Bye-bye F-35?

#3
#3
Will be interesting to see what other high-tech weapons programs - you know, ones that might one day come in handy in deterring major foreign enemies - he may seek to gut these next four years. This most assuredly will not be the last.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
Grand Vol said:
Good.

The F-35 program has become the Pentagon's version of the Wall Street "too big to fail" situation.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but at this point can we afford to start over? We've got some awfully old and increasingly outdated platforms out there. Maybe we can just do a lot better job of moving forward with the current program with a closer eye on cost controls?
 
#5
#5
volprof said:
Will be interesting to see what other high-tech weapons programs - you know, ones that might one day come in handy in deterring major foreign enemies - he may seek to gut these next four years. This most assuredly will not be the last.
Click to expand...

Ask Obama about that. He has reduced our nuclear arsenal to nothing. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I remember it was staggering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
volprof said:
Will be interesting to see what other high-tech weapons programs - you know, ones that might one day come in handy in deterring major foreign enemies - he may seek to gut these next four years. This most assuredly will not be the last.
Click to expand...

The problem is if it has a whole lot of bells, whistles and buttons, Admirals and Generals will jump all over it. And that turns into whether or not it can fight and win wars. Or, as in the case of the F-22, we get enough to make a difference.

There is a careful balance of high tech/low tech that can be achieved by the Pentagon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
I've been hearing a little about this. Let me ask those of you with much more knowledge about this project, are Trump's comments going to sit well with the military folks? And, if this is ended, what is the result in terms of our long-term readiness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
hndog609 said:
Maybe, but at this point can we afford to start over? We've got some awfully old and increasingly outdated platforms out there. Maybe we can just do a lot better job of moving forward with the current program with a closer eye on cost controls?
Click to expand...

Sometimes the answer isn't that simple. The Pentagon loves to "do more with less" and wants platforms capable of multiple options (recon, fighter, attack, interdiction, etc) instead of a sole source platform dedicated to one mission. A jack of all trades kind of thing. Good at many missions, but not great at one. Take the A-10 the F-35 is slated to replace. Single mission aircraft designed to destroy ground targets and is likely the best aircraft ever designed to do such a mission. However, it's being replaced by a questionable machine that cannot perform at the same level.

Sometimes do more with less hampers combat effectiveness rather than enhances it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
Grand Vol said:
Sometimes the answer isn't that simple. The Pentagon loves to "do more with less" and wants platforms capable of multiple options (recon, fighter, attack, interdiction, etc) instead of a sole source platform dedicated to one mission. A jack of all trades kind of thing. Good at many missions, but not great at one. Take the A-10 the F-35 is slated to replace. Single mission aircraft designed to destroy ground targets and is likely the best aircraft ever designed to do such a mission. However, it's being replaced by a questionable machine that cannot perform at the same level.

Sometimes do more with less hampers combat effectiveness rather than enhances it.
Click to expand...

The A-10 is excellent at reducing cave-dwellers to shreds; it will be effectually useless, however, in any confrontation with a peer competitor. I know Trump doesn't care about Russia, but if he's going to in fact needlessly push this Taiwan situation to its inevitable outcome, I hope he has something better in mind than keeping the A-10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
The F-35 program is too far along to kill. 10 countries are already receiving their orders Israel received their first 2 today. The F-35 program is being built in 46 states providing 32,000 jobs. And before anyone starts saying it should be replaced by the F-22 1) The F-22 can't isn't carrier based and it is impossible to make it carrier based because the F-22's landing speed is too high for landing on aircraft carriers, and solving this problem would pretty much require turning it into a swing-wing fighter which would destroy ist stealth capabilities and the Navy would end up having to engineer a totally new aircraft and 2) it would cost $200 million to refit the production lines from F-35As to F-22As. The Navy and Marine Corps variants haven't had the same problems as the F-35As.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
volprof said:
The A-10 is excellent at reducing cave-dwellers to shreds; it will be effectually useless, however, in any confrontation with a peer competitor. I know Trump doesn't care about Russia, but if he's going to in fact needlessly push this Taiwan situation to its inevitable outcome, I hope he has something better in mind than keeping the A-10.
Click to expand...

I've heard that the Air Force is going to refit their current fleet of A-10s and they will but out a bid for a modern version for the A-10. The plane’s retirement has been pushed back to 2022. The leader looks to be an aircraft like the FA-50.
 
#13
#13
volprof said:
The A-10 is excellent at reducing cave-dwellers to shreds; it will be effectually useless, however, in any confrontation with a peer competitor. I know Trump doesn't care about Russia, but if he's going to in fact needlessly push this Taiwan situation to its inevitable outcome, I hope he has something better in mind than keeping the A-10.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far to say it is ineffective on the modern battlefield in a high tech anti-aircraft environment. It's a tough bird that's got some age on it, but still vastly superior to anything else these days.

Modern enhancements have kept it flying. But the base model of a heavily armored and armed aircraft capable of close air support dominance and battlefield survivability cannot be debated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
Grand Vol said:
Sometimes the answer isn't that simple. The Pentagon loves to "do more with less" and wants platforms capable of multiple options (recon, fighter, attack, interdiction, etc) instead of a sole source platform dedicated to one mission. A jack of all trades kind of thing. Good at many missions, but not great at one. Take the A-10 the F-35 is slated to replace. Single mission aircraft designed to destroy ground targets and is likely the best aircraft ever designed to do such a mission. However, it's being replaced by a questionable machine that cannot perform at the same level.

Sometimes do more with less hampers combat effectiveness rather than enhances it.
Click to expand...

I thought the 35 was supposed to be more replacing the FA-18/F-16 which really are multi-purpose attack fighters. The Warhog was always intended to be fighting Russian tanks in Europe so was always a dedicated platform.

My biggest concern is we've got an awful lot already sunk into the program to just start over. Moving forward it seems like that would actually cost more in the long run.
 
#15
#15
carlos86 said:
I've heard that the Air Force is going to refit their current fleet of A-10s and they will but out a bid for a modern version for the A-10. The plane’s retirement has been pushed back to 2022. The leader looks to be an aircraft like the FA-50.
Click to expand...

They keep pushing back the retirement because they can't find an aircraft capable of preforming the mission. Including the vaunted F-35.

The only aircraft capable of replacing an A-10 is a new build A-10. And that's what the USAF as a whole keeps missing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
volprof said:
The A-10 is excellent at reducing cave-dwellers to shreds; it will be effectually useless, however, in any confrontation with a peer competitor. I know Trump doesn't care about Russia, but if he's going to in fact needlessly push this Taiwan situation to its inevitable outcome, I hope he has something better in mind than keeping the A-10.
Click to expand...

A-10's don't role into combat when there isn't US air superiority. The way the US does battle is to gain total air superiority first and foremost. Then they can support the ground invasion.
 
#17
#17
hndog609 said:
I thought the 35 was supposed to be more replacing the FA-18/F-16 which really are multi-purpose attack fighters. The Warhog was always intended to be fighting Russian tanks in Europe so was always a dedicated platform.

My biggest concern is we've got an awful lot already sunk into the program to just start over. Moving forward it seems like that would actually cost more in the long run.
Click to expand...

Its was suppose to replace the FA-18,F-16, F-15, A-10 and the Marien Harrier. As of right now it will only replace the FA-18,F-16 and the Harrier. The Navy is going to pair the EA-18G Growler with its F-35Cs. The Air Force pushed back the retirement of the F-15 to 2025. They plan on replacing it with a Sixth Generation fighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
carlos86 said:
Its was suppose to replace the FA-18,F-16, F-15, A-10 and the Marien Harrier. As of right now it will only replace the FA-18,F-16 and the Harrier. The Navy is going to pair the EA-18G Growler with its F-35Cs. The Air Force pushed back the retirement of the F-15 to 2025. They plan on replacing it with a Sixth Generation fighter.
Click to expand...

I'd always thought it was the 22's job to take over for the 15 (well, other than 15E perhaps).
 
#20
#20
Grand Vol said:
They keep pushing back the retirement because they can't find an aircraft capable of preforming the mission. Including the vaunted F-35.

The only aircraft capable of replacing an A-10 is a new build A-10. And that's what the USAF as a whole keeps missing.
Click to expand...

I agree. The Canon on the nose along with the slower speeds, design of the plane, durability and maneuverability, make it in a class all by itself. They should absolutely just make an another updated version of the A-10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#23
#23
FLVOL_79 said:
A-10's don't role into combat when there isn't US air superiority. The way the US does battle is to gain total air superiority first and foremost. Then they can support the ground invasion.
Click to expand...

True, but a key component of the total F-35 combat platform was the electronic warfare/jamming capabilities needed in such a confrontation. It's also very unlikely that every Pantsir, say, in the field is going to be eliminated.
 
#24
#24
I was in the military when the CV-22 was being phased in and it was nothing but a nightmare. Lots of crashes, deaths, cost overruns...however I assume everything is fine with them now. From a maintenance standpoint they sure seemed like a huge pain in the ass, similiar to the F-35.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top