F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

john smith wrote in news:jsmith-CBAD9C.20104813012007@news-
server.columbus.rr.com:

In article ,
"Alan Erskine" wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong
aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc.
Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10.

I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic didn't
deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to make the
F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and the A-10
strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.



And now both have been cancelled.

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

john smith wrote in
news:jsmith-CBAD9C.20104813012007@news- server.columbus.rr.com:

In article ,
"Alan Erskine" wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the
wrong aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too
small etc. Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat
A-10.

I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic
didn't deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to
make the F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and
the A-10 strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.



And now both have been cancelled.





The Lightning II is supposed to be replacing the RAF's Harriers & Jaguars
too, so we're in much the same boat.

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

john smith wrote in
news:jsmith-CBAD9C.20104813012007@news- server.columbus.rr.com:

In article ,
"Alan Erskine" wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the
wrong aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too
small etc. Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat
A-10.

I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic
didn't deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to
make the F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and
the A-10 strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.



And now both have been cancelled.





The Lightning II is supposed to be replacing the RAF's Harriers & Jaguars
too, so we're in much the same boat.

"Roger Smith" wrote in message
...

The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within
close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed
comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

Actually: the A-10 was designed to loiter the battleground at low level for
several hours, waiting for it's prey.

Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

The battlefield was nowhere near friendly airbases in Yugoslavia, yet the
A-10 is one of the aircraft that was most suited to patrol that very same
playgound, both in Bosnia and in Kosovo. In fact: it is still the aircraft
of choice to patrol the skys above those territories.

And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount
of
damage an A-10 can survive.


I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.

How many battles have A10's been in?

The same battles the RAFs Tornados paid a visit: GulfWar-II (FYI: GW-I was
between Iraq and Iran, and led to the Tanker War), Bosnia, Kosovo,
Afghanistan, and Gulf War-III. I think the A-10 did FAR better in CAS than
the Tornado did.

How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

None, although the USAF did at one point attempt to sell them abroad, when
it was decided to dispose of them just before GW-II. Turkey was a likely
candidate. Then GW-II happened, and the rest is history. The USAF doesn't
want to sell them, even the ones stored at DM AFB are not for sale. Nobody
can afford them, and even if they could, nobody is willing to buy the
associated Uranium Depleted Shells that go with the main weapon: the Avenger
gun. Well, maybe the RAF, but they won't buy any front line aircraft that
were not (in part) invented by the Brits...

(1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and
in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
combat plane.

Those big fan engines are its strong point: they are relatively cheap
(because derived from a commercial engine) and mounted outside the airframe
to minimise damage when they blow. Their location means they are shielded
mostly from the ground: the intakes by the huge wings, and the exhausts by
the rudders. I think you'll hardly find an engine better protected than
those of the A-10.

Ron
--
Non urinat in ventum

"Roger Smith" wrote in message
...

The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within
close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed
comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

Actually: the A-10 was designed to loiter the battleground at low level for
several hours, waiting for it's prey.

Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

The battlefield was nowhere near friendly airbases in Yugoslavia, yet the
A-10 is one of the aircraft that was most suited to patrol that very same
playgound, both in Bosnia and in Kosovo. In fact: it is still the aircraft
of choice to patrol the skys above those territories.

And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount
of
damage an A-10 can survive.


I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.

How many battles have A10's been in?

The same battles the RAFs Tornados paid a visit: GulfWar-II (FYI: GW-I was
between Iraq and Iran, and led to the Tanker War), Bosnia, Kosovo,
Afghanistan, and Gulf War-III. I think the A-10 did FAR better in CAS than
the Tornado did.

How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

None, although the USAF did at one point attempt to sell them abroad, when
it was decided to dispose of them just before GW-II. Turkey was a likely
candidate. Then GW-II happened, and the rest is history. The USAF doesn't
want to sell them, even the ones stored at DM AFB are not for sale. Nobody
can afford them, and even if they could, nobody is willing to buy the
associated Uranium Depleted Shells that go with the main weapon: the Avenger
gun. Well, maybe the RAF, but they won't buy any front line aircraft that
were not (in part) invented by the Brits...

(1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and
in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
combat plane.

Those big fan engines are its strong point: they are relatively cheap
(because derived from a commercial engine) and mounted outside the airframe
to minimise damage when they blow. Their location means they are shielded
mostly from the ground: the intakes by the huge wings, and the exhausts by
the rudders. I think you'll hardly find an engine better protected than
those of the A-10.

Ron
--
Non urinat in ventum