let those parts go
obsolete, and then I’ll have to go spend $10 [million], $20 [million],
$40 million to re-qualify and test the new parts and I can’t do it,”
he said. In an effort to reign in costs, the C-5 RERP program has been
slashed to 48 aircraft from 108, allowing the Pentagon to save $9.8
billion from the program which was re-certified earlier this spring
after breaching the Nunn-McCurdy statute that caps per-unit cost
growth in military programs. The Pentagon recently ordered the Air
Force to infuse another $1.8 billion into the program which DOD
expects to cost $7.7 billion through 2015. The C-5 RERP is meant to
make the airlifters 75 percent more mission capable than current C-5s.