True.

"Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert" (joshuagilbert) 07/16/2014 at 23:23 • Filed to: F-35

5

6

I find this somewhat relevant to the F-35 controversy. The number of roles they are trying to limit to each variant? or squeeze into one F-35? isn't cost effective. Looking to simpler, more effective designs will save money and lives.

EXPAND

Also, Dr. Evil forgot that the A-10 is actually a fantastic counter-air aircraft as well, not against high-flying fast jet fighters, but for hunting down helicopters and low flying fast jet aircraft. This is a very important but under-realized issue that does pose a serious threat to our ground forces, especially in mountainous, jungle or hilly terrain. An F-22 or F-15 is poorly suited for flying at extremely low levels and searching canyons and valleys for enemy attack choppers that may be operating in a dispersed manner. The A-10 can do this, and with simple upgrades it can do this extremely well (more on this in a moment).

If the USAF wants to make a case against "single-role" platforms during this down and dirty budget rationale battle then they have to be fair and take into account an aircraft's actual relevance and utilization over its lifetime. How many aircraft have American F-15Cs shot down in the past decade and a half? None. How many tanks, APCs, trucks, command and control shacks, buildings and enemy fighters has the A-10 destroyed in that same time span? Thousands.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Manuél Ferrari > Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert 07/16/2014 at 23:26

0

Everyone should know that single-role can be good.

Look at the NFL. Most players can only do one thing but do it very well.

ly2v8-Brian > Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert 07/16/2014 at 23:28

1

The folks in charge of these types of decisions (budget and regulations) are a bunch of half wits.

daender > Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert 07/16/2014 at 23:33

2

While multi-roles like the A-10 are perfect to anytime-anywhere destruction and escorting, planes like the F-15/F-22 are need solely because the psychological warfare of having a top-tier fighter/interceptor wards off enemies thinking their own fighters are just going up against disadvantaged multi-role craft. Ideally, it's best to have three variants (carrier, ground-attacker, and air superiority) based off the same chassis to reduce costs...

Oh wait, Russia got it right with the SU-27 programs.

Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert > Manuél Ferrari 07/16/2014 at 23:35

1

There's also that. But think of it this way....you want something that can

1) attack tangos in the air
2) attack tangos on the ground -> big ones
3) defend friendlies
4) not get hacked
5) endure
6) carry ammo
7) carry fuel
8) protect its pilot
9) be fast and stealth/observation-duty ready.
10) not randomly explode

Most modern fighters fufill that. DOD, et. al. wants 11+

10) Hacking other planes
11) and doing electronic counterintelligence
12) e-warfare
13) more ammo
14) land in moments
15) land anywhere
16) serve command/relay roles
17) refuel quickly
18) 'invisibility'
19) 'one-with-the-plane' type computer assisted flying

I think the F-22 and heavily modified F-15s are in play at this point.

The F-35's list probably goes to like 58....that's the problem. The amount of tech and situations they are trying to integrate into the F-35 is a nightmare. It's too much. After a point it becomes like a smartphone or a Mercedes. There's too many bugs for it to be useful, as a phone. "Suprise! I'm not going to do anything because ERROR." They are trying to put an entire IBM server room and all of the Intersect (get that reference?) into a plane with four core purposes: Fly. Survive. Shoot things. Collect data (reco.)

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert 07/17/2014 at 00:24

1

When Dick Cheney called the F-14 "outdated", I stopped taking the DoD seriously. Now this happens.

I don't want to live on this country anymore.

Manuél Ferrari > Joshua "Dr. Science" Gilbert 07/17/2014 at 01:14

0

It really does e-warfare?

That's crazy