riggerrob 643
Recommended Posts
riggerrob 643
You are criticizing the F-35's vertical take-capabilities too harshly. Even helicopters can carry 40 percent more payload if they can do rolling take-offs.
The whole concept of VTOL is really a Marine corps concept to take-off from ships and provide close support to marines on the beach. The British Royal Navy pioneered the ski-jump ramp to allow their Harriers to carry more bombs from short-deck aircraft carriers. Most of the countries that bought Harriers: Britain, Spain, India, etc. could only afford short-deck carriers. All those second-tier countries are hoping to buy F-35s, which will help the USAF pay down R&D costs.
The whole concept of VTOL is really a Marine corps concept to take-off from ships and provide close support to marines on the beach. The British Royal Navy pioneered the ski-jump ramp to allow their Harriers to carry more bombs from short-deck aircraft carriers. Most of the countries that bought Harriers: Britain, Spain, India, etc. could only afford short-deck carriers. All those second-tier countries are hoping to buy F-35s, which will help the USAF pay down R&D costs.
Dantes 0
This could have purchased 500 Generation III AP1000 Nuclear Reactors. Near zero chance of meltdown. Millions of high-paying jobs. Almost no carbon, greenhouse gasses.
The Air Force "hates" CAS? And you know this how?
First, CAS is well within the operational skill sets and taskings of the Air Force. You can reference Joint Publication 3-09.3, "Close Air Support" and Annex 3-03, "Counterland." Now having stated all of that, your connotation of "USAF hates CAS" is superficial.
First, Air Force Doctrine i.e. United States Air Force Doctrine places the first operational priorities on achieving full air superiority of the skies above the land AND maritime battlespaces in any conflict. Doctrine is based upon past lessons learned.
Naval Air's first operational commitment is to protect the fleet. Marine Aviation is to protect Marine Ground Forces and for very good reason. Army air i.e. helicopters also provides both a ground support and air interdiction role. Air assets from all four services may be interchanged to support different operational roles in spite of the fact that may not be its foremost operational strength.
And if the Air Force is called to perform a CAS role, IT WILL DO SO and do so willingly AND as ordered.
It's not a matter of "hating" an Air Tasking Order (ATO), when the ATO comes down, the order is complied with, planned and executed.
First, CAS is well within the operational skill sets and taskings of the Air Force. You can reference Joint Publication 3-09.3, "Close Air Support" and Annex 3-03, "Counterland." Now having stated all of that, your connotation of "USAF hates CAS" is superficial.
First, Air Force Doctrine i.e. United States Air Force Doctrine places the first operational priorities on achieving full air superiority of the skies above the land AND maritime battlespaces in any conflict. Doctrine is based upon past lessons learned.
Naval Air's first operational commitment is to protect the fleet. Marine Aviation is to protect Marine Ground Forces and for very good reason. Army air i.e. helicopters also provides both a ground support and air interdiction role. Air assets from all four services may be interchanged to support different operational roles in spite of the fact that may not be its foremost operational strength.
And if the Air Force is called to perform a CAS role, IT WILL DO SO and do so willingly AND as ordered.
It's not a matter of "hating" an Air Tasking Order (ATO), when the ATO comes down, the order is complied with, planned and executed.
"...the high and mighty USAF..."
I didn't spend 22 years in that "high and mighty USAF" as you call it to take that one. The USAF flies high, is mighty and can kick the crap outta anything you got!
I didn't spend 22 years in that "high and mighty USAF" as you call it to take that one. The USAF flies high, is mighty and can kick the crap outta anything you got!
DanG 1
QuoteI didn't spend 22 years in that "high and mighty USAF"...
Cool. Did you ever think about joining the military?
- Dan G
try again...
Di0 2
I sincerely hope the USAF is not thinking of seriously using the F-35 for CAS.
It's a way too complex, advanced, delicate, and fragile machine for such a dirty role, where you'll meet a II WW flak fire wall capable of taking you down, regardless of your stealth, smart bombs, advanced avionics, VTOL capability, supersonic cruise, all nice features but useless when they are throwing good old school lead at you.
USAF has an A-10 built specifically for that role, and it excels at it. It's tough, it's ugly, it's deadly, it's built to do one thing, and it does it extremely well with extreme survivability, all things that the F-35 will never achieve in this specific role.
USAF, since it doesn't have aircraft carriers, has no reason to pursuit real CAS with the F-35. It would be like trying to win an offroad race with a track car.
Navy, on the other hand, is in a pickle at the moment when it comes to real CAS. There is no perfect aircraft that can do that AND be on a carrier. Some good compromises, the A/F-18 probably being the closes they've got, but still not exactly "close" as real "close air support" would want. Navy used it that way in Afghanistan though and probably now, again, in Iraq and it's doing a decent job.
At the end of they day, if you're in the military part of your job is making work at your best what you're given and make do.
It's a way too complex, advanced, delicate, and fragile machine for such a dirty role, where you'll meet a II WW flak fire wall capable of taking you down, regardless of your stealth, smart bombs, advanced avionics, VTOL capability, supersonic cruise, all nice features but useless when they are throwing good old school lead at you.
USAF has an A-10 built specifically for that role, and it excels at it. It's tough, it's ugly, it's deadly, it's built to do one thing, and it does it extremely well with extreme survivability, all things that the F-35 will never achieve in this specific role.
USAF, since it doesn't have aircraft carriers, has no reason to pursuit real CAS with the F-35. It would be like trying to win an offroad race with a track car.
Navy, on the other hand, is in a pickle at the moment when it comes to real CAS. There is no perfect aircraft that can do that AND be on a carrier. Some good compromises, the A/F-18 probably being the closes they've got, but still not exactly "close" as real "close air support" would want. Navy used it that way in Afghanistan though and probably now, again, in Iraq and it's doing a decent job.
At the end of they day, if you're in the military part of your job is making work at your best what you're given and make do.
I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.
The "Tomcat" has sexy and bad@$$ written all over it to be sure. The F-35 is certainly coming under fire here. But I think this much is true given what is known about the F-35's capabilities. If Maverick wants to engage an F-35 with an F-14 strapped to his behind, he'll be joining Goose.
quade 4
riggerrobDo you expect the high and mighty USAF to ...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but "The High and the Mighty" is commercial aviation.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047086/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Nice little picture too.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
DanG 1
Quotetry again...
After 22 years you can't take some inter-service ribbing?
- Dan G
That's the point...I've heard that joke about "Air Force Civilians" so many times, it's gone rancid. Now do you have anything new like this:
If...the Military Services were ordered to "take the building..."
The Marines would storm the building from the sea, call in fire from the ships and secure the site.
The Army would send out recon units lay mortar and artillery fire down then call in the 101st or 82n'd Airborne (whoever's available) to airdrop in and secure the site.
The Navy would open up the guns on board ship and of course send in the Marines.
The Air Force would let a contract for a one year lease and four option years in order to make a decision to buy and then would not occupy the premises until the grass seed on the golf course began to sprout.
...something like that!
Now was that "stuff" you first put out all you got?
If...the Military Services were ordered to "take the building..."
The Marines would storm the building from the sea, call in fire from the ships and secure the site.
The Army would send out recon units lay mortar and artillery fire down then call in the 101st or 82n'd Airborne (whoever's available) to airdrop in and secure the site.
The Navy would open up the guns on board ship and of course send in the Marines.
The Air Force would let a contract for a one year lease and four option years in order to make a decision to buy and then would not occupy the premises until the grass seed on the golf course began to sprout.
...something like that!
Now was that "stuff" you first put out all you got?
Channman 2
Di0I sincerely hope the USAF is not thinking of seriously using the F-35 for CAS.
It's a way too complex, advanced, delicate, and fragile machine for such a dirty role, where you'll meet a II WW flak fire wall capable of taking you down, regardless of your stealth, smart bombs, advanced avionics, VTOL capability, supersonic cruise, all nice features but useless when they are throwing good old school lead at you.
USAF has an A-10 built specifically for that role, and it excels at it. It's tough, it's ugly, it's deadly, it's built to do one thing, and it does it extremely well with extreme survivability, all things that the F-35 will never achieve in this specific role.
USAF, since it doesn't have aircraft carriers, has no reason to pursuit real CAS with the F-35. It would be like trying to win an offroad race with a track car.
Navy, on the other hand, is in a pickle at the moment when it comes to real CAS. There is no perfect aircraft that can do that AND be on a carrier. Some good compromises, the A/F-18 probably being the closes they've got, but still not exactly "close" as real "close air support" would want. Navy used it that way in Afghanistan though and probably now, again, in Iraq and it's doing a decent job.
At the end of they day, if you're in the military part of your job is making work at your best what you're given and make do.
Well there is all kinds of options for CAS. Here is but one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgZyw7r_f94
[Reply]The Air Force "hates" CAS? And you know this how?
Because it means that the Air Force is doing army work. An FAC embedded with ground-pounders getting guidance from Army boys and telling the Air Force where to drop hell.
The A-10 is contrary to higher, faster, further. It is lower and slower. Not a priority, nor has it ever been. Hence, the A1 Skyraider was the go-to CAS aircraft up to the 1970s. They don't mind Army copters. The Air Force basically had the hog pretty much forced on it.
The Air Force thinks close air support can be done with F-16s, F-15s, B-1s and B-2s, drones, etc., dropping precision guided munitions from 10k feet. And that F-35s will be able to do it, as well. Damned sure, they won't be going below 10k or 15k. Not exactly close.
The Air Force doesn't like the use of a single purpose aircraft like the A-10. Oh, it doesn't mind single purpose aircraft (like the B-2 or B-1 or the F-22) it just don't like single purpose aircraft like the A-10.
Because it is CAS. The A-10 is everything on the bottom of AF priorities. Low. Slow. Hard. Ugly. Cheap. CAS.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Refer back to my first reply. I like to keep things simple but CAS is not a simple issue across the inner service operational mission priorities and to single out the Air Force is a bit sophomoric to say the least. The A-10 is a great airplane and I hate to see it go myself. I have no idea what Air Force Planners have in my mind to replace the venerable A-10 but CAS is still part of the USAF mission like it is for the Navy when and if called upon and of course the Army and Marines.
yoink 321
With the huge advances in drone technology since the F35 has been in development do we really think a close support aircraft has a future in the military - at all?
I think the niche of close support will be taken over by remote aircraft for about a million reasons. Survivability, cost, deployment and reduced human risk just to name a few...
Sure - develop an intercept aircraft to keep the homeland safe, but the problem with a 20+ year design program is that the missions the F35 was designed for are no longer relevant, so they're having to fit a mission to the design, not the other way around. And that's why it's a bit of a mess.
I think the niche of close support will be taken over by remote aircraft for about a million reasons. Survivability, cost, deployment and reduced human risk just to name a few...
Sure - develop an intercept aircraft to keep the homeland safe, but the problem with a 20+ year design program is that the missions the F35 was designed for are no longer relevant, so they're having to fit a mission to the design, not the other way around. And that's why it's a bit of a mess.
You might be right be given the advances in UAV's and UCAV's (Combat UAV's). It has been said that the F-35 may be the last manned fighter developed for a very long time.
So...you cite one source; one critic. And I'd be disingenuous if I did not say that right now the F-35 has many critics and some program development problems that appear to be trying the patience of many. But what's the real word? What are the Generals, and Admirals and program managers and current policy makers of this program REALLY saying about this aircraft? We really don't know what they are truthfully saying. Oh they may make a press release for public consumption but whether that's the truth; we'd both be guessing.
I too have questions about a joint aircraft that can be used by three services. The last time it was proposed from one of your heroes, Robert McNamara, we got the F-111. The Marines rejected it, the Navy hated it and the Air Force was cool to it but somehow made it work but the "vark" was the first aircraft to head to the boneyard after Desert Storm. The F-14 was the result of the Navy's legitimate contempt for the F-111 got the name "Tomcat" in honor of Adm Thomas Moorer who faced a Senate Committee and called the F-111 a piece of $#!t.
By far, I'm no expert on the F-35. Having read what I've been able to read, it's performance is impressive, albeit, it's coming at a very high price. It's a very different aircraft with higher performance and combat capabilities from the current fleet of operational fighters. That much has been officially stated in the public domain. But the real story? The real specifics? All of that I can assure you is classified. The "other guys' i.e. America's adversaries are closely watching the F-35 and want to know everything they can and for good reason. Given that, remember the words of Winston Churchill, "In wartime, truth is so precious, that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Everybody here in this forum can have their opinion, but I would caution, in a situation like this all is rarely what it seems.
I too have questions about a joint aircraft that can be used by three services. The last time it was proposed from one of your heroes, Robert McNamara, we got the F-111. The Marines rejected it, the Navy hated it and the Air Force was cool to it but somehow made it work but the "vark" was the first aircraft to head to the boneyard after Desert Storm. The F-14 was the result of the Navy's legitimate contempt for the F-111 got the name "Tomcat" in honor of Adm Thomas Moorer who faced a Senate Committee and called the F-111 a piece of $#!t.
By far, I'm no expert on the F-35. Having read what I've been able to read, it's performance is impressive, albeit, it's coming at a very high price. It's a very different aircraft with higher performance and combat capabilities from the current fleet of operational fighters. That much has been officially stated in the public domain. But the real story? The real specifics? All of that I can assure you is classified. The "other guys' i.e. America's adversaries are closely watching the F-35 and want to know everything they can and for good reason. Given that, remember the words of Winston Churchill, "In wartime, truth is so precious, that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Everybody here in this forum can have their opinion, but I would caution, in a situation like this all is rarely what it seems.
ryoder 1,590
F-16 vs F-35, and the winner is:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
Do you expect the high and mighty USAF to get their planes dirty flying close support?
What have you been smoking?
The only reason the US Army flies AH-64 attack helicopters is because the USAF did not wasn't the job.
Great philosophy if you can afford the biggest Air Force on the planet ... But what about smaller nations that need to fly two or three or four missions with a far smaller fleet?
Even a wealthy nation like Switzerland is debating whether to continue to fly their F-18s.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites