Flying low and slow over Iran, North Korea, China or anywhere Russia has a half serious deployment equals lost aircraft and dead pilots. Maintaining four or more squadrons of aircraft that cannot survive even a moderate threat environment means that any forces deployed against such in the future will have four less squadrons available to support them and could potentially end up being the difference between having any CAS at all.
F-35 Program - General Discussion
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I was legitimately asking, which type is the best for providing CAS in the Syrian theatre? The army chose the A-10 it seems, maybe they are A-10 fanboys. That big ol' gun sure gets me all hot and bothered :flash
Maybe they are just putting some more hours into them in those low threat missions before they get put on long storage. They were to downsize the F-35 acquisitions anyway ...
Maybe they are just putting some more hours into them in those low threat missions before they get put on long storage. They were to downsize the F-35 acquisitions anyway ...
Speaks volumes.
Coalition: Air Force B-1 bombers being used in Ramadi offensive | TheHill
Coalition: Air Force B-1 bombers being used in Ramadi offensive
The U.S. military will use B-1 bombers — not A-10s — to provide Iraqi security forces with close air support as they make their final push into Ramadi from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a military spokesman said Thursday.
"We've got B-1s in this fight, and when we find obstacles that we know we can hit, we'll strike them from the air as well to try and disable them," Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said on CNN's "New Day" on Thursday.
He said they were being used due to its long loiter time, its ability to hold lots of munitions and "extraordinary precision." The B-1 is able to hold 84 500lb general-purpose bombs, and loiter up to 10 hours without a single refueling.
"B-1s are evolving into a very effective close air support platform," he said.
In addition, he said they are "much less" vulnerable than the A-10 attack jets, which were employed in Iraq and Afghanistan to support ground troops in battle.
A-10s are not being used in the offensive at the moment, he said, but it's not clear why.
One reason may be that some believe that B-1s are more precise than A-10s. The Obama administration has been concerned with inflicting civilian casualties throughout the yearlong war against ISIS, insisting that the rules of engagement are more restrictive than what is required under the law of war.
Coalition: Air Force B-1 bombers being used in Ramadi offensive | TheHill
Coalition: Air Force B-1 bombers being used in Ramadi offensive
The U.S. military will use B-1 bombers — not A-10s — to provide Iraqi security forces with close air support as they make their final push into Ramadi from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a military spokesman said Thursday.
"We've got B-1s in this fight, and when we find obstacles that we know we can hit, we'll strike them from the air as well to try and disable them," Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said on CNN's "New Day" on Thursday.
He said they were being used due to its long loiter time, its ability to hold lots of munitions and "extraordinary precision." The B-1 is able to hold 84 500lb general-purpose bombs, and loiter up to 10 hours without a single refueling.
"B-1s are evolving into a very effective close air support platform," he said.
In addition, he said they are "much less" vulnerable than the A-10 attack jets, which were employed in Iraq and Afghanistan to support ground troops in battle.
A-10s are not being used in the offensive at the moment, he said, but it's not clear why.
One reason may be that some believe that B-1s are more precise than A-10s. The Obama administration has been concerned with inflicting civilian casualties throughout the yearlong war against ISIS, insisting that the rules of engagement are more restrictive than what is required under the law of war.
Which is why the new bomber is so important, as well as penetration and other traditional missions, with its advanced avionics and sensors, not to forget LO, it should prove even more capable is the CAS role than the Bone. An strategic bomber with high resolution sensors, state of the art coms suite and a brace of precision guided weapons, plus the extra crew to get the best out of it all would be able to provide over watch for a much larger area, have greater situational awareness, larger weapons load, longer endurance, faster response time, less warning, be less detectable and possibly even be cheaper to operate than the number of A-10s required to cover the same area and time span.
Me wonders if such a capability could even be suitable for a medium size air force such as the RAAF........ An eventual rhino replacement maybe?
t68
Well-Known Member
If you search thru the RAAF thread sometime ago Abe Gubler brought home this very point for which I thought they might be too much aircraft for RAAF. I remember him also saying the maritime strike role from the F111.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
For the price of a single new bomber, it should be possible to buy 5-7 F-35s. Why risk and allow a half billion plus jet to loiter around for CAS when this is to be a role the F-35? This would LM's sales argument although if the bomber contract protest goes their way maybe they will lobby for 20 extra bombers for CAS!
t68
Well-Known Member
F35 & B1 will be delivering ordnance at standoff ranges at low or high altitude.
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer.aspx
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The endurance and bomb capacity of a B1 does make it a useful CAS platform and its role as a strategic bomber against an adversary with a first class IADS is limited now. The new bomber will be VLO and expensive so the CAS role is doubtful. I am not aware of the of the B2 being used for CAS. Their strategic roles are more important.
LRSB is going to be built in far larger numbers than the B-2. It will serve in the nuke and non-nuke strike roles.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree about the number to be built as along as the unit cost is well south of 1 billion and the roles you suggest will be prime. As for CAS, not likely given their unit cost.
Once the bombers are built in sufficient number ie. 100 units, they will be used as the mission planners see fit. If they are the most suitable platform to perform the CAS mission in some future scenario, it wouldn't make sense not to use them. The Mitchell Institute has identified the missions of the US bomber fleet, past, present and future to include precision attack, interdiction, close air support, armed overwatch, defense suppression, shows of force, anti-ship operations and minelaying, maritime surveillance, and, as always, nuclear deterrence.
And how much cost per flight hour will those VLO ultramodern bombers have? How many of those "100" will be available at any given time?
And all that probably ... to bomb an already bombed out building or a Toyota with a gun on its truck.
IMO future long loitering CAS will be done by drones and F-35s.
And all that probably ... to bomb an already bombed out building or a Toyota with a gun on its truck.
IMO future long loitering CAS will be done by drones and F-35s.
Those planes are costing money sitting on the ground. A comprehensive analysis of Cost Per Flying Hour factors many costs that are incurred before they even get into the air. Aircraft are tools to be used, specially if the situation requires their particular attributes/capabilities. As has been noted previously, CAS is a mission, not a platform.
gazzzwp
Member
Just having scan read the DOT&E report on current problems with development and this up to date article:
Another F-35 setback - Business Insider
I just wondered considering forum members knowledge regarding the long history of the project, including time scale, cost, performance benefits, compromises, maintenance, what would your recommendation would actually be?
Would it be to continue with the project or to abort? There has to come a time when a decision has to be taken with regard to risking further substantial funding and taking the risk of emerging with either a highly superior aircraft or an unreliable one with performance inadequacies.
The stakes are high. Both Russia and China over the next few years are likely to be fielding upgraded aircraft (e.g T50) and there is the possibility that radar development and other stealth counter measures will render the F-35 advantages invalid if the time scale extends much further.
What do people honestly think? Are there any more attractive cost effective alternatives?
Another F-35 setback - Business Insider
I just wondered considering forum members knowledge regarding the long history of the project, including time scale, cost, performance benefits, compromises, maintenance, what would your recommendation would actually be?
Would it be to continue with the project or to abort? There has to come a time when a decision has to be taken with regard to risking further substantial funding and taking the risk of emerging with either a highly superior aircraft or an unreliable one with performance inadequacies.
The stakes are high. Both Russia and China over the next few years are likely to be fielding upgraded aircraft (e.g T50) and there is the possibility that radar development and other stealth counter measures will render the F-35 advantages invalid if the time scale extends much further.
What do people honestly think? Are there any more attractive cost effective alternatives?
in 25 years time there will still be people saying that it should be cancelled.
Seriously, look at how many are built - and look at all the pilots reports from different air forces
this stuff gets really tiresome as it invariably ignores all the other things that are in play or milestones reached.
Blue Jay
Member
Basically, at this point in time, abortion the F-35 is the worst thing you could do. You'd have wasted a perfectly good program. It would lead to a MAJOR gap in US Military fighter aircraft in the future. ANOTHER fighter program would have to be started up, which would end up being EVEN MORE expensive. Etc.
Meanwhile the F-35 is an aircraft that shows a LOT of promise. Sure it has problems, but dude! The plane is still in development! What do you expect? If you're writing a book and the first couple of drafts have a lot of errors do you say "Aw well, let's scrap it and start another one."? Naw! You go back and revise and fix the problems until the final product is reached and it's ready for publishing. Same with the F-35. It's got some problems that need to be worked on, but soon the final product will be reached and it will be ready for full-scale production and service.
No other aircraft promises the same capabilities as the F-35. Even the F-22 is a purpose built air superiority fighter from 20th century technology. It's superior in many aspects to the F-35 but it's no replacement for the F-35, just like the F-35 is no replacement for the F-22.
As for stealth, I think it's a matter of making yourself harder to detect, reducing the enemy's ability to see you coming. Just like a tank's armor is still armor even if ATGMs can penetrate it, an F-35's stealth is still stealth even if certain systems can more or less neutralize some of its capabilities. You know what I mean?
I hope this helped. And I also hope I got everything right. I'm open to correction if I made some errors
John Newman
The Bunker Group
A few weeks ago there was an article in Sydney Morning Herald.
The Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Leo Davies, was being interviewed and was talking about the future of female combat pilots in the RAAF, one particular paragraph in the article stood out:
"Australia expects to start operating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 2020. The latest Pentagon report points to continuing problems with the project but Air Marshal Davies said nothing in the report suggested the RAAF would need to changes its schedule."
If the Chief of the Air Force says that nothing in the report suggested the RAAF would need to change its schedule, well that's good enough for me!
In Australian terms, he is a person right at the very top of the food chain when it comes to information and knowledge about the F-35 program, and lets not forget too, it was only a few days ago that Australia released the new DWP, and it reaffirmed the commitment to 72 F-35A's to replace the Classic Hornets.
With the F-35 program and like others of such size and scope it tends to be a bit of a 2 steps forward 1 step back, Most people only concentrate on the 1 step back rather then the 2 steps forward.
The biggest mistake of the F-35 program was trying to lob so many aircraft types into a single platform, Tried to fit everything from wide ranging aircraft roles into the F-35 for everyone and found some large cost and time delays, Where as the F-22 (no not advocating it as a more suitable platform) was made to fill a specific role and as such had a far less troubled development.
On the bright side they have heeded the lessons learnt and the FVL family of aircraft will be getting split into 4 - 5 sections ranging from light helo's (Kiowa replacement) upto heavy helo's (CH-47 replacement).
The biggest mistake of the F-35 program was trying to lob so many aircraft types into a single platform, Tried to fit everything from wide ranging aircraft roles into the F-35 for everyone and found some large cost and time delays, Where as the F-22 (no not advocating it as a more suitable platform) was made to fill a specific role and as such had a far less troubled development.
On the bright side they have heeded the lessons learnt and the FVL family of aircraft will be getting split into 4 - 5 sections ranging from light helo's (Kiowa replacement) upto heavy helo's (CH-47 replacement).
I bet in 10-15 years the russians will still be trying to replace the su-24 and the mig-31, while relying on the 4+ and 4++ Flanker derivatives they are building today.
And the chinese will be trying to clone the su-35S they have ordered, haha.
The threat to the US army isn't the arms "race". It is whether it can survive the future budget cuts (sequestration?) without losing its mass or the ability to perform years and years of ineffectual counter-insurgency bombings.
And the chinese will be trying to clone the su-35S they have ordered, haha.
The threat to the US army isn't the arms "race". It is whether it can survive the future budget cuts (sequestration?) without losing its mass or the ability to perform years and years of ineffectual counter-insurgency bombings.
Those who are content to rely on the scare headlines and FUD being shovelled at the F-35 are doing themselves no favor.
JSF’s Program Chief fronts Senate Inquiry - almost
The obvious question was asked in terms of the issues raised in the recent DOT&E report: what are the risks and how are they being managed?
“What that report fails to do, however, is give you the rest of the story,” LTGEN Bogdan continued. “It lays out issues and problems that we have on the program, which are accurate, but instead of putting a comma after that it puts a period at the end of the sentence. Well, what I would like to do is put a comma there and tell you okay, we have that problem but it's either fixed or we're in the process of fixing it, or we're in the process of implementing the fix already, so you get a better sense of where the program is. The report doesn't quite do that, so it leaves you with a perception that maybe the program is far worse off than it really is.”
..“In fact, what I've told folks is that in my 25 plus years of acquisition experience, running many, many programs, I do not think I've ever seen a program where the misperceptions and inaccuracies are so far from the reality of the program. I think that gap is pretty big on the F-35 program.”
JSF’s Program Chief fronts Senate Inquiry - almost
The obvious question was asked in terms of the issues raised in the recent DOT&E report: what are the risks and how are they being managed?
“What that report fails to do, however, is give you the rest of the story,” LTGEN Bogdan continued. “It lays out issues and problems that we have on the program, which are accurate, but instead of putting a comma after that it puts a period at the end of the sentence. Well, what I would like to do is put a comma there and tell you okay, we have that problem but it's either fixed or we're in the process of fixing it, or we're in the process of implementing the fix already, so you get a better sense of where the program is. The report doesn't quite do that, so it leaves you with a perception that maybe the program is far worse off than it really is.”
..“In fact, what I've told folks is that in my 25 plus years of acquisition experience, running many, many programs, I do not think I've ever seen a program where the misperceptions and inaccuracies are so far from the reality of the program. I think that gap is pretty big on the F-35 program.”