It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Joint Fighter F-35 to replace all of USAF F-16 and A-10

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
That may be but my point is that tech is being illeagly beig transfered to india which may be a friend but is a hot zone for politics in asia it threatens asia and probaly the world because it is still testing missiles against its neigbours pakistan, china which means giving tech will only make them more dangerous and voilent to attack any side.

thats what i meant by threating destability in the asia.

just resont reports of surya missile to be tested a icbm that can can go deeper in china.




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
>>
The US Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force can all have fix winged aircraft but the US Army cant.
>>

That's a lie. The USAr has had aircraft ranging from the Caribou to the Mohawk to a range of specialist EW aircraft up to thru the current era.

The question is whether they can /arm/ them. And on this The Key West Accords were specifically designed to leave the USAF standing over a crowd of eunuchs as the sole _nuclear_ force exponent. In a time when 'Missile Command' (an Army bureau) was more or less a battlefield nuke and SAM house.

This 'clear division of roles and missions' was anything /but/ clear, as the USN argued often and loudly to anyone who would listen how readily they could knock down a B-36. Even as they knew the Russians were scared pissless about carrier groups launching short-warning strikes off some 15,000 miles of coastline.

But funding was tight and there had to be some language to divide the R&M set.

The sadness is that the helicopter is and always has been a dead duck in anything approaching a medium/high intensity _tubed_ threat environment (4,467 UH-1 and derivatives down in SEA, some of them multiple times).

That means guns between 12.7 and 57mm have greater than .3 SSPK whenever you bring the helo 'overhead' to employ like weapons of cannon and FFAR.

Now throw in RPG and MANPADS which take the threat ceiling up from about 3,500-5,000ft all the way to 12,500ft and more and the amount of money you put into the optics and guided weapons for standoff just isn't worth the limited coverage area that these slow and vulnerable eggbeater platforms can patrol.

Thus the A-1 and OV-1 and OV-10 were /all/ superior CAS/COIN type platforms, simply because they averaged 220-310 knots and could climb out of the trashfire without trading propulsive energy for lift. While carrying about four times the number of passes (in the A-1 this is more like 10 times, with as many as 25-30).

The same holds true, today, for systems like the Tucano/ALX and PC-9 series turbotrainers.

More pylons, better PGM options, more ECM/EXCM, more loiter at radius and faster transit back to a forward area refueling point or 'road strip' if you like.

If I put a squadron of these 10 million dollar fixed wing aircraft 100 miles from the nearest fight. And a 'troop' of 31 million dollar Apaches 30nm from the same fight. On shear cost of purchase AND operations (helos suck up maintenance dollars like you cannot believe, trainers, even when armed, do not) I can put more CAS into the stack (offset orbit hold waiting for 30 second call for support) with the 20 planes than I can with the 12 helos, even though the helo's are theoretically only about 10 minutes from the fight and the fixed wingers are closer to 20.

Of course, the current USAF setup is /insane/ because the F-xx platforms suck gas in the tenths of nautical mile per pound of fuel range. And while that might be acceptable for long range interdiction, it is utterly ludicrous for intra-country ops. A-10s, even after Hog Up (roughly 4 million each, minus the targeting pod and datalink necessary to /pretend/ they can do the CAS job), cost a fortune to operate and have only a single crew option for trolling fire and close coordination fights. When we could have had AT-29 type platforms, including a sensor turret and a WSO to use it, straight off the line for about 7.

And the helos are so easily shot down that we dump Apaches (complete with Longbow suite) to old farmers with Martini-Henry singleshot rifles.

>>
I can understand the Navy having them but the Marine Corps? They fight on the ground just like the Army does.
>>

Marine air, at least as a 'first responder' is well night useless if the fight is serious. Largely because they have /incredibly/ inefficient amphibious warfare ships. One of the _very few_ things John Boyd got dead on correct was the notion of 'not becoming obsessed with the beach!'.

Hence they suck up valuable hull volume with a well deck that nobody needs (you either sale into harbor in full view of god and CNN like Somalia or you're stood off so far beyond the horizon that even an LCAC is an hour or more from the surfzone).

While what little hangar and deckspot room they have 'left over' is in equal competition between 100ft CH-53/CH-46 trooplift (and soon to be the V-22 Moby Dick) and the 8-10 skids of the UH-1/AH-1 60ft class. There is next to NO 'running room' for STOL Harrier ops and bring back is marginal for VL's as well (especially on the II+).

And so, even if a detachment is brought aboard for a cruise, you are looking at less than 8 airframes with marginal ability to integrate with the deck cycle for airmobile ops.

Certainly insufficient to force a beachhead, let alone go any distance inland as escorts.

The only thing the Marines can do, 'in the immediate sense' is play embassy extraction force in a largely uncontested (i.e. 'revolutionary ally') threat environment.

For anything more, you have to have at least 2 carriers and while the Marines maintain a standing commitment to support a rapid standup so that we don't face another 9/11-10/10 '30 day late' scenario. The fact remains that they cannot REACH deployed carriers with the kind of capability to shift Hornet squadrons rapidly into theater and then into captured airfields. Not with anything like SPEED and certainly not with their deployment kits.

Again, you are looking at 15+ days and so it's better to fight a clean fight with the fleet train and support units you have for an existing air wing than to pretend that the USMC is contributing to the USN's support of Marine ground forces.

IMO, especially with the shift to UCAVs (which cannot operate from 'minidecks' without STOBAR at a minimum) and the approach of DEWs (the Israeli's, God Spite'em having sold THEL technology to the Chinese) the Marines probably need to reverse the position by which they abandoned artillery for airpower.

Moving back towards JCM/Netfire type smart standoff attack and surveillance missiles in the 20-60km class (Israeli Spike-ER and Delilah-GL would work too). While getting into the turreted 120-240mm, breach loading automortar as a serious (towed behind Shadow or onboard LAV) means to replace the 105mm light gun which the Army pretends it can air deploy. For multimission rounds (Smoke and Incapacitants as well as Silent Eye surveillance) and the sub 10km 'deep in the next alley over' mission set.

Again, acknowledging that the Inchon days are /long over/ and it is better to fly past the surfline than to breach it, the need to DRIVE away from the LZ is still overriding as we standup a true air-mech force option.

You cannot risk your airplane ticket out of the hotzone by landing ontop of your enemy. And you cannot _disengage_ from that enemy if you cannot run on wheels or tracks faster than he can.

Anything less (foot from aerial delivery) is just another SWAT team like Delta or Force Recon.

Anything more (bigger than a platoon sized UA with big vehicles unsuitable for aerial delivery) and you are looking at deploying a force which is too numerous to rapid-extract in the face of overrun or shifted need-elsewhere.



KPl.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
ch1466

I agree with you on that, why do we support a corrupt Government like Iserael, it has been betraying the whole world with the Americans it has illeagly given tech to counteries that are potential threats to the world, Also did you know the israeli tanks and arrow missile also the other missile and defence stuff which is claimed by Israel as been built by them it is a lei in fact these equipment were solely built by ameriacan investment money+ american agencies companies, they are in the US gonernment and have the most highst status of of the government officials, now that is a joke, really what in god are these people doing to american politics, American aid to the Israel is $2.2 billion dollars of the US tax payer.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Interseptor,

Israel is not corrupt, she is bankrupt. Both morally and fiscally.

In the first case, she knows of a certainty that she had no right to come into existence as a function of any wrong done to Jews during the Holocaust being 'transmittable', like a credit for evil, to another people that had _nothing to do with_ that act.

And so she casts about 'fiercely' (in denial) based on the notion that if she just keeps up the 'brave face' long enough, people will come to accept her 'rightful place' (as a State dedicated to the protection of a religious minority. What nice idea...:-(.

Much like nobody talks about the 60 million Native Americans we displaced, disenfranchised and genocidally murdered here in the States.

And there's the crux of the problem, because the U.S. treats Israel like a monkey's paw to both broker deals and deal out vengeance which we cannot officially condone. Leaving Israel to pull down a middleman profit that I'm sure is at least as much extortion for criminal activities as true utility of Kings Assassin rank.

But the real answer is this: Americans feel sad for the underdog because they think that, from their position of great strength there is no fall possible to the levels at which _we are_ the 'little guy'.

On a guilt by association basis. 9/11 largely proved the casepoint by which it is clear we /can/ be made weak by our weak friends.

But thanks to some incredibly blatant 'spin' nobody is seeing the liability that Israel represents in BRINGING that horror upon us.

Strength remains so only so long as you cut loose those whose weaknesses are no longer compensated by advantaged leverage.
The first rule of Empire being that there are shared interests but never friends.

Israel's utility to U.S. has long since faded with the end of the Cold War and again, her obvious inability to provide 'critical intel' sufficient to predict 9/11 damns her in the terrorist aftermath.

That doesn't mean that I would fry Israel for the many immoral and unethical things she has done to those within and without her borders.

Looking at my own nation's history, I'm not such a hypocrite as to want to try.

Nor do I 'mind' her teething pangs as a wolfcub biting the hand that props up her economy (I think, if you looked closely at each year's budget, the actual amount of money which goes to Tel Aviv is actually closer to TEN BILLION dollars a year. Both Federal and by coopted Private Contract.).

Because that is just a little nation trying to pretend she has a right to her own 'Continuing Hegemony' in a land which she had broken all Historical Ties over 2,000 years before. Proving in other words, the Interests-not-Friends argument from the /opposite/ side (parasitically).

What it DOES mean that, rather than endure another FARCE of a 2008 preprogrammed election; I would call for another Constitutional Convention by which the existing laws could be rewritten to deny private funding OR lobbying by all corporate and foreign agencies. No PACs, no SIGs. No 'diplomatic interests outside the State Department' (Executive Branch, separation of powers).

Even as I would also make it impossible for any of the 500 Kings who sit on The Hill to vote on any single budget item which involved their home States or local interests. No dogpile effect of budgetary pork 'by coallition' having the same effect as a line item veto.

I would further make each man or woman a multimillionaire upon election yet also _require_ that every election be limited to 3 town hall type debates and 3 'Professorial Board' grillings before HIGHLY SKILLED political scientists. Who would interrogate candidates based on a _fixed document_ of platform ideas.

So that nobody could use campaign coffers as a justification to out advertise or mudfling their opposition.

Only put forth a short treatise on 'what needs doing better'. In an election process of 1-2 months at most.

This in turn would probably destroy what little meaning there is in the Political Party system. Eliminating the HIGHLY ILLEGAL 'partisan vote' influece of that non-Constitutional (in my system) body as well.

Do these things and Israel will sink. Or she will swim.

Because nobody who is worth hiring will be long befuddled by Israel's smoke and mirrors disinformation and propoganda campaigns. They will simply see the wasted $$$$.

And so Israel will no longer vamp the U.S. budget.

The likely outcome being a full scale war in the ME within 5 years by which Syrian WMD is revealed in it's full weight and Iran is either negated by Jericho's or takes a standoff approach based on her own nascent IRBM capabilities.

Saudi being the wild card with her Wahabist radicals most likely wanting to use the East Wind option. And the entire Arab World scared pissless that Israel would nuke the Grand Mosque.

Though the outcomes remain uncertain for aftermath (massive Israeli civillian casualties further unbalancing the Arab/Islamic vs. Jewish population demographics would be likely), Israel will either turn the Med Red with her own blood. Or own enough of the ME that she can at last stand on her own feet.

Of course EU-rope might get 'clipped' by a bit of this. And I would cry not a drop.

But the U.S. is still too far away for 'official retaliation' and we could insure our shores against pissed private agencies by making it clear that we don't /care/ who wins and who loses. And we will not interfere.

So long as it's understood that the first mushroom cloud over U.S. soil would lead to the extinction of every Muslim and/or Arab/Persian between the 15th and 60th Meridians.

Such would indeed be the beginning of a New World Order in which Israel would either cease to be the wound which never closes. Or the Arab 'terrorist' threat would suffer much the same kill-the-buffalo outcome as the Sioux did.

But we cannot wait much longer because as soon as global atomic delivery platforms (small cruise missiles for instance, not necessarily fullup ICBMs) using warheads from multiply proliferated Arab or Islamic (or 'merc') states becomes the norm. Not even the Arab leadership will be able to 'sanctioned or not' prevent a bloodbath in the ME from spreading.

I myself would be quite happy to see every religious site in that _godforesaken_ (hot, dry, inhospitable, WHY would anyone want to fight for it?) part of the world leveled by 2,500mph winds and million degree heat. Before being irradiated to the point where noone can come within a 100 miles of Jerusalem, Medina, Mecca or any other 'holy site'.

It would certainly teach the rest of us _sane_ people a lesson in humility that one's beliefs about God are better kept in one's heart. Not vested in the rotting husk of manmade archaelogy.

But that is part of the 'underdog mystique' that again, must be broken for Israel to be seen as the predator she truly is.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
dont think that the F-35 will replace all ov thos airplanes... come on those fighters have to do something better than the F-35



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Yes thats true the F-35 will only replace of all of those series of planes the older models and the ones that can not be upgraded, and this will give balence in the AF with stealth aircrafts and conventional to, other wise if all were to be replaced that would bankrupt the US as it is any Billions of $$$ and there isnt any need to have such a costly replacement for the AF and navy.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
... i was thinking that its 2 expensive.... hold on how much does it cost??? was is 55 million??



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Naah, the A-10 is unreplaceble for the moment... same thing with the F-16...



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by russiankid
dont think that the F-35 will replace all ov thos airplanes... come on those fighters have to do something better than the F-35


The problem with your assumption is that none of the aircraft are in fact 'the same' in more than _name only_.

The USAF model has different wingroot and weapons carrythru than the Marine STOVL, the USN model has virtually a new fuselage AND wing AND tail. As well as specific navalization features such as heavy weight gear plus mounts.

And yet none of these features is /discrete/ to that variant as a function of design penalty. So that the USAF model is about 2,750lbs overweight, the USN model is 3,100lbs and the USMC anywhere from 3,400 to 4,000lbs.

Because those _shortcomings_ of mission element needs necessary to support the other models are still failure-present in the baseline.

Which is where the real tragedy lies. Because the USAF should be able to land on a USN carrier. And the USMC should be able to launch from one. So that we could move from having roughly 2,700 tacjets to perhaps 1,000-1,500.

Even as the /availability/ of those jets was such that you no longer had retention problems as people got _sick_ of 6-9 month carrier deployments. Or rotations to hellholes like Turkey or Saudi/Kuwait/UAE. Only to come home and have to get up to speed on the latest tactics and systems in time to go to a training exercise.

The sad fact is that _every_ airframe delivers the SAME munitions the SAME way. And so there is no truly 'interdictor vs. fighter vs. CAS' specialty.

ONLY the basing modes remain different.

And U.S. taxpayers get gutted for a worthless capability that cannot sustain even the baseline of 2 Medium Regional Conflicts. Because the services guard their 'roles and missions' (EXACTLY THE SAME) via the stupidity of deliberate isolation of 'how I land is my affair!' irreversible logistics penalties.

The UCAV and JPALS plus the JTRS/CDL system could change **Everything**. Leaving America with ONE tactical airpower 'force' exponent for ONE nation.

And saving us roughly 50 BILLION dollars a year in duplicated command, logistics and training costs. Not to mention the fact that we can build a _BOMBER_ UCAV which is four times as effective as the JSF (loiter at range with the same A2G internal munitions set) for about 20 million dollars.

Or roughly 1/5th that of the -average- JSF program acquisition cost.

But because we are stuck with a uniformed racketeering ethic (literally, RICO applies as a 'continuing conspiracy to commit crime [Commercial Fraud and betrayal of the Constitution] for the purposes of sustaining the criminal enterprise') we will likely run our budget right into the ground while destroying our military's ability to compete on a 21st century battlefield dominated by multiple small wars and DEW instant eye-blink destruction.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Since when is turkey a hell hole? Last time ive been there live was really pleasant.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
... if i underestand correctly... its just a fighter that a lil like a harier... it can stay in one place... and it has all the features that make all the other planes unique???



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
For all you posters who have a love relationship for the A-10, you are living in the past. The A-10 was designed to kill Soviet block tanks on the European continent. Do your homework and find out the attritution rate of these airframes when they fly against troops armed with gound to air missles.

As for the JSF project this makes sense from both an economic and maintenance point of view.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
lol the A-10 sucks does the F-35 replace it 2?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Last i heared was that the A10 was still quite a handy plane in gulf war 1 , joegoslavia and now.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
but its old its from the cold war and the F-35 is going to replace it

[edit on 30-6-2005 by russiankid]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Yeah it's from the cold war, but did anyone bother to actually RESEARCH the attrition rate in Desert Storm, when it was up against SAMs and AAA constantly? I know of at least four that came home mangled, but still flew all the way home and landed, were repaired and flew again. In fact one of those did it FOUR times. One came back with 200+ holes, one with large portions of wing missing......



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
good or not the F-35 is going to replace it



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Don't count on it. The F-35 is a general attack plane. It basically is good at a lot of missions. The A-10 is good at killing tanks and CAS. Unless they come up with a way to mount something on the F-35 that kills tanks as well as the GAU-8 does I don't see it replacing the A-10. The A-10 is amazingly manuverable, and great at the mission it does. They aren't going to want to replace the best plane for the mission with one that does a lot of different things well. It doesn't make sense.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
... ok we can go through the cold war again if u want... ill be the Soviet union and u will be the U.S.A ok? u get a lot ov A10's and now i nuke u and u lose... lol just kidding
-
the F-35 just needs a HELLFIRE to destroy a tank it doesnt need anything else
so i can still see the F-35 replacing the A10
the A10 is good no doubt about it but its getting old... now the F-35 is new and it can hover like a harrier so if it need to stop and lock on it can do it...(not that it needs to) and i can see the F-35 replacing the A10 cuz its not only good for destroying tanks but its also good against other fighters (not sure if the A10 has any air to air missles....) and if the F-35 is a stealth fighter then it would be harder to see it with a anti air cannon or something but the A10 is huge and its easy to spot



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Ok, something you need to realize about the Harrier, and probably the F-35. They can't hover with a full load, or a nearly full load. They weigh too much. The vertical take-off and landing is so that they can land on smaller carriers, and in undeveloped areas. Another thing is that the F-35 can use hellfires to take out tanks, but what happens when it runs out. The A-10 can use the cannon, and can carry a MUCH bigger load than the F-35. The external fuel tanks on the A-10 were almost as big as the P-80 Shooting Star (Early USAF jet). The sheer weapons load on the A-10 will keep it around. You could have 2-3 F-35s doing the job of 1 A-10.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join