Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Have always wondered how the F35 was going to replace the A10 in doing CAS, as it seems an awfully expensive aircraft to put in the way of casual ground fire from rifles, MG's and auto cannon, etc.

I have certainly read Crabs (sorry RAF officers) saying that they think 'mud moving' is better left to kit like British Army Apache attack helicopters rather than their fast, shiny, pointy things...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

As to the F-35 replacing the A-10 ... not really. But the upper brass in the USAF never wanted the A-10 to start with and has been trying to get rid of it for years. They see the F-35 as their big chance. In spite of nay-sayers the F-35 won't be any worse then the F-16 in the ground support role, and probably better as it carries a larger payload. While the 30mm gat on the A-10 is nice it's hardly the super weapons some folks try to make it out to be. What the F-35 primarily lacks is the loiter time the A-10 has, and that matters a lot in ground support.

I use to chuckle when the USAF kept claiming it could win wars with bombs alone, these days I just roll my eyes.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Lol. Indeed.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I found this to be a very useful multi-sourced article (Bloomberg & JANES etc.) on the F-35 issue with some video and multiple pictures (Click for additional ones as indicated.) included. It does an excellent job of bring context to the issue and brought a couple that you might not be aware such as the ejection seat for instance. Anyway hope you find it useful...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ime-money.html

Bonus... Some good video of latest Russian aircraft.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/2...combat-planes/

Russia's A-10...
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...ing-tank-17499

Provided by http://www.combataircraft.com a site I've been using for awhile now.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The F35 seems to have been under development for ever (over 15 years certainly) and they only recently found out that ejecting from it is highly dangerous?

Since UK built her new aircraft carriers as STOVL ships, stupidly in my view, she is sadly totally locked into the bloody F35B, so we must hope they get this very expensive aircraft to work properly...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

They will ... eventually.
Lots of new tech with the stealth, computer assisted flight controls, and most importantly the battlefield info management.

The question of course is ... how much better then the F-16, F-18, A-6, and A-10 will it be? Obviously better in some respects and worse in others since it's not purpose built for a specific niche. Since the US Navy plans to keep the F-18 (primarily for the air superiority role) we can assume the F-35 won't match the newest F-18 in this role. But keep in mind (unlike the majority of people seem to be able to) it's primarily a ground support/attack aircraft not an air superiority fighter.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

As Don well knows this next was the plane (Type) that needed to be in the game in regards to the top 5 or so major OOB's when I offered to cull them of the fighter types to open up slots in those OOB's. But after some discussion a couple of years back, we touched on some of the issues involved to include the complication of these planes being available in scenarios along with pick lists etc. So Don doesn't get upset I'm not asking for that again but, am still available if that should ever come about!?! :p

Point is this plane along with the A-10, GRACH where among a handful to support the above discussion, this one being the key in my mind. It is part of a very exclusive category only slightly bigger by about 3 planes called 4.5 GEN which notably is where the GRIPEN and many would say the T-50/PAK-FA truly belongs. Of course 5th GEN belongs to the F-22 and as yet to be fully determined maybe the F-35 if they can keep the paint on it!?!.

It is one of my favorites and will be competing against the F-35 in the below ref. Though not from AUSA the aviation "think tank", the next does a very good job in it's assessment of these two aircraft very much in line with AUSA and a couple of others. And as a reminder in air to air combat this plane is undefeated with a record 100 to 0.

Well enough "shenanigans" here's your read...
http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...vs-silent.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Agreed. However the F35B will have to able perform as a fighter (rather than only as a fighter bomber) in Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm service, since it will be the only fixed wing aircraft the two new, 65,000 ton RN Carriers can operate.

Some UK F35B's will be RAF manned and some Fleet Air Arm manned, although all are expected to operate from the Carriers as required. On which note many of us will recall the reluctance of the RAF to operate Harriers from Carriers once they controlled the whole Harrier force (before they helped kill it in favour of keeping more Tornadoes). But I digress.

Anyway, a Task Force at sea can sometimes, have land based air cover, although traditionally that has not by any means worked very well. Sometimes you can have help from allies, but your allies may not always be fighting in your war (ie, something like the Falkland conflict).

So from a UK point of view the performance of the F35B in the air to air role is of rather more than academic interest...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I suspect the F-35B will be a significant improvement over the Sea Harrier. Since the UK decided not to outfit the Queen Elizabeth's as conventional carriers any attempt to compare the F-35 to the F-18 is pointless. If they wanted F-18's they'd have outfitted the carriers to handle them.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Only with respect to carrier based EW roles, the F-35B or F-35C can not replace the F-18 Growler. This looms as a major concern.

=====