di1630 Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 One can argue the F-15E and F-16 fit into that definition and they are pretty successful. According to "GlobalSecurity.org" the USAF has 1,763 ordered. The F-15E is a great strike platform, the F-16 is strength in numbers at a low cost. We could argue all day on whether it is a marginal A/A and "real" CAS platform. It does do the T-bird demo well which we can all agree on. If you really think the USAF is getting 1,763 JSF's you should FF yourself for being so stupid. That was back when they were 40 million a copy 10 years ago. That program will get cut huge. Just like we once had 850+ F-22's on order.
brabus Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) At RF, yes the assets are denied. That makes you better, which is good. At the show, however, they are not denied. They're required. Completely agree. BUT, there are some shows they are apparently "desired" and not "required." Uh, not so fast...it depends. On a lot. And those scenarios you described as "some" I would descibe as "very few." Also agree. They are definitely the "very few," but I was just saying the situation I talked about absolutely will happen in those "few" situations. Either way, I don't disagree with anything you said, just bottom line of the topic is I think it's wrong to think ONLY RPAs will take down an IADs. As if the IADs will be completely dismantled prior to any manned fighters going in. I think a day like that is well into the future and manned fighters will still have quite a while before they won't have to worry about contending with IADs because UCAVs went in first and smoked everything. Edited October 20, 2011 by brabus
SurelySerious Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Vertical Landings Hit the Mark in F-35B's Tests
GovernmentMan Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Also, it just looks about 20% cooler than the Harrier. That thing never won any beauty contests.
FallingOsh Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) One can argue the F-15E and F-16 fit into that definition and they are pretty successful. Sure you could. They are pretty successful. The Eagle is still a better air to air platform and the hawg is still a better CAS platform. The problem, as I said before, is relying on one airframe to do it all. The F-35 has a single 25mm cannon that carries less than 200 rounds and 2 bombs internally. How effective do you think that'll be in a CAS roll? The major issue is that people see the multi-role aircraft being "pretty successful" and they jump on the idea of making everything multi-role. Not good. According to "GlobalSecurity.org" the USAF has 1,763 ordered. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs suggested there may be cuts less than a week ago. So I guess the Marines/Navy should retire all their amphibious assault ships then. Just because it has STOVL doesn't mean it's going to be parking under a bridge and operating off a two lane highway. The Marines don't even do that with their Harriers. My point was, and still is, that I don't expect to see the F-35 in the shit, especially where it would need STOVL. Reference the other rediculously expensive airframes we have that hang out at Red Flag or "deploy" to Diego. And how do you know that the F-35 doesn't deliver? The only thing you are judging is based on finances and delays. Yes, the over runs and delays are staggering, but that doesn't mean the F-35 isn't a far leap ahead of F-16s and F-15s. You answered your own question. It doesn't deliver because it's billions over budget, years late, and will be cut down in numbers. It carries an inferior payload even compared to the Viper and won't save money in maintenance as was originally planned. Name one way that it does deliver. I think multi-role platforms are important. I think putting all of our eggs into one multi-role, multi-service, end all-be all is fucking stupid. Edited October 20, 2011 by FallingOsh
StoleIt Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Sure you could. They are pretty successful. The Eagle is still a better air to air platform and the hawg is still a better CAS platform. The problem, as I said before, is relying on one airframe to do it all. The F-35 has a single 25mm cannon that carries less than 200 rounds and 2 bombs internally. How effective do you think that'll be in a CAS roll? The major issue is that people see the multi-role aircraft being "pretty successful" and they jump on the idea of making everything multi-role. Not good. It will do CAS just as well as the F-16s and F-15E's do it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs suggested there may be cuts less than a week ago. Noted. I think this will happen to any future major weapon system, even if it is on budget. My point was, and still is, that I don't expect to see the F-35 in the shit, especially where it would need STOVL. Reference the other rediculously expensive airframes we have that hang out at Red Flag or "deploy" to Diego. I agree, to the point that we don't even use the Harriers VSTOL for taking off of unprepared surfaces. But that doesn't mean the F-35B is useless. The Marines use AV-8B's from Amphib Carriers all the time. It has it's use. And people a lot more senior than us and (hopefully) smarter than us think it's still a good capability to have. You answered your own question. It doesn't deliver because it's billions over budget, years late, and will be cut down in numbers. It carries an inferior payload even compared to the Viper and won't save money in maintenance as was originally planned. Name one way that it does deliver. I think multi-role platforms are important. I think putting all of our eggs into one multi-role, multi-service, end all-be all is fucking stupid. I don't know the payload comparison of the F-35 vs F-16. You have any numbers to back it up? And is there really another choice? The Navy is operating only one air frame currently and it seems to be working out. And we will have both the F-22, the F-35, and what remaining legacy fighters hanging around for the foreseeable future.
brabus Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 The F-35 has a single 25mm cannon that carries less than 200 rounds and 2 bombs internally. How effective do you think that'll be in a CAS roll? It carries an inferior payload even compared to the Viper The problem is you're thinking internal carriage only. You can load it up far more than a Viper when using external hardpoints. Which in your example is no problem in a CAS war like we fight today. IADS takedown, deep strike through an IADS, etc. it'll only carry 2x2000 LB bombs (or more of other weapons out there), but anything not requiring LO will allow the F-35 to carry a pretty hefty payload for a fighter. But I do agree with you on the 200 rds of gun...that just sucks. Name one way that it does deliver Tons of ways, none of which will be talked about here. Open source media, reports, and etc. is not a smart way to base opinions on things like this.
di1630 Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 It will do CAS just as well as the F-16s and F-15E's do it. Sure.....at 5x the cost per hour. The JSF is a turd. Looks awesome on PPT just like the designers want it to so they can sell them. I had a guy try to tell me it was needed for future high threat CAS. If that scenario happens, there will probably be actual armored tgts to shoot and we need a jet that carries more than 4 laser jdams and 250 rnds of 25MM and has 20 minutes loiter time. Mavericks....not supported. Dumb bombs....not supported. Rockets...not supported. Aim 9X.......has to be carried externally which means the A/A gameplan is 100% stealth and a gun backup for close in option. The program is a mess. Sweet technology but not ready yet and too expensive. Buy Block 60 Vipers, Streak Eagles and put an A-10 replacement on the board for 25 million a copy.
Breckey Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 The F-35 has the capability for A/A and A/G internal weapons carriage. Externally it supports mavericks, dumb bombs, and rockets. Also the thing carries something on the order of 18k of gas. Probably as much loiter time as the viper, if not more.
StoleIt Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 The F-35 has the capability for A/A and A/G internal weapons carriage. Externally it supports mavericks, dumb bombs, and rockets. Also the thing carries something on the order of 18k of gas. Probably as much loiter time as the viper, if not more. From interviews I saw with the test pilot the F-35 bingoed out the NASA chase F-16 and then continued on for another hour. (Viper had 2 bags and -35 was clean as I recall)
tac airlifter Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 This STOVL variant, like the harrier that launched from these ships before it, is a complete joke (in terms of providing CAS). Downrange, those dudes were carrying 1x GBU-12 on the wingman and 1xTGP on the flight lead for a long time. 1 bomb! YGBSM. "....better not miss!" ...ohh, and no gun, and a whooping 10 minutes of playtime. ...I digress. 100% true, and I'll add that AV-8's also don't land with that single bomb if they don't drop. Too heavy, so they have to dump their GBU-12 (or -38) in the ocean. I'm unfamiliar with F-35 STOVL told, can they land with the same load they took off with or are we wasting more munitions in the ocean on EVERY sortie?
FallingOsh Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) It will do CAS just as well as the F-16s and F-15E's do it. Says who? The manufacturer? And define how well the vipers and streaks do CAS... I agree, to the point that we don't even use the Harriers VSTOL for taking off of unprepared surfaces. But that doesn't mean the F-35B is useless. I didn't say it was useless. In fact, I even said multi-role airframes are important. I said it was fucking stupid to put all of our eggs in one service-wide joint basket. The Marines use AV-8B's from Amphib Carriers all the time. It has it's use. And people a lot more senior than us and (hopefully) smarter than us think it's still a good capability to have. That's how this whole thread started. People senior to us and apparently just as smart have decided it may not be the best option for the marines. I don't know the payload comparison of the F-35 vs F-16. You have any numbers to back it up? That was really a back hander at the Viper, but there are numbers. It will have more gas but nobody knows what that really means yet. And is there really another choice? The Navy is operating only one air frame currently and it seems to be working out I think ive maninted from the beginning that this way oft thinking is the underlying problem. It works pretty well for the navy so everyone should follow suit. And as that wasn't enough, we'll make every airframe be essentially the same platform. It'll promte jointness and reduce mx costs...balbllabllbladbdl] And we will have both the F-22, the F-35, and what remaining legacy fighters hanging around for the foreseeable future.t The -22 and the -35 were supposed to be Optimus Prime and Megan Fox here to save the world. Turns out Optimus did't have enough money together to bring in more Primes. and Mega Fox is on a downward slope toward rehab. Those air frames are supposed to replace the legacies. Tha's why they're called legacies. Your plan B, and it sounds like part of plan A, is to keep the legacies doin their thang, Your gamesplan is either, (a lie (b terrible terrble plan (c brilliant I think it's C. Brilliant. The plan actually involves keeping all of our legacy jets, (with very very minor upgrades... the money went somwehere else..(megan fox.) so that the brand new shiny toye can be kept at home in a glass case with the rest of our airshow circus Edited October 21, 2011 by FallingOsh
di1630 Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 The F-35 has the capability for A/A and A/G internal weapons carriage. Externally it supports mavericks, dumb bombs, and rockets. Also the thing carries something on the order of 18k of gas. Probably as much loiter time as the viper, if not more. Where is your info on mav/rx and dumb bombs from? I went to the factory and was told by the engineers that it would not support mavs and rockets specifically. ......and the fvuvker is expensive. You'll loiter on 18K gas for longer but at $50K per hour vs 8K for a F-16. I'd rather have 4 Vipers than 1 JSF overhead.
SuperWSO Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Where is your info on mav/rx and dumb bombs from? I went to the factory and was told by the engineers that it would not support mavs and rockets specifically. I will caveat that I do not have any insider info on the F-35, BUT you say they can't integrate rockets? The Libyan rebels integrated rockets with a toyota hi-lux. My dad was shooting rockets from an O-1 Bird dog in Vietnam. If you can hang a pod on the pylon and get an electrical connection to the pod, I think integration is complete. Cosmic super weapons may need more effort, but if it is just getting seek eagle certification that the weapon won't come back around and shoot the launch platform, that is another issue.
di1630 Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I will caveat that I do not have any insider info on the F-35, BUT you say they can't integrate rockets? The Libyan rebels integrated rockets with a toyota hi-lux. My dad was shooting rockets from an O-1 Bird dog in Vietnam. If you can hang a pod on the pylon and get an electrical connection to the pod, I think integration is complete. Cosmic super weapons may need more effort, but if it is just getting seek eagle certification that the weapon won't come back around and shoot the launch platform, that is another issue. Sure rockets are simple to integrate, go ahead, hang the pod, connect a wire or two and then hire the local computer store guru to write the software code for a hmcs reticle to aim the things. I'm sure it would be just as easy to put rx on the JSF as it was an O-1 or a hi-lux.
brabus Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 you've got to specify which variant you're talking about Yeah, wasn't talking about the STOVL variant specifically...I do not know what differences there are in payload based on the model. But, I do know the A model carries quite a nice payload and has a shitload of gas. And define how well the vipers and streaks do CAS... I find it interesting that some people seem to think measuring dicks in an Iraq/Afghanistan CAS war is somehow a measurement of the usefulness of an asset. I'm by no means claiming to be as good at CAS as a Hog or AC dude, but seriously, it isn't cosmic. There's far more than CAS on DOC statements...shocking, I know. It will have more gas but nobody knows what that really means yet. It means a longer loiter time/vul time coverage and further combat radius. It's not rocket science.
di1630 Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I find it interesting that some people seem to think measuring dicks in an Iraq/Afghanistan CAS war is somehow a measurement of the usefulness of an asset. I'm by no means claiming to be as good at CAS as a Hog or AC dude, but seriously, it isn't cosmic. There's far more than CAS on DOC statements...shocking, I know. CAS in Iraq or Afghanistan can and is done by any airframe that can sling a JDAM. What we need a solution for is "real" CAS on a linear battlefield where things might shoot back a bit more. The F-35 doesn't cut it. There is a reason A-1's and Hog's are the CAS platform of choice and it has nothing to do with speed or stealth. Its because they can carry a lot of ammo, loiter, take a beating and keep flying. An F-35 will never be capable of that type of CAS. It should be called what it is, not tried to be made into something else to sell more. Glad to read in AF times they'll have the helmet figured out in 2 years though and the night vision of the JSF will be as good as the goggs we currently have. Great investment.
brabus Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 CAS in Iraq or Afghanistan can and is done by any airframe that can sling a JDAM. What we need a solution for is "real" CAS on a linear battlefield where things might shoot back a bit more. The F-35 doesn't cut it. Completely agree. That's why I said "Iraq/Afghanistan" CAS, purposely not being inclusive of all CAS scenarios. the night vision of the JSF will be as good as the goggs we currently have It'll be far better...at least according to the engineers, so yes, checks in the mail, but...
FallingOsh Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) I find it interesting that some people seem to think measuring dicks in an Iraq/Afghanistan CAS war is somehow a measurement of the usefulness of an asset. I'm by no means claiming to be as good at CAS as a Hog or AC dude, but seriously, it isn't cosmic. There's far more than CAS on DOC statements...shocking, I know. I'm not sure how you made that leap. Home boy said it will do CAS just as well as a Viper or Strike Eagle. I think it's an honest question, at that point, to define how well those two actually do CAS. I didn't say anything about Iraq, Afghanistan, DOC statements, or dicks. It means a longer loiter time/vul time coverage and further combat radius. It's not rocket science. More gas does not automatically equal longer loiter time or further combat radius. Also, how are you defining "longer and further." Longer and further than what? It actually is pretty damn close to rocket science. Edited October 22, 2011 by FallingOsh
Standby Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) CAS in Iraq or Afghanistan can and is done by any airframe that can sling a JDAM. Edited October 22, 2011 by Standby
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now