by Philjia » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:13 am
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:33 am
by Risottia » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:40 am
Philjia wrote:The USAF's chief of staff has floated the idea of developing a new lightweight low-cost fighter to replace the air force's aging fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons, and complement their higher end F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs.
This is all well and good, but there was a project years ago that was supposed to deliver this kind of aircraft. It was called the Joint Strike Fighter program, and was intended to deliver an affordable plane that could cover the needs of not just the air force, but the army and navy too. Twenty years and about $1.5 trillion later, what they've actually produced is the F-35 Lightning II, which is actually three different and very expensive variants. The F-35 is not a failure as far as the performance of the aircraft itself is concerned; each variant does serve some need for the branch that will use it. What it is a failure of is management, as the project has run over time, over budget, and well outside the original brief. The question is, now the air force has to start from scratch, will they learn their lesson?
by -Ocelot- » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:47 am
Risottia wrote:Philjia wrote:The USAF's chief of staff has floated the idea of developing a new lightweight low-cost fighter to replace the air force's aging fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons, and complement their higher end F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs.
This is all well and good, but there was a project years ago that was supposed to deliver this kind of aircraft. It was called the Joint Strike Fighter program, and was intended to deliver an affordable plane that could cover the needs of not just the air force, but the army and navy too. Twenty years and about $1.5 trillion later, what they've actually produced is the F-35 Lightning II, which is actually three different and very expensive variants. The F-35 is not a failure as far as the performance of the aircraft itself is concerned; each variant does serve some need for the branch that will use it. What it is a failure of is management, as the project has run over time, over budget, and well outside the original brief. The question is, now the air force has to start from scratch, will they learn their lesson?
The F-35 is a botched aircraft because it was meant to be a compromise solution to way too many requirements. It is an over-engineered craft which cannot really excel at any of its intended tasks, it is merely good at most of them. It was completed because of the lack of alternative solutions and because too many nations had already spent way too much money on it. Really, you cannot expect a single aircraft, albeit in three different variants, to cover the whole range of operational tasks of F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, Tornado, A-10, A-6, F-14, EF-4, EA-18, F-111, F-117, AMX.
Now I expect the geniuses at the DoD to do exactly the same thing with the next fighter, because that's how they love to waste taxpayer's money for the benefit of Lockheed and Boeing.
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:53 am
by Philjia » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:01 am
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:I'm sure you're right Risottia, but wasn't the aim of trying to cover so many different roles with one airframe, to make maintenance and upgrades cheaper over the lifetime of all variants?
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:04 am
-Ocelot- wrote:From what I've read F-35 is very expensive, but also a direct improvement all across the board, despite covering too many bases. And many countries want to buy it, which means it must do something right. I find hard to believe that a country would develop something bad and terribly expensive on purpose.
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:06 am
Philjia wrote:A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:I'm sure you're right Risottia, but wasn't the aim of trying to cover so many different roles with one airframe, to make maintenance and upgrades cheaper over the lifetime of all variants?
Yes. However, it turns out trying to make one airframe do all those things is quite hard, so they had to make a lot of changes to each of the variants so now they're only something like 20% compatible.
by Philjia » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:07 am
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:-Ocelot- wrote:From what I've read F-35 is very expensive, but also a direct improvement all across the board, despite covering too many bases. And many countries want to buy it, which means it must do something right. I find hard to believe that a country would develop something bad and terribly expensive on purpose.
Yeah. It's also wrong to compare a new design with existing planes that have had numerous upgrades or bug-fixes. The F-35 will be a much better plane 10 years from now, and feedback from nations using it in different environments and roles should really help that. The STOL/VTOL variant in particular, is no doubt optimized for carriers which only the UK has one of. If it can't be safely operated off and onto helicopter landing craft, there will be some grumbling.
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:42 am
Philjia wrote:A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
Yeah. It's also wrong to compare a new design with existing planes that have had numerous upgrades or bug-fixes. The F-35 will be a much better plane 10 years from now, and feedback from nations using it in different environments and roles should really help that. The STOL/VTOL variant in particular, is no doubt optimized for carriers which only the UK has one of. If it can't be safely operated off and onto helicopter landing craft, there will be some grumbling.
The UK actually has two aircraft carriers floating, although the HMS Prince of Wales won't be ready for full operations until 2023 at the earliest.
by The Disorder » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:01 am
A secular destruction-cult, a rogue nation of space nomads, militarized mad scientists & anarchists.
by Ethel mermania » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:37 am
by Great Pacific Switzerland » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:40 am
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:42 am
Time for a classic movie scene-Ocelot- wrote:I find hard to believe that a country would develop something bad and terribly expensive on purpose.
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:00 am
Kubra wrote:Time for a classic movie scene-Ocelot- wrote:I find hard to believe that a country would develop something bad and terribly expensive on purpose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
by Qhevak » Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:04 am
The Disorder wrote:If the USAF needed a ground attack aircraft, they should have bought A-10's. The only thing that would ever make the A-10 obsolete is dirt-cheap precision orbital bombardment.
The only mission the F-35 accomplishes better than any other plane: It drowns defense contractors in money.
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:36 am
Qhevak wrote:The A-10 is worthless for actual combat situations. It's slow moving SAM bait in any serious combat environment and the GAU-8 is dead weight against modern MBTs.
by Philjia » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:15 am
The New California Republic wrote:Qhevak wrote:The A-10 is worthless for actual combat situations. It's slow moving SAM bait in any serious combat environment and the GAU-8 is dead weight against modern MBTs.
In all the combat missions that it has been involved in over the course of the past 30 years the A-10 losses to SAM systems have been extremely low.
And the GAU-8 would still be effective at getting a kill on an MBT if it hits the tracks or engine deck, or damaging/destroying combat-necessary features such as vision blocks or sensors. And it'd still be highly effective against other AFVs and support vehicles. If it was up against an MBT it would usually rely on the AGM-65 anyway.
Nemesis the Warlock wrote:I am the Nemesis, I am the Warlock, I am the shape of things to come, the Lord of the Flies, holder of the Sword Sinister, the Death Bringer, I am the one who waits on the edge of your dreams, I am all these things and many more
by Borderlands of Rojava » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:25 am
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:28 am
Philjia wrote:The New California Republic wrote:In all the combat missions that it has been involved in over the course of the past 30 years the A-10 losses to SAM systems have been extremely low.
And the GAU-8 would still be effective at getting a kill on an MBT if it hits the tracks or engine deck, or damaging/destroying combat-necessary features such as vision blocks or sensors. And it'd still be highly effective against other AFVs and support vehicles. If it was up against an MBT it would usually rely on the AGM-65 anyway.
How modern do the MBTs have to be to be GAU-8 proof anyway? The Chinese and Russians have kicked around modern designs for years but the bulk of their forces are still Type-96 and T-72s respectively. The A-10's definitely not cutting edge anymore, but neither are the things it would be required to blow up should a major conflict actually happen.
by Vassenor » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:30 am
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:Philjia wrote:The UK actually has two aircraft carriers floating, although the HMS Prince of Wales won't be ready for full operations until 2023 at the earliest.
Australia has none. We have two of the Canberra class, which look like small carriers because the Spanish demanded money to take the ski-jump out of the design. Or maybe the Australian government doesn't want these landing-ships appearing on the West Pacific theatre as Aircraft Carriers, until there's a reason to do so ... it would signal the start of a Naval Arms Race.
Does anyone know why the US persists with flat decks on carriers, when so many other countries opt for the ski-jump?
by Qhevak » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:47 am
The New California Republic wrote:Qhevak wrote:The A-10 is worthless for actual combat situations. It's slow moving SAM bait in any serious combat environment and the GAU-8 is dead weight against modern MBTs.
In all the combat missions that it has been involved in over the course of the past 30 years the A-10 losses to SAM systems have been extremely low.
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:57 am
Qhevak wrote:The New California Republic wrote:In all the combat missions that it has been involved in over the course of the past 30 years the A-10 losses to SAM systems have been extremely low.
No they haven't. You can look at Coalition loss records from the first Gulf War - 9 A-10As were hit by IR SAMs with 6 losses (4 shot down, 2 returned to base and were written off due to damage), compared to 2 SAM losses for the F-16C and 1 F-15E SAM loss while operating in environments with greater air defence concentration.
Qhevak wrote:This was 30 years ago, and fought against an opponent with inadequate air defence capability - the performance gap between an A-10 and F-35A against modern Russian or Chinese air defences will be much higher.
by Vassenor » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:11 am
The New California Republic wrote:Qhevak wrote:No they haven't. You can look at Coalition loss records from the first Gulf War - 9 A-10As were hit by IR SAMs with 6 losses (4 shot down, 2 returned to base and were written off due to damage), compared to 2 SAM losses for the F-16C and 1 F-15E SAM loss while operating in environments with greater air defence concentration.
Context matters: the A-10s flew 8,100 sorties. 6 losses for 8,100 sorties. So the chance of an A-10 being lost on a sortie was 0.07%. I dunno about you, but I'd call that extremely low...
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:18 am
Philjia wrote:The New California Republic wrote:In all the combat missions that it has been involved in over the course of the past 30 years the A-10 losses to SAM systems have been extremely low.
And the GAU-8 would still be effective at getting a kill on an MBT if it hits the tracks or engine deck, or damaging/destroying combat-necessary features such as vision blocks or sensors. And it'd still be highly effective against other AFVs and support vehicles. If it was up against an MBT it would usually rely on the AGM-65 anyway.
How modern do the MBTs have to be to be GAU-8 proof anyway?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Big Eyed Animation, Bimflurpity, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ifreann, Ineva, Kannap, Kaztropol, Kyoto Noku, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Shrillland, Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries, The Holy Therns, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Tungstan, Uiiop, Valles Marineris Mining co, Valrifall, Zurkerx
Advertisement