Bye-bye F-35?

#176
#176
Grand Vol said:
You mean the same prop aircraft that's been talked about for nearly a decade with no significant progress? Started as the LA/AR program back in 2009, morphed into the OA-X program and has just proceeded to phase 2 this year?

Bells and whistles, guy. They have to pay for the F-35 at $80M per copy and such aircraft are shunned by the mainstream USAF. There are several different promising designs off the shelf that could be purchased rapidly like the Embraer A-29, Textron AT-6B and Textron Scorpion. Cheap options for COIN and CAS in the fights we're doing now rather than worrying about the fights we may be in 30 years from now.

I'm not sure how you consider the A-10 "overkill" for the Stan when they toss Bones out there performing the same mission. Nearly every aircraft in our inventory has been used in that theater save the F-22. Basically, the A-10 is the best aircraft ever designed for CAS of troops in contact. The GAU-8A doesn't just have the depleted uranium shells it uses. There is a high explosive incendiary round as well that's just fine for unarmored threats.
Click to expand...

A-10 and other CAS fixed wing aircraft should Army assets in the first place.
 
#178
#178
hog88 said:
A-10 and other CAS fixed wing aircraft should Army assets in the first place.
Click to expand...

And when has the USAF failed to perform such a job in their history? In every conflict we've been in since the inception of the USAF, there has always been support for the boots on the ground regardless of the inter-service rivalries.
 
#179
#179
Grand Vol said:
And when has the USAF failed to perform such a job in their history? In every conflict we've been in since the inception of the USAF, there has always been support for the boots on the ground regardless of the inter-service rivalries.
Click to expand...
This topic has been a continual debate between the two branches. The Air Force won’t give up the CAS role but many have accused them of not genuinely prioritizing it to insure the assets in place can support it. Air Force likes to fight in the air not on the ground is the narrative. The continual red headed step child treatment of the A-10 fuels this argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#181
#181
NorthDallas40 said:
This topic has been a continual debate between the two branches. The Air Force won’t give up the CAS role but many have accused them of not genuinely prioritizing it to insure the assets in place can support it. Air Force likes to fight in the air not on the ground is the narrative. The continual red headed step child treatment of the A-10 fuels this argument.
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer the question though. When did they fail to perform that mission?

I get it and have already admitted they like the bells, whistles and mach 1 performance over the "ugly duckling" platforms like the A-10, AC-130 and eventual OA-X aircraft. However, never have they failed to materialize on such CAS or COIN missions when needed. Sure, they talk a big game about retiring the A-10, but it just keeps coming back...

Remember, air power helped the Marines from being overrun at Khe San, the 7th Cav in the Ia Drang, Battle of Roberts Ridge, so on and so forth. The USAF typically steps up to the mission when needed. They may not have a dedicated platform other than the A-10, but they sure as hell won't do it because they didn't try.
 
#182
#182
Grand Vol said:
And when has the USAF failed to perform such a job in their history? In every conflict we've been in since the inception of the USAF, there has always been support for the boots on the ground regardless of the inter-service rivalries.
Click to expand...

True they have provided support, many times that support has been from altitudes to where the pilot couldn't see what the hell they were shooting at or they came in from the wrong direction but hey, at least they were there.
 
#184
#184
hog88 said:
True they have provided support, many times that support has been from altitudes to where the pilot couldn't see what the hell they were shooting at or they came in from the wrong direction but hey, at least they were there.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the joy of technological advancement. They don't always have to be down in the weeds to do what is needed.

However, I do think they need a platform capable of such a thing. I've always thought the A-1E Skyraider was perfect for that.
 
#185
#185
Grand Vol said:
Doesn't answer the question though. When did they fail to perform that mission?

I get it and have already admitted they like the bells, whistles and mach 1 performance over the "ugly duckling" platforms like the A-10, AC-130 and eventual OA-X aircraft. However, never have they failed to materialize on such CAS or COIN missions when needed. Sure, they talk a big game about retiring the A-10, but it just keeps coming back...

Remember, air power helped the Marines from being overrun at Khe San, the 7th Cav in the Ia Drang, Battle of Roberts Ridge, so on and so forth. The USAF typically steps up to the mission when needed. They may not have a dedicated platform other than the A-10, but they sure as hell won't do it because they didn't try.
Click to expand...
So the only aircraft that can fill the roll well is the A-10. And it’s been on life support for at least 3 decades and the numbers are dwindling quickly. Can you point to a peer replacement for the A-10 in the procurement pipe? All of the air tractor type of aircraft do not have the capability of the A-10. Admittedly the don’t have to have it in all present engagements. But if you need an A-10 in 15 years nobody might answer the phone when you call for it.

Edit: I see reference to the A-1. Another great CAS/FAC aircraft and I’m a fan. But it still doesn’t have the ordnance capability of the A-10 or a near gun. And it’s even older.
 
#187
#187
Grand Vol said:
Well, that's the joy of technological advancement. They don't always have to be down in the weeds to do what is needed.

However, I do think they need a platform capable of such a thing. I've always thought the A-1E Skyraider was perfect for that.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they do need to be skimming the tree tops and IME they set some artificially high ceilings. Then come back with the excuse, can't drop or shoot because they can't get a clear target ID. I think if you had Army guys in the cockpit they'd get down to where they need to be.
 
#190
#190
hog88 said:
Sometimes they do need to be skimming the tree tops and IME they set some artificially high ceilings. Then come back with the excuse, can't drop or shoot because they can't get a clear target ID. I think if you had Army guys in the cockpit they'd get down to where they need to be.
Click to expand...
I still do not understand how the F-35 fits the stated Marine Corps doctrine.
 
#191
#191
NorthDallas40 said:
So the only aircraft that can fill the roll well is the A-10. And it’s been on life support for at least 3 decades and the numbers are dwindling quickly. Can you point to a peer replacement for the A-10 in the procurement pipe? All of the air tractor type of aircraft do not have the capability of the A-10. Admittedly the don’t have to have it in all present engagements. But if you need an A-10 in 15 years nobody might answer the phone when you call for it.

Edit: I see reference to the A-1. Another great CAS/FAC aircraft and I’m a fan. But it still doesn’t have the ordnance capability of the A-10 or a near gun. And it’s even older.
Click to expand...

I've never opposed buying new A-10s or designing a platform around the GAU-8 either. I think it should be done or reopen the lines and produce new ones with updated avionics and engines. The rest (armor, armament, durability, etc) remains the same.

I was using the A-1 as an example of a dedicated COIN and CAS aircraft that works well in a non and low threat environment. Yeah, it's elderly, but the premise of having a low and slow "bomb truck" that's cheap to operate has merit especially in low threat environments like the Stan and COIN ops we did in Iraq post invasion. Yeah, such a platform would need to be updated (imagine the USAF's eyes if you told them you were bringing a piston engine back into play) and modernized for lack of a better term, but the .mil as a whole needs such a simple and cheap alternative. I like the OA-X program for what it intends, but frankly, I don't think the payloads will be enough even with modern weapons.

Again, the problem comes down to "wants" versus "needs" in the USAF world. They want the F-35 to do EVERYTHING, but are finding it coming up short when dedicated platforms like the A-10 and others outshine them. Hence, the entire culture needs to change from the top down.
 
#193
#193
Grand Vol said:
Doesn't answer the question though. When did they fail to perform that mission?

I get it and have already admitted they like the bells, whistles and mach 1 performance over the "ugly duckling" platforms like the A-10, AC-130 and eventual OA-X aircraft. However, never have they failed to materialize on such CAS or COIN missions when needed. Sure, they talk a big game about retiring the A-10, but it just keeps coming back...

Remember, air power helped the Marines from being overrun at Khe San, the 7th Cav in the Ia Drang, Battle of Roberts Ridge, so on and so forth. The USAF typically steps up to the mission when needed. They may not have a dedicated platform other than the A-10, but they sure as hell won't do it because they didn't try.
Click to expand...

I know you said AC-130, but I gotta say in all my time overseas the C-130 was an awful way to travel. Would rather ride a camel. Favorite was probably Blackhawks. They are loud but a lot of fun.

By the way, I’ve never heard it, was is the “Stan”? Is that referring to the ***ty countries in that region?
 
#194
#194
BearCat204 said:
The USMC doesn't either........................neither does the Navy.
Click to expand...

I heard it from an old Navy pilot that they like twin engine fighters because they are over water and want the extra engine, just in case. Don’t know if he was actually serious.
 
#195
#195
rjd970 said:
I know you said AC-130, but I gotta say in all my time overseas the C-130 was an awful way to travel. Would rather ride a camel. Favorite was probably Blackhawks. They are loud but a lot of fun.

By the way, I’ve never heard it, was is the “Stan”? Is that referring to the ***ty countries in that region?
Click to expand...
Yep. C-17’s are luxurious. C-130 suck.
 
#196
#196
rjd970 said:
I heard it from an old Navy pilot that they like twin engine fighters because they are over water and want the extra engine, just in case. Don’t know if he was actually serious.
Click to expand...
100 percent serious. You can survive a hard landing over land.......your chances drop dramatically over water .
 
#197
#197
rjd970 said:
I know you said AC-130, but I gotta say in all my time overseas the C-130 was an awful way to travel. Would rather ride a camel. Favorite was probably Blackhawks. They are loud but a lot of fun.

By the way, I’ve never heard it, was is the “Stan”? Is that referring to the ***ty countries in that region?
Click to expand...

Try flying on a C-130 hung over (Gitmo to Eglin)

Or through the remnants of a hurricane (Dobbins ARB to Eglin through formerly Hurricane Erin)

Or on a combat assault landing zig-zaging through the ****ing Rocky Mountains (Fort Carson)

Eff those things... Though C-5s suck way worse. Too hot in the back of the top level seating, too cold in the front. Seats designed so narrow that even a ten year old kid would be uncomfortable. And the seating facing to the rear makes everything just weird as hell. Crash-hawks are cool as long as you're close to the door.

Anyhow, we've always called Afghanistan "the Stan" or "A-Stan." Thought it was just a common term.
 
#200
#200
Grand Vol said:
Eff those things... Though C-5s suck way worse. Too hot in the back of the top level seating, too cold in the front.
Click to expand...

You must of been in a lemon. The C-5 I was in was as comfortable as could be, the flight officer even had the clam shell doors open.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top