Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[grigolosi]

Yeah the real MANPADS threat to the F-16's in Korea was while they were taxiing or actually taking off. During excercises though someone screwed up somewhere along the way there. When I was there in 2000-2001 we could use tail numbers on the radios during the exercises. Then all of a sudden they decided to use HAS locations and tail numbers were not allowed. Now to me and the guys who worked and lived in the HAS's for 12 hr shifts, we were like, ok so now the North Korean infiltration teams listening know an armed and fueled aircraft is in HAS 28, 29, and 30. They also know the locations due to years of intel on Kunsan. So now they wait until a pilot steps, there are 2 or more maintainers in the HAS and then they launch a MANPAD or even RPG at the HAS once we open the huge front door to start the engine.

That is where the MANPAD threat really comes into play especially at EOR where the pilots are waiting for clearance to take off. In any war zone the air traffic around the base is going to be busy and there will planes waiting to take off while others land.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yeah the real MANPADS threat to the F-16's in Korea was while they were taxiing or actually taking off. During excercises though someone screwed up somewhere along the way there. When I was there in 2000-2001 we could use tail numbers on the radios during the exercises. Then all of a sudden they decided to use HAS locations and tail numbers were not allowed. Now to me and the guys who worked and lived in the HAS's for 12 hr shifts, we were like, ok so now the North Korean infiltration teams listening know an armed and fueled aircraft is in HAS 28, 29, and 30. They also know the locations due to years of intel on Kunsan. So now they wait until a pilot steps, there are 2 or more maintainers in the HAS and then they launch a MANPAD or even RPG at the HAS once we open the huge front door to start the engine.

That is where the MANPAD threat really comes into play especially at EOR where the pilots are waiting for clearance to take off. In any war zone the air traffic around the base is going to be busy and there will planes waiting to take off while others land.

Take off was what we were worried about too. In flight it's still a threat to helos, but the best chance is to hit whe the bird is most vulnerable. At t/o they're chock full of fuel and troops, and you blow that up, you get a bunch of Americans in one go, plus secondary explosions. That was my reasoning when I presented it to the guys in the S2 shop.

[F-ZeroOne]

Watch this video carefully. You will never, ever see this firing sequence done correctly in any movie.

Edited August 21, 2015 by F-ZeroOne

[Knight26]

I am not saying this as a hater. But I do not care for that design of the gunport door. I realize that is just another in a long line of design compromises, but come on. I very much see that door snapping or jamming during inflight firing trials just by how much it is jumping around in the static test. Bu then with that gun blister they didn't have much choice. The gun cover for the Pak-Fa is a far more elegant solution, but then using a single barrel cannon afforded them that ability. The F-35 Gatling cannon requires the larger opening.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I don't like that at all. That flap seems like a huge failure point to me. If it jams closed you shoot through it. But the internal gun on the A model is carrying 180 rounds of 25mm, where as the B and C models are carrying 220 rounds in their external pod. Everything I can find doesn't show the pod interfering with the internal bays at all, and it appears that the gun pod has some optics built in to it might contain it's own gunsight, which makes it far more useful than the SUU-16 that the USAF used on the F-4C/D in Vietnam. Also the pod has stealth features built in, and doesn't have a dinky door (from what I can see) to get in the way.

This leads me to this question, why even bother with the A model, the Gun pod was purpose built to function as an integral part of the aircraft, which means that you could build multiple pods, with different gun systems, so you could have a 4 barrel 30mm cannon based of the GAU-8, to supplement the A-10, or use the 25mm cannon pod for a potential air to air configuration. In addition, you could remove the gun entirely to save weight and carry more bombs and missiles (something I would never really recommend, because I'd never want to fly without a gun and a couple AAM's to protect me).

I see a lot of potential in the F-35's design, as far as mission planning goes, but the execution is leaving much to be desired.

[frothymug]

Anyone know what that second opening port is for? Cooling, perhaps?

[grigolosi]

Frothy that looks like an intake door for the gun gas bleed system for when it fires in flight. F-16's have something similar located on the bottom of the strake under the gun. In flight the airflow will cause the gun gases in the frame to build up in the frame area around the gun drive. That door allows airflow to move the gas aft and then out through the gas bleed door on top and to the rear of the bulge. That is what the large red hose is hooked to for the test firing. Driver the door sensor switch sends an "open" signal to the gun drive. If the drive doesn't get a signal from the switch in the open position it won't rotate nor electrically prime the cartridges. If you notice you will see that the gun doesn't fire until the door is full open.

I recognize that boresight area. That was recorded at Edwards. That is also where the fuels shop services the F-16 hydrazine tank after they have activated the EPU in flight.

Edited August 21, 2015 by grigolosi

[Valkyrie Driver]

Driver the door sensor switch sends an "open" signal to the gun drive. If the drive doesn't get a signal from the switch in the open position it won't rotate nor electrically prime the cartridges. If you notice you will see that the gun doesn't fire until the door is full open.

Something told me that would be the case, but that just seems like something that pilots wouldn't allow. I talked to my dad about it briefly and he came to the same conclusion I did. Now, the GAU-12/ and it's derivative, the GAU-22/A mounted on the F-35, are slightly different than the vulcan. From what I can tell the gun starts spinning before the first round gets fired, but we don't see what the gun is doing between the time the door opens and the time it fires. Still, if the door locks out the gun, that's bad, because if that door don't open, that gun don't fire, and you have 181 rounds of useless ordnance, and a boat anchor. There is likely going to be some kind of work around that will be built in to allow the gun to fire, some kind of explosive bolts built into the doors that the pilot can trigger if the doors fail (which will also mean indicators to indicate failure, which means you have to build in redundancy for those indicators, so that they are reliable, which basically means that the gun has multiplied the complexity of the whole system by a factor of at least 10, by my count, as there are now 10 things that must be in place to ensure reliable function of the gun, and that's not including the gun and firing systems). The more complex something is, the more likely things will go wrong with it. Trust me, I've seen it happen.

I'm thinking the pod is a much better answer, because you can take the gun off, and completely disarm the aircraft to perform reconnaissance. Now I know that some folks here think that adding more human eyes is a bad thing and that technology solves all problems, but it doesn't. The more humans present the better your situational awareness, because a machine can only do what the operator tells it, and a camera doesn't show the whole picture. In reconnaissance there's a motto, "One pass, and haul ass". We don't put weapons on manned recon platforms because, you need to bring that info and hardware back to base. You can also completely disarm the plane and mount it up with electronic warfare gear. So it would go a long way towards making the aircraft truly multi-role, but it still suffers some significant problems, like the fact that it's heavy, and lacks the acceleration it really needs to go air to air. Now, I don't have the complete picture of how it happened but, according to this news report:

The F-35 lost to an F-16 in a dogfight. That tells me the F-35 is lacking either acceleration, top speed, agility, or some combination of those three. Now, I don't know under what circumstances that test was done, or what variables were involved, so just factor that in.

A couple of other things to note, that while yes, the F-35 can carry 2000 lbs more ordnance than the A-10, the F-35 cannot (at this time) match the variety of munitions the A-10 can carry, and the F-35 cannot carry the load that the A-10 can carry. This is a simple matter of the A-10 having more weapons stations than the F-35 (underwing; A-10's 11 versus the F-35's 6, if you count the bays the F-35 adds 2 more). Yes the F-35 can perform the close air support mission, however, The A-10 was built to survive the threats that will prevent the F-35 from accomplishing the mission. They can both be effective, however they will go about it differently, and it's a bad idea to only have one way of doing the mission.

Just to show what I mean, using 10 of the A-10's hardpoints, you can put 3 Mk82's to a hardpoint, that's 30 bombs at 500lbs each. Total ordnance load, 15000lbs. Conversely, take the F-35's 6 hardpoints at 3 Mk82's each, and you have 18 bombs for a total of 9000 lbs. Add to that the A-10's ability to loiter for 10 minutes over the combat zone, it can make greater use of that payload than the F-35. The F-35 also cannot make use (at this time) of Hydra 70 or Zuni rockets. Which is likely due to it not being tested, but that eliminates the option for the F-35 to employ the Advance Precision Kill Weapons System (laser guided seeker for the Hydra 70 rockets, it's being considered for the Zuni as well).

The A-10C, can carry all of those weapons, plus all of the weapons the F-35 can carry (save the radar guided air to air missiles). The A-10 still has the ordnance advantage over the F-35.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the inventory, I'm saying we can't afford to put all our eggs in that one basket.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[grigolosi]

One thing to remember, In flight with the airflow moving over the fuselage that door won't be bouncing around. The airflow will keep it open. More than likely which is common with any vulcan gun, the barrels begin to rotate before the first round is fired. The small door actuators used now are extremely reliable though. I think on the F-16 I have only replaced 1 JFS door actuator in the 23 yrs I have worked on them. That actuator gets used consistently and is also exposed to far higher heat due to its proximity to both the JFS and engine. But they will eventually find out how well this door system holds up. Here is another video showing the gun firing with the cover panel off the barrels. I now believe that the muzzle door uses a pneumatic actuator to open. The actuator pneumatic reservoir is probably recharged off engine bleed air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om8kl3Pinqc

Edited August 22, 2015 by grigolosi

[Valkyrie Driver]

A couple of other things to note, that while yes, the F-35 can carry 2000 lbs more ordnance than the A-10, the F-35 cannot (at this time) match the variety of munitions the A-10 can carry, and the F-35 cannot carry the load that the A-10 can carry. This is a simple matter of the A-10 having more weapons stations than the F-35 (underwing; A-10's 11 versus the F-35's 6, if you count the bays the F-35 adds 2 more).

I didn't think about it, but I just assumed that the F-35 was going to be tested, if not already, with multiple ejector racks (MERs). It would be incredibly stupid if it could not use MERs, as that would severely restric it's combat capacity, and then there would be no way the F-35 could compete with the A-10. At that point I'd be all for cranking the F-105 line back up, I mean the F-105 could carry 14,000lbs of ordnance and it could do 1000 knots on the deck. You don't need stealth when you can get in under radar, and deliver your load, and be gone before they realize you hit them. F-35 can't do that.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Modern tactics are contingent on high-altitude flight and ordnance deployment. They don't like low-altitude ops. And they seem to be breaking away from the top-speed tactics of the 70s. Neither Gen5 fighter's published top speed is as high as the Gen4s they're meant to replace. Their range is supposed to be greater, though, and there's no getting around the better efficiency of their engines. Supercruise is arguably more useful than VMax above Mach 2.5. Assuming that stuff is all working. I don't know if it is. I mean this is the F-35 after all.

There is also the matter that it's more fuel efficient to fly at high altitude, and it gives you a distinct energy advantage if enemy forces do happen to get a bead on you. Especially aerial assets. Low-altitude flight is only really advantageous when attacking fortifications that rely on manual tracking. Anything with modern automation, and anything missile-based made since the Gulf War, is going to be able to make you not fly anymore today. And there's no getting around the fact that jets are noisy and, even if you could make them invisible to radar, you can't much avoid populations where people who might radio forward positions except by flying too high for them to hear and see.

So I can understand the tactics. I can even understand moving away from the A-10, to be honest. Anything that low and slow is going to be vulnerable to MANPAD, especially if it's as big and visible as an A-10. Sure it's durable, but it was designed to accept anti-air rounds and flak, not missiles. Not a lot of people filling garbage cans with scrap and gunpowder anymore, sad to say. I still don't think the F-35 is the right plane for the job, but I can understand retiring the 40-year-old A-10 for being old and incompatible with modern tactics. Actually I'd expect more unmanned aircraft to fill those roles. I mean, we've already replaced the B-52 with drones for the role of Generating Maximum Civilian Collateral.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yes, the tactics are changing, and that's fine, we need to be able to adapt. You don't succeed on the battlefield by simply responding to threats. The A-10 is getting old, but it's still a flyable aircraft, and adjusting to the tactics means not emphasizing something that's less effective, but just because it's not the emphasis, doesn't mean you get rid of it.

Look at the B-52, it's been limited from it's original capacity, The world has changed and we no longer face the threat of a Nuclear Superpower with weapons aimed at our major cities. We scaled back and de-emphasized the role of a long range strategic nuclear bomber, we've even de-emphasized it's role as a long range conventional bomber. It's not flying nearly as many sorties as it was, because why do we need a bomber that can carry that much precision ordnance, when it can't expend it in a single mission. We'll just use the B-1 and B-2, and fighters to carry out those missions.

Just because the threat that birthed it no longer exists, it has adapted well to the role we assigned it, but it's no longer fitting the tactics we need to employ, so we'll use more capable aircraft with those tactics, but when we need those A-10's or B-52's we still have them.

If we just built our forces around current tactics, we wouldn't put any emphasis on air to air combat ability because no air force has really challenged us since Vietnam (there was some air combat in the Gulf War, but not on the scale we saw in wars previously).

That's all I'm getting at. The F-35 might become the frontline strike fighter, but it's not going to completely replace the need for aircraft like the F-16 and A-10, because it can't carry the load the A-10 does, or do it's mission perfectly (181 rounds in the gun, that can't compete with the A-10), nor is it capable of beating an F-16 in air combat, so while it could beat anything the F-16 can outperform, anything that outperforms the F-16 will eat the F-35, so past that magical day 1, you're going to need F-16's to kill enemy fighters, and you're going to need A-10's to support the ground advance, after the F-22's and F-35's have taken out the ground based air defenses.

In this current conflict, the ability for the taliban to get their hands on MANPADS more advance than the SA-14 is very difficult, in fact Most of the MANPADS we see in the hands of insurgents around the world are mostly old SA-7s. Dangerous yes, to helos and maybe the A-10, a low altitude pass by an F-16 or F-15E is likely going to present a harder target, as they are typically higher speed passes than the A-10.

But I'm an advocate of total war, and that military action should be swift and brutal, and kill a lot of the enemy's people. All you get when you hamstring your military by telling them that they can't hit a military target because of potential collateral damage is a protracted conflict like we see now. We've been at this for fourteen years, and there is no satisfactory end in sight (we'll be back in Iraq and Afghanistan to clean up our mess again within 10 years), and we'll likely have seen another terrorist attack on US soil by then. That's my prediction.

By the way, SchizophrenicMC, none of this is directed specifically at you, I'm just damn tired of hearing that war changes.

For all the ‘4th Generation of War’ intellectuals running around today saying that the nature of war has fundamentally changed, the tactics are wholly new, etc., I must respectfully say, ‘Not really’: Alexander the Great would not be in the least bit perplexed by the enemy that we face right now in Iraq, and our leaders going into this fight do their troops a disservice by not studying — studying, vice just reading — the men who have gone before us. We have been fighting on this planet for 5,000 years and we should take advantage of their experience. ‘Winging it’ and filling body bags as we sort out what works reminds us of the moral dictates and the cost of competence in our profession.

James Mattis, General (Ret), USMC

[SchizophrenicMC]

I think drones are a much more fun way to kill children in BFE. Cheaper, too. Fewer losses on our side if things go tits-up. Makes the war easier to sell. Especially because now materiel losses don't necessary equate to human losses on our end, which means you can give even more funding to the military industrial complex to build stuff, and man we do love that in America. We even get people suggesting that's the best way to prop up the economy, because hey- it worked twice before.

Total war only works when your enemy is uniformed, or led by a nation so powerful it commands every last man, woman, and child to fight. Even in that last case, you're probably still going to commit some serious crimes against humanity, and that's no good.

Unfortunately, the type of war we have now isn't the kind where you can just draft half the country and drop some exploding pickles on a jungle in Asia for 10 years before you give up because carpet-bombing bumfrakks abroad isn't a sustainable or effective strategy. This kind of war is surgical. The enemy we have now doesn't have industrial centers. They don't have capitols or deeply fortified military bases. They don't have a uniform code, they don't have a well-defined chain of command, they don't have a head that you can cut off. The only way they can be defeated is ideologically. Because if you just indiscriminately bomb the vast tracts of land they've holed up in, you'll incite so many civilian casualties at so much economic cost to yourself that not only will you breed their next generation of soldiers, but you'll be broke when they raise arms.

War hasn't fundamentally changed- it's still just a conflict of causes with bloodshed involved- but the way we effect that bloodshed has changed dramatically since the phalanx-line days of Big Al and his Macedonian toy barn. You wouldn't set up a firing line today. That's just begging to incur casualties. 150 years ago that was literally the only way to fight a ground war. You wouldn't send troops into battle backed up by horse-riding troops with a minimum of equipment. Just 100 years ago that was the only way to fight a war. As technology changes, so too do tactics, and those tactics have to suit the technology available to both sides, managing advantage and disadvantage carefully, in order to be effective. Tactics fall by the wayside as they get replaced with newer, more effective ones, that match the zeitgeist. Just as the 2-rank phalanx is no longer suitable in modern combat, the military tactics that won WW2 and lost the Vietnam war are no longer effective and should be put to bed and replaced with new tactics that more effectively utilize the technological advantage we hold over our enemies, in order to fundamentally tear down the ideology that bonds them together beyond the bounds of national borders.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Ok, I'm not advocating that we just try to drop bombs on everything and call it a day. That's not what I'm saying. You apply the tactics that counter your enemy's strengths. Total war does still work, because the ultimate goal is to crush your enemy's will and ability to resist.

I don't want to win hearts and minds, that's not going to work. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq, and it's not working in Afghanistan. I want the enemy's hearts and minds all over their walls. Find the enemy, kill the enemy, and deny them safe haven. If a population resists, make them regret it. We're talking about a region of the world that still remembers the Turks, Greeks, Huns, Mongols, and the damned Crusades. We go in playing with the kid gloves, and they see us as weak.

Honestly this whole thing should have been special operations only. Limited air power and ground involvement, since it was all the high profile stuff that gave the enemy something to shoot at.

Drones are not the answer either. A large professional military with leadership that is studied in the art of war, and completely unfettered by the court of public opinion. If the politicians could just write the damned checks and tell the military to get it done, we'd be in better shape.

It's too late at night, and there's too much to say. All I've got is theory and training, I'll leave it to the guys who've been there and done it to describe.

[F-ZeroOne]

I would frankly be amazed if any A-10, anywhere, has ever carried 15,000lbs of bombs even as an experiment. "Max payloads" tend to be a bit of a thought exercise anyway; yes, the air-frame might be able to do it but the drag and increased fuel consumption alone might mean you'd be lucky to make it off the end of the runway - and thats if you're in an aircraft with much more available thrust than an A-10...

Valkyrie Driver, some of the points you're making have been probably debated ever since someone first thought of throwing hand grenades out of balloons - at least a few of them remind me of the similar arguments about "strategic bombing" during World War II, and the jurys still out on that one...

Edit: Oh, and being mischievous - the F-105 had an internal bomb bay too, and didn't they lose something like half the total production run to one cause or another...?

Edited August 23, 2015 by F-ZeroOne

[mechaninac]

...

Edit: Oh, and being mischievous - the F-105 had an internal bomb bay too, and didn't they lose something like half the total production run to one cause or another...?

They didn't nickname it "The Thud" for nothing...

[Valkyrie Driver]

Edit: Oh, and being mischievous - the F-105 had an internal bomb bay too, and didn't they lose something like half the total production run to one cause or another...?

I never said it was perfect...

[grigolosi]

We lost 395 of the total 833 F-105 run, a vast majority in combat. The main reason for this is that the Thud carried out a majority of the bombing missions over the North so they went in to the heaviest defended airspaces on Earth at the time. Now most 105's carried an extra fuel tank in the bomb bay. The outside of the bay doors were reinforced and they carried a MER on the centerline. So its bomb bay was never used for carrying a weapons load.

[F-ZeroOne]

Following a horrific crash involving a Hawker Hunter at an air show in Shoreham, England, vintage jets will be limited to flypasts for the forseeable future in the UK (no acrobatics). Thats a real shame, as theres a real grace about the old jets, but given the circumstances fully understandable - the jet crashed onto a nearby road after failing to pull out of a loop; incredibly the pilot has survived with critical injuries but at least eleven other people, and probably more, were killed in the resulting fireball:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383

[SchizophrenicMC]

The real problem is because European airshow pilots never follow the rules for airshow flight, especially those regarding altitude. They got cocky and brought it on themselves.

[F-ZeroOne]

Its perhaps a little early to be making that sort of judgement...

Edited August 24, 2015 by F-ZeroOne

[Valkyrie Driver]

The real problem is because European airshow pilots never follow the rules for airshow flight, especially those regarding altitude. They got cocky and brought it on themselves.

That sort of behavior isn't limited to European pilots.

1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 "Czar 52" Crash. Lt Col Arthur Holland pushed the aircraft beyond it's operational limits, while practicing for an Airshow. Also killed in the crash were Lt Col. Mark McGeehan, Col. Robert Wolff, and Lt Col. Ken Huston. Holland's personality and behavior were considered primary factors in the crash. Holland was the 92nd Bomb Wing StanEval Chief, McGeehan was the 325th Bomb Sqdn Commander, Wolff was the 92 Bomb Wing commander, and Huston was the 325th Bomb Sqdn operations officer. Holland initiated a steep angle bank at 250 feet AGL to avoid the Nuclear Weapons storage restricted Airspace, against recommendations, and the aircraft exceeded 90 degrees bank, and stalled, and quickly lost airspeed and altitude, before crashing to the ground killing all four crew on board.

Just a notable example. Holland killed a big chunk of the base chain of command, with his idiotic stunt. This was the Wing Commander's final flight, his family was to meet him on the ramp as he disembarked the aircraft, as a send off for retirement.

Yeah, douchebag behavior is everywhere. You can read the whole story here.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[Sildani]

There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots...

It's the stupid ones that keep me up at night.

[SchizophrenicMC]

This year there have been 7 deadly airshow incidents, of which 4 were European, 1 was Russian, and the other 2 were American. (One of the American incidents was the death of a parachutist) Just saying.

I actually used to know a guy who was paralyzed after getting himself into an airshow accident. It was totally his fault, but Jim Cavanaugh paid for his medical bills anyway, because he was flying one of Jim's planes at the time, and Jim felt bad about the whole situation. Yes, there are a great many overeager pilots. But they do seem to cluster in Europe. Most American airshow incidents are caused by mechanical failure at inopportune moments. Even the B-52 crash there was due in part to a 10-knot tailwind. It seems more European crashes happen because of overconfident pilots who put their planes into irrecoverable situations. Air France 296 comes to mind.

It just seems like a lot of this could have been avoided if people would stick to the 500' AGL minimum altitude for European airshows.

[Shadow]

11 people and a classic Hunter lost.

In this current conflict, the ability for the taliban to get their hands on MANPADS more advance than the SA-14 is very difficult, in fact Most of the MANPADS we see in the hands of insurgents around the world are mostly old SA-7s. Dangerous yes, to helos and maybe the A-10, a low altitude pass by an F-16 or F-15E is likely going to present a harder target, as they are typically higher speed passes than the A-10.

Just to comment on this. While Strela's are very prevalent, more advanced shoulder launched systems like the SA-18 and 24 are finding their way into these areas. Syria has some of these sophisticated systems and a few have fallen into the hands of ISIS reportedly. The Ukrainian Air Force certainly has had a rude introduction to Igla's. During the Iraq War I think it was reported that the SA-16 (an early Igla) were responsible for a number of downings of US choppers.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Shadow

[Shadow]

Edited August 25, 2015 by Shadow

[Valkyrie Driver]

11 people and a classic Hunter lost.

Just to comment on this. While Strela's are very prevalent, more advanced shoulder launched systems like the SA-18 and 24 are finding their way into these areas. Syria has some of these sophisticated systems and a few have fallen into the hands of ISIS reportedly. The Ukrainian Air Force certainly has had a rude introduction to Igla's. During the Iraq War I think it was reported that the SA-16 (an early Igla) were responsible for a number of downings of US choppers.

I can only state what I know, and or can find out. I'm not privy to that sort of information any more so. Even so, high speed passes at low altitude and high altitude flights are still at less risk from MANPADS than those Aircraft that fly low and slow. anything at low altitude is going to be at greater risk yes, but there is skill involved in using those systems, and tracking a high speed pass is very difficult, at worst an F-15 or F-16 will have to abort the pass and pop flares. Though it didn't kill the plane, it did prevent the pass.

I'm just saying that while MANPADS are a threat, it's not anything to get really hung up on. It's one of the reasons CAS operates in 2 ship flights minimum, it's also why You typically never see Blackhawks or Chinooks go in without a gunship escort.

Just saying. Lets move on.

[grigolosi]

I would frankly be amazed if any A-10, anywhere, has ever carried 15,000lbs of bombs even as an experiment. "Max payloads" tend to be a bit of a thought exercise anyway; yes, the air-frame might be able to do it but the drag and increased fuel consumption alone might mean you'd be lucky to make it off the end of the runway - and thats if you're in an aircraft with much more available thrust than an A-10...

Valkyrie Driver, some of the points you're making have been probably debated ever since someone first thought of throwing hand grenades out of balloons - at least a few of them remind me of the similar arguments about "strategic bombing" during World War II, and the jurys still out on that one...

Edit: Oh, and being mischievous - the F-105 had an internal bomb bay too, and didn't they lose something like half the total production run to one cause or another...?

Actually during testing of any combat aircraft the required ordnance load weight in the specification is loaded and flown to ensure it meets that requirement. Now in actual combat whether they fly a load that big is another question. Weapons loadout is determined by the mission type. I couldn't imagine what type of CAS mission would require a 16K load. You are planning on putting some hurt on someone with that load. The whole thing with the A-10 is that it is designed to takeoff with that load weight. Most F-105's had issues getting off the ground with the loadout they carried in Vietnam due to the high air temperatures in Thailand so they used a large amount of fuel on takeoff using a P&W J-75. The A-10 uses what is essentially a high bypass engine which has a far higher fuel efficiency and also reduces its noise and it uses 2 of the TF 34's which produce as much thrust together as the J-75. This means it would have the fuel to use after take off with that load out. The wing on the A-10 is designed for high lift and maneuverability, compared to most high speed aircraft which have smaller wings designed to balance lift, speed and maneuverability.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Actually during testing of any combat aircraft the required ordnance load weight in the specification is loaded and flown to ensure it meets that requirement. Now in actual combat whether they fly a load that big is another question. Weapons loadout is determined by the mission type. I couldn't imagine what type of CAS mission would require a 16K load. You are planning on putting some hurt on someone with that load. The whole thing with the A-10 is that it is designed to takeoff with that load weight. Most F-105's had issues getting off the ground with the loadout they carried in Vietnam due to the high air temperatures in Thailand so they used a large amount of fuel on takeoff using a P&W J-75. The A-10 uses what is essentially a high bypass engine which has a far higher fuel efficiency and also reduces its noise and it uses 2 of the TF 34's which produce as much thrust together as the J-75. This means it would have the fuel to use after take off with that load out. The wing on the A-10 is designed for high lift and maneuverability, compared to most high speed aircraft which have smaller wings designed to balance lift, speed and maneuverability.

I'll add to that, with this. That math that I did regarding the Mk82's was an academic exercise. You are correct that it would be very rare to see a full load of 32 Mk 82's on an A-10. That was done merely to demonstrate that just because you have a higher lift capacity, doesn't mean you have a larger load. Now, if we we're talking about Mk83's or Mk84's yes the F35 will carry 2 more Mk83's and 1 more Mk84, but still, you're left with the fact that the A-10C can carry all of the same air to ground munitions the F-35 will, and some that the F-35 either cannot or has not been tested with. In addition the A-10C's capacity is epandable, whereas the F-35's is fixed. If a new targeting pod comes out, the A-10 can simply swap it, where the F-35 is integrated with the avionics suite.

All I was trying to get at is that the A-10 can do much more with it's 16,000lb capacity than the F-35 can do with it's 18,000lbs. There's also this, the A-10 gives up less by taking a drop tank or two than the F-35 does.

Again I was also assuming the F-35 would be able to use MERs and TERs, I have no reason to assume that it can't, other than the fact that the DoD has an alarming tendency to do things that don't make sense.

[spanner]

Even after all the crap this plane cops from the haters (and I'll admit I wasn't a fan either) but im slowly finding it more and more interesting and its general appeal is growing! Have been doing a lot of reading on it and its quite an interesting aircraft!

[Valkyrie Driver]

Even after all the crap this plane cops from the haters (and I'll admit I wasn't a fan either) but im slowly finding it more and more interesting and its general appeal is growing! Have been doing a lot of reading on it and its quite an interesting aircraft!

I don't hate the plane, I just hate what they're trying to make it do. There are too many compromises in the F-35's design, and that presents us with mediocre performance, as far as we can tell (The tests aren't completely published, or they aren't completely reported in the media). It just isn't everything it was advertised to be, it's not an adequate replacement for the A-10, and it's not an adequate replacement for the F-16, especially when both of those aircraft outperform the F-35 in their respective roles.

I'm intrigued by it too, but I'm just being realistic. I know people are going to bring up using drones to make up for the F-35's inability to loiter, and that's not a viable solution, because drones can't carry enough ordnance for an effective air strike. An MQ-9 reaper can carry 2 GBU-38's or 2 GBU-12's, and can carry up to 4 AGM-114's in addition to that. That's fine for going deep into denied territory and taking out targets designated by special operations forces, without risking a pilot, or great for dropping on a confirmed target that's been under surveillance for 12 hours, and it may be sufficient to provide air support until CAS arrives, but it's not a replacement for CAS, even with the F-35 coming in that bomb load between the MQ-9 and the F-35 is still low compared to the A-10's ability.

There's also the fact that CAS is usually built into mission planning. There are usually aircraft flying in patrol routes ready to perform CAS when called. In addition there's going to be some fast movers sitting on the ramp ready to go to keep the support coming while the A-10's on station go back to re-arm. If it's required, sometimes it is, and sometimes CAS just takes care of the problem.

All I'm saying is that the F-35, as it stands, is less than ideal for what they want it to do. Good aircraft, great supplement for dedicated platforms, but not a replacement. We tried this purpose built tri-service fighter thing before and it didn't work. We still got a good aircraft out of it (the F-111), but it wasn't what the program was intended to do.

[Vifam7]

I don't hate the plane, I just hate what they're trying to make it do. There are too many compromises in the F-35's design, and that presents us with mediocre performance, as far as we can tell (The tests aren't completely published, or they aren't completely reported in the media). It just isn't everything it was advertised to be, it's not an adequate replacement for the A-10, and it's not an adequate replacement for the F-16, especially when both of those aircraft outperform the F-35 in their respective roles.

I'm not sure if we can positively say that the A-10 and F-16 outperform the F-35 in their respective roles.

It's obvious that the F-35 is not an A-10 but then the way the F-35 does the CAS mission is likely to be different from the way the A-10 does it. Just because they are two different aircraft doesn't necessarily mean the F-35 can't accomplish the same mission.

FWIW, the Marines use the AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet for CAS. Marine Corp Aviation (whose integral mission is CAS) seems to do fine without the A-10. By that reasoning, I would imagine that the F-35 could do the CAS mission just as well, if not better.

With regards to the F-16 comparison - While the F-35 might not have the 9G turning ability of the F-16, maybe it doesn't need it. Lack of manueverability could be compensated for in many ways. I know it's not sexy of not being able to turn inside the opponent but these days it seems tactics, stealth, and sophisticated avionics can trump agility.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Vifam7

[Valkyrie Driver]

I'm not sure if we can positively say that the A-10 and F-16 outperform the F-35 in their respective roles.

I disagree, but that's going to be based on subjective reading of facts. I just don't see the F-35 as an adequate replacement.

It's obvious that the F-35 is not an A-10 but then the way the F-35 does the CAS mission is likely to be different from the way the A-10 does it. Just because they are two different aircraft doesn't necessarily mean the F-35 can't accomplish the same mission.

That's certainly true, and I'm not saying the F-35 is completely incapable, just that it's capacity is limited. As I've stated before, you can't throw away a method of doing things just because you think it's outdated, or because you think that technology has a better answer (I'm not accusing you of having that viewpoint, but that's been the general argument from most). The F-15E can perform CAS adequately, and in much the same way as I expect the F-35 will be doing the job, just as the F-16 does. The JTAC will rack and stack the F-15E's and F-16's that are already in the vicinity, or can be there quickly, and then insert the A-10's to keep the support coming while the fast movers return to rearm. The A-10 can simply bring more hurt to the party, by carrying a bigger load than other aircraft, and being able to stick around to provide support. It's a joint effort, really between the various platforms. That's not including other platforms we have, like the AH-64, and the AC-130U. I default to the Air Force and Army as it's really what I know.

FWIW, the Marines use the AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet for CAS. Marine Corp Aviation (whose integral mission is CAS) seems to do fine without the A-10. By that reasoning, I would imagine that the F-35 could do the CAS mission just as well, if not better.

You're right, they do. I realize I hold the A-10 up as a shining example, again because it's familiar. The AV-8B is an outstanding CAS platform, because of how quickly it can respond. It doesn't need an Airbase, and it doesn't need sophisticated weapons. It can't carry as much as the A-10, but it's sortie time turnaround can be very much shorter than the A-10, making it just as effective. As for the F/A-18C/D, it does CAS well, in much the same way the F-16 does, however I'd say since it's load capacity is lower, and having fewer pylons to mount air to ground ordnance, it's not as effective at CAS. However that's from an Air Force perspective, I realize that the F/A-18C/D are as restricted as they are because they have additional design limitations being carrier-borne fighters. Given those design limitations, the F/A-18C/D that the USMC uses is a great platform. In the past however the Marines had a very effective ground attack platform in the A-6 Intruder, which the F/A-18C/D supplemented. Now that capacity is gone and the Marines have to do more with less. Also, the Marines aren't completely reliant on their own aircraft to provide CAS, these days.

With regards to the F-16 comparison - While the F-35 might not have the 9G turning ability of the F-16, maybe it doesn't need it. Lack of manueverability could be compensated for in many ways. I know it's not sexy of not being able to turn inside the opponent but these days it seems tactics, stealth, and sophisticated avionics can trump agility.

Again, I disagree. The F-16's greater agility, means that it can make better use of air combat tactics. Stealth and Avionics aren't "I win" buttons. We've seen the F-35 lose to the F-16 in mock dogfights on a couple of occasions, and that's telling as far as I'm concerned. Now, have we seen better pilots win against mor agile opponents, yes, absolutely. If agility were the deciding factor and the be all end all, the F-4's loss rate should have been abysmal, to the technologically inferior but acrobatically superior MiG-15's and 17's the North Vietnamese were flying. The F-4 had an advantage the MiG15's and 17's lacked, and that was the ability to go supersonic. The F-4 could make space much faster by breaking off and reengaging at a safe range. I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the F-35 has that ability to make space. I also believe the F-35 is more statically stable than the F-16, I could be wrong about that, so don't quote me on it. I think that the F-35 and F-16 are too evenly matched for agility to not be the deciding factor. Fact is, the F-16 is one of the best air to air fighters in the world, and that should be the standard to beat. The F-35 might be able to beat aircraft derived from the F-5, or MiG-21 or a lot of older generation fighters, but that's not good enough. The threat is from 4th gen fighter technology and better, so shouldn't our newest fighter be able to outperform?

I don't want to hear the dogfighting is dead line either, because we said that after Korea, and look what happened.

[F-ZeroOne]

Okay, thanks for the information on A-10 load-carrying.

[Vifam7]

I don't want to hear the dogfighting is dead line either, because we said that after Korea, and look what happened.

It's not that dogfighting is dead but perhaps rather less important than we think?

For example, RAAF Air Marshal Geoff Brown stated:

In any practice engagement I have had in the last 20 years where I have turned with another aeroplane in a bigger picture environment – rather than the static one by ones, two by twos or four by fours – every time I have tried to do that I have ended up being shot by somebody else who actually is not in the fight. As soon as you enter a turning fight, your situational awareness actually shrinks down because the only thing you can be operating with is the aeroplane you are turning with. The person who has the advantage is the person who can stand off, watch the engagement and just pick you off at the time. So you got to be really careful about how you use those KPIs

and with regards to avionics..

“…the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane…. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis…. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God’s-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter – and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements.”

Quotes come from this link: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/

I won't say that dogfighting ability is unimportant but I get the feeling that a lot of us get caught up on that issue alone when a host of other matters (ie. capabilities that the F-35 has over other 4th gen fighters) are perhaps more pivotal when it comes to air-to-air combat.