USAF realises F-35 is not what they set out to make

[Lauzanne]

That turret and TOW missile system sure didn't do badly in the flat deserts east of Kuwait did it?

also isn't that funny pentagon wars clip just wrong

the bradley was meant from the start as an IFV, was it not? As a response to the BMP-1?

Yes, the Pentagon Wars movie and book are pretty bad mis-representations of what really happened. Burton was a Reformer which is bad news, i'd suggest looking up the video "The Problem with Pentagon Wars" since he explains why Burton was off his rocker pretty well.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Hm, fair point. I do still think the F-35 is trying to accomplish too much at the same time. We should have more dedicated ground pound craft, air superiority craft, and other specialized craft for whatever niche they need it for.

Thing is, PGM's are becoming king for ground pounding, look at the SDB and JDAM, made so its not throwing more at the ground, it throws things far more accurately. Should they have not gone with three different versions? Probably, but hindsight is 20/20. Chances are most of the cost came from the B versions which if memory serves right is the STOVL version, since carrier based versions of regular fighters generally aren't super drastic chances (Rafale M, Su-33) but that STOVL.. hoo boy.

To be honest though thr ASF role can be filled by a multirole just as well, since the computers and sensors have gotten so good, but for a dedicated ground pounder? Mavericks and the like can do pretty well, and if you can have something that carries the same missiles the A-10 can but it's far less suceptible to air defence and it's faster? I'd call that a win.

Hmm, I suppose. Would you say the F-35 fits that role? If not, what does?

[Kubra]

It's funny because in testing for a new APC the israeli's *did* slap a bunch of ERA on the front and junked the turret, before binning the thing and settling on converting tank hulls for the job. It was a proto-namer in the *literal* sense.

Tbh IDF faced a lot of close range actions from insurgents and Syrians and there wasn't much long range combat in Lebanon for example in the 80's. So the Bradley with its turret and the long range TOW missile system was literally unsuited for Israeli needs. What they needed was a heavily protected vehicle capable of resisting close range attacks from multiple angles and they got it in the Namer.
Meanwhile in the flat deserts east of Kuwait.

So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

That turret and TOW missile system sure didn't do badly in the flat deserts east of Kuwait did it?

No, what is close air support? Define the term as you understand it.

Ah. Close air support is hanging around an area (or being ready to go at any moment) so that when infantry units call you in to help bomb/shoot up an enemy position or target you are ready to do so.

If you could deliver weapons on that area with complete impunity by flying too high for SHORADS and far enough away that you are not detectable by any radar is that not an advantage?
Well I give you a 100 km glide range multi-sensor homing bomb.

[Lauzanne]

Thing is, PGM's are becoming king for ground pounding, look at the SDB and JDAM, made so its not throwing more at the ground, it throws things far more accurately. Should they have not gone with three different versions? Probably, but hindsight is 20/20. Chances are most of the cost came from the B versions which if memory serves right is the STOVL version, since carrier based versions of regular fighters generally aren't super drastic chances (Rafale M, Su-33) but that STOVL.. hoo boy.

To be honest though thr ASF role can be filled by a multirole just as well, since the computers and sensors have gotten so good, but for a dedicated ground pounder? Mavericks and the like can do pretty well, and if you can have something that carries the same missiles the A-10 can but it's far less suceptible to air defence and it's faster? I'd call that a win.

Hmm, I suppose. Would you say the F-35 fits that role? If not, what does?

I would say that given what it has and what it can do, it's most definitely a good multirole. Excellent radar with a low probability of detection (DECADES ahead of what the Russians have) with the capability of PGM's and insane levels of data-sharing with other planes. Hell, Israel has currently been raining bombs across the Syrian countryside and the S-300's and Pantsirs can't keep up (granted, the Israelis did do their own ECM modification but still) which is honestly a good sign.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Tbh IDF faced a lot of close range actions from insurgents and Syrians and there wasn't much long range combat in Lebanon for example in the 80's. So the Bradley with its turret and the long range TOW missile system was literally unsuited for Israeli needs. What they needed was a heavily protected vehicle capable of resisting close range attacks from multiple angles and they got it in the Namer.
Meanwhile in the flat deserts east of Kuwait.

So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

Probs why the US Army trialled the Namer in 2012.

[Kubra]

It's funny because in testing for a new APC the israeli's *did* slap a bunch of ERA on the front and junked the turret, before binning the thing and settling on converting tank hulls for the job. It was a proto-namer in the *literal* sense.

because the circumstances the israelis face are identical to what the OG bradley was designed to face obviously

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

Tbh IDF faced a lot of close range actions from insurgents and Syrians and there wasn't much long range combat in Lebanon for example in the 80's. So the Bradley with its turret and the long range TOW missile system was literally unsuited for Israeli needs. What they needed was a heavily protected vehicle capable of resisting close range attacks from multiple angles and they got it in the Namer.
Meanwhile in the flat deserts east of Kuwait.

So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

The US was in Iraq during the 80s?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

because the circumstances the israelis face are identical to what the OG bradley was designed to face obviously

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

The Gulf War did make the Soviet General Staff sit bolt-upright and just a bit concerned tbh.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

because the circumstances the israelis face are identical to what the OG bradley was designed to face obviously

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

if we talking about that i think we can apply that to a shitload of american military equipment at this point. How can we know how the A-10 would've faired against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

[Mousters]

exactly! It's tough to fit all those capabilities into one aircraft. Problems are destined to pop up

Not really. The F-16 is a good multirole that can do bombing, ATGM work, ASF and CAP. Aircraft design has gotten pretty dang good

you do make a point

[Lauzanne]

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

i think we can apply that to 90% of american military equipment at this point.

Given how the Bradley was pasting T-72's and other Soviet export tech (similar to what the WarPac got) up and down Iraq, yeah it would have done well lol

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

Not really. The F-16 is a good multirole that can do bombing, ATGM work, ASF and CAP. Aircraft design has gotten pretty dang good

you do make a point

literally every single fighter since korea can ground pound.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

i think we can apply that to 90% of american military equipment at this point.

Given how the Bradley was pasting T-72's and other Soviet export tech (similar to what the WarPac got) up and down Iraq, yeah it would have done well lol

based.

[Lauzanne]

Not really. The F-16 is a good multirole that can do bombing, ATGM work, ASF and CAP. Aircraft design has gotten pretty dang good

you do make a point

Thing is, it's likely that the majority of cost came down to the STOVL variant because that engine is HIDEOUSLY expensive and weird, and vertical take off aircraft like that require a whole different design to conventional whooshy boys. Look how weird the Harrier is, for example. If it was A and C it'd cost way less imo

[Kubra]

So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

The US was in Iraq during the 80s?

I wasn't aware the US occupied Iraq in the 80's.

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

The Gulf War did make the Soviet General Staff sit bolt-upright and just a bit concerned tbh.

Sure, but as you'll recall they had a few problems bigger than the US invading them.

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

if we talking about that i think we can apply that to a shitload of american military equipment at this point. How can we know how the A-10 would've faired against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

Unfortunate, terribly unfortunate, isn't it?

[Mousters]

you do make a point

literally every single fighter since korea can ground pound.

true lmao

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Ah. Close air support is hanging around an area (or being ready to go at any moment) so that when infantry units call you in to help bomb/shoot up an enemy position or target you are ready to do so.

If you could deliver weapons on that area with complete impunity by flying too high for SHORADS and far enough away that you are not detectable by any radar is that not an advantage?
Well I give you a 100 km glide range multi-sensor homing bomb.

Damn, I didn't know that existed. Holy crap. I'm starting to realize I'm rusty as heck when it comes to my military knowledge. This is what happens when you only ever read about WWII military tech XD

Hmm, I suppose. Would you say the F-35 fits that role? If not, what does?

I would say that given what it has and what it can do, it's most definitely a good multirole. Excellent radar with a low probability of detection (DECADES ahead of what the Russians have) with the capability of PGM's and insane levels of data-sharing with other planes. Hell, Israel has currently been raining bombs across the Syrian countryside and the S-300's and Pantsirs can't keep up (granted, the Israelis did do their own ECM modification but still) which is honestly a good sign.

Alright, fair enough. The only issue is that the F-35 can't carry much without sacrificing its stealth aspect. Then again, I guess they would just bring in the B-2s if they really needed to.
As much as I like the A-10 and AC-130, it does seem like they're now considered old tech. Dang.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The Gulf War did make the Soviet General Staff sit bolt-upright and just a bit concerned tbh.

Sure, but as you'll recall they had a few problems bigger than the US invading them.

It's affecting Russian military thinking to this day, what with their obsession with anti-access and ever shinier SHORADS platforms.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

The US was in Iraq during the 80s?

I wasn't aware the US occupied Iraq in the 80's.

Neither was I! I had no clue that US planners were fortune-tellers and thought "oh yes we're going to be fighting COIN for a few decades let's make an IFV designed for peer-to-peer anyway lmao!".

[Thermodolia]

I wonder what the half-life of the F-16 fleet is (as in I wonder when literally half of them will be grounded or have fallen out of the sky because they’ve gotten so old and worn out lol)

Well considering that they where last produced in 2019 until now id say they got a long way to go

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Alright, fair enough. The only issue is that the F-35 can't carry much without sacrificing its stealth aspect. Then again, I guess they would just bring in the B-2s if they really needed to.
As much as I like the A-10 and AC-130, it does seem like they're now considered old tech. Dang.

A flight of 4 F-35's with 32 GBU-53's, assuming some horrid failure rates will break up a company sized attack without sweating much. If you need more in 2021 you are in deep shit.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

i think we can apply that to 90% of american military equipment at this point.

Given how the Bradley was pasting T-72's and other Soviet export tech (similar to what the WarPac got) up and down Iraq, yeah it would have done well lol

tbf I really don't think the invasion of Iraq is a valid model for P2P conflict. although yeah bradley did kick ass during the invasion.

[Kubra]

So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

Probs why the US Army trialled the Namer in 2012.

Whoopsie, missed a post.
Anyways, yes, that they did, before ultimately settling on having troops just use the new MRAP's (dubious move, given the programmes cost).
In any case, the point still stands: the Bradley was not terribly suited to the conflict it really saw its longest combat record in.

[Lauzanne]

If you could deliver weapons on that area with complete impunity by flying too high for SHORADS and far enough away that you are not detectable by any radar is that not an advantage?
Well I give you a 100 km glide range multi-sensor homing bomb.

Damn, I didn't know that existed. Holy crap. I'm starting to realize I'm rusty as heck when it comes to my military knowledge. This is what happens when you only ever read about WWII military tech XD

I would say that given what it has and what it can do, it's most definitely a good multirole. Excellent radar with a low probability of detection (DECADES ahead of what the Russians have) with the capability of PGM's and insane levels of data-sharing with other planes. Hell, Israel has currently been raining bombs across the Syrian countryside and the S-300's and Pantsirs can't keep up (granted, the Israelis did do their own ECM modification but still) which is honestly a good sign.

Alright, fair enough. The only issue is that the F-35 can't carry much without sacrificing its stealth aspect. Then again, I guess they would just bring in the B-2s if they really needed to.
As much as I like the A-10 and AC-130, it does seem like they're now considered old tech. Dang.

The A-10 is a good CAS platform for what it was but there's newer planes that can do the role way cheaper (see the Super Tucano, pretty much a weaponised Cessna)

The AC-130 can't be considered a "normal" aircraft simply cause what it does is so specialised. It's a very niche plane and is more for SOF or COIN work, since it's the size of a house and about as fast against a near peer it would get decimated in open combat.