Pretty sad that with all the new technology, gizmos and gadgets, not to mention the billions of dollars, we can't make an airplane that is superior to old technology. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html

I'm not a "go fast" expert by any means, but I did catch a hop in the back of an F-4 once. Seems to me like there's a benefit in having a specialized plane like the old F-16, or older ones like the F-4, A-10, etc. Just not sold on this one size fits all but excels at nothing approach.

What are your thoughts?

 

Nothing will replace the A10 warthogs in my mind. Best CAS plane in my mind, followed by the AC130

 

Reinvent the wheel ...
My Pop was an Airman , He said if the Boys using the equipment hated it , it was a bad design .
If an accomplished Pilot finds this bird unwieldy , I would trust that opinion .
All I got on that ...

 

Not sure if I'd really consider the 130 as CAS. Maybe medium range, but not up close and personal like the warthog.

 

That's why it's second. More bang, more range.

 

I dunno what they engined it with, but the A+ and DELTA F-14 with a GE-110 engine had a 1 Gee rate of climb, and could go straight up in other words from liftoff. I haven't followed the link yet so am commenting off the top of my head, but what was said about an airplane that pilots LIKE....

That's very true, it must be a damned good airplane. If planes were made for the pilots and not for the designers or corporations behind them we might be ahead of the game.

IF YOU CAN'T FLY IT WELL - and are an experienced pilot:
That thing is a pile of crap.

Still I wonder - if I had something really really good in my inventory - how might I engage in a "disinformation" strategy to cause such a platform to be under rated?

At the same time I keep thinking about General Yeagers estimation of the YF-22

SO who the hell knows outside of the Pentagon?

The F-22 project seems to have CONSPICUOUSLY gone away.
The F-35 is being drastically badinaged by a test pilot, and yet I wonder if truly classified performance information would have been publically released?

It wouldn't be the first time we were told: "Oh no, it can't do that, in fact we never had one of those things..."

What is a circus? It is a public spectacle.
Also a test platform, I think.

~Makes you wonder what's behind that, doesn't it...

The F-119 and larger bomber version were long into development before anyone had any idea we had them. It has been many years since then (when they became public) and in the meantime the F-35 and the F-22 are in the public eye. I suppose it is because they are supposed to be seen...

I suggest to you that neither of those are really intended to be production aircraft

Somewhere, there is something ELSE. That is my best guess.

 

Wolfs post has a good point in it ...
Play down the capability of your product to the world press .
Any type of equipment that is an outstanding performer should be downplayed from the outset if in the public eye .
Who knows ..... Maybe an outstanding piece of equipment ...

 

Probably right Dutch. But until it can fly home with one wing gone and a fuselage like Swiss cheese, it's not tough enough. I heard a pilot managed that with the A10. Slow, heavy, but tough and powerful.

 

The F-22 is a proven platform............The second half of it's contract (Which Obummer cancelled) should be re-instated immediatley, and the boondoggle F-35 should go back to testing/evaluation phase only.

 

Read the link Dutch. According to the article, the pilots give it a No-Go.

You've seen enough to understand that a one size fits all approach like the JSF will end up being made to fill all roles adequately, but not excel in any of them. Does anyone really think that the specialties of the USAF, USN, and of course the USMC could really be fulfilled by one plane?

 

Doubtful indeed. Not only the missions, but the support method are widely different.

I dunno if this works as a generalization, but Air Force equipment is more like an exotic car, a Lambo or a Bugatti.
The NAVY tends to need platforms with many parts interchangeable in common - like fords and chevrolets.
The USMC requires a toughness like a jeep or a truck, and ARMY birds are similar...

ARMY and MARINE birds are more like four wheel drive units, that can operate independantly in tough environments, the NAVY uses machines that can return to an offshore platform for maintenance, where an intermediate level of repair is done at a semi-forward location. The Air Force has dedicated and extensive facilities far from the theater of battle.

This reflects very different support facilities, and the needs of those facilities have to be taken into account when considering what they will fly.

I just don't see a hyper-tech weapon platform having a tailhook bolted on and calling it "GOOD"

I also can't imagine a V/STOL version of the damned thing. It would be working pretty much backwards

Marine support in the field I think (never been there, myself) would be basic "O-LEVEL" repair. Crap breaks, swap it out, hope the resupply doesn't get the wrong stuff...

Some amount of airframes repair would be necessary at a forward location. But you ain't gonna have a complete mobile AIMD in the places those assets are intended to operate from.

Whiskey Tango Fox, do they intend to airdrop CASS stations into the wild?
With what spares?

 

Speaking of A10s......I was at their first duty station (Davis-Monthan AFB) when deployed in March of 1976. We were a SAC base with a large TAC contingent on site. Even though I was in missile security, The 803rd Security Squadron turned out all available hands for their arrival and subsequent demonstrations of this mighty aircraft's capabilities...mucho grandee dignitaries were on hand.

I was spellbound by its maneuvering capabilities. At times it seemed it could stop in mid-air and when it fired off that 30 cal. I swear the aircraft moved backwards a notch. They placed an old army tank in the grassy area between the actives and when one of the A10s hit it with a short burst the damned thing just collapsed. It was pretty amazing...and this coming from someone that frequently watched U-2s launch damned near straight up, F-101 Interceptors (Our Reserve Alert Aircraft) hit the skies in damned near 3 minutes from alert, the iconic B52 (A, B, C, D, E, F, & G versions) , the beautifully ugly SR-71 and the giant...C-5A Galaxy. Not to mention the thousands of retired aircraft parked out in the desert.

The Old Wart Hog has always been my favorite and I think that our military will rue the day that the Congress and / or the Pentagon ultimately, completely, retires it.

 

If anything, the A-10 concept needs to be expanded on and if possible improved upon.
Slightly larger, even tougher, a little faster, and even meaner..............A true flying tank that AAA fire and SAMs just piss it off.

 

As an application of a combined-capable bird for the Marines, I can see the reasoning behind the V/STOL version of the F-35 to replace the Harrier and Hornet. In that limited role, had production concentrated on that, it would likely have the bugs worked out and would be fully deployed by now.

But as a modular platform meant to equip ALL services....well....not so much. Which is why the delays and cost overruns.....which should be the new poster child of cost overruns.

Personally I don't think they're downplaying the capabilities of the F35 as a fighter-jet as some sort of 'maskirovka' meant to deceive.......For the simple fact that the bird is also being produced to sell in quantity around the World. The Pentagon WANTS to mass produce the bird and make some bank on it.

I'm not defending that......Just saying. And yeah.....we sell other platforms. But this one is being developed to equip allied forces around the World.

Good points on different roles for different services, Dutch. Not to mention the conditions the different birds would be encountering during their service life (like Marine and Navy birds bouncing around on carriers......or landing on dirt fields like the V/STOL birds.......).

I always loved the Raptor and the Warthog. Improve on those, and voila'. The Air Force is covered. I know, I know......The F-22 is expensive as Hell.

But remind me again how much we've dumped so far into developing the F-35 as a one-size-fits-all modular bird?

So. The Air Force gets the Raptor. The Marines get the V/STOL F-35. What does the Navy get as an air superiority fighter if you had your druthers? Continue with the F-18 Super Hornet (which I love)? What? I know the Navy is sensitive about stopping enemy birds and missiles from punching holes in their boats......

 

Shouldn't the Navy have real reservations about flying the single engine F-35 off carriers anyway?
Too bad they chopped all those Tomcats into scrap.