Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-04-2016, 04:21 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Because drones are many years away from operating in such a complex environment. There are basically two ways you can think of drones operating: remotely piloted, where a pilot is just sitting somewhere other than in a cockpit; or autonomous, where the drone executes a programmed plan, either a very simple one that is scripted or one with increasing degrees of judgment exercised by the drone itself.

Right now, the state of the technology is that we can do really simple autonomy (drone, you are directed to fly this pattern, do this simple thing, and return home) and totally unable to do anything complex (drone, fly in this region, but if you see something suspicious, go and investigate it and make a call whether to use a weapon). Therefore, anything that is even a little complex right now falls into the remotely piloted bin.

We can reasonably expect that over the next 10-20 years, our technology and confidence in autonomy will increase so that a drone can fly a mission to drop a bomb on a predetermined target, or maybe even a moving target under strict parameters, but this is really, really hard stuff. What if the drone gets to the munitions factory it is supposed to bomb, and there's a school bus of 5th graders taking a tour? Can computers make the judgment not to deploy the weapon?

Okay, you're asking, so why don't we just have pilots fly those missions? Why not have a remotely piloted drone replace the A-10? Because remotely piloted vehicles depend on radio signals, typically from satellites, to command them. It is trivial to jam these signals. Every significant military has enough electronic warfare capability to put out signals strong enough to create real problems in satellite communications near the battlefield. For example, the idea of Predator-like UAVs operating anywhere near, say, hostile Russian forces today or in the near future is just a joke. Those Predators would be mincemeat.

We will surely get there some day, but the ideas of either having a drone operate autonomously with weapons near friendly troops, or having a drone with weapons have assured communications near enemy troops, is a really, really difficult problem.
  #202  
Old 02-04-2016, 04:27 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
I suspect a combination of big, robust ROV and virtual reality for the pilot, safe on a base somewhere, will be "the next A-10."
  #203  
Old 02-04-2016, 04:36 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
We will surely get there some day, but the ideas of either having a drone operate autonomously with weapons near friendly troops, or having a drone with weapons have assured communications near enemy troops, is a really, really difficult problem.
But as we are talking a few years out anyway, it seems inevitable that we won't be talking about a piloted aircraft. I think you're right that it won't be completely autonomous. But there is a big middle ground between completely autonomous and completely remote controlled. It seems that kind of in that time scale you will have aircraft that are still controlled by an operator, but their controls will be "fly over there", "drop a bomb on that", not "move your flaps up 1.23 degrees".
  #204  
Old 02-04-2016, 07:34 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
What I'm saying is that it is almost certain that the next ground attack aircraft will be manned, so long as development starts in the next ten years.

Right now, the Air Force is in the earliest stages of designing new sixth generation fighters, to replace the F-22 and F/A-18. Both concepts are generally expected to be manned, though optional manning is being examined. These aircraft would be projected to enter service around 2030 or so, and probably have a service life of 30+ years.

There's just no way that these high end fighters would basically avoid autonomy, and think that the Air Force is going to invest huge dollars for autonomy in a ground attack aircraft. The rumors of A-10 successors include things like the Scorpion, not the most advanced aircraft the world has ever known.
  #205  
Old 02-04-2016, 08:03 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
They don't need an air-frame successor to the A-10. It would be cost effective to buy more of the same. whether they rewing them in a D check or buy new ones outright. The plane can sustain more punishment than any other plane and serves as a financial buffer to airplanes costing 2 or 3 times as much.
  #206  
Old 02-04-2016, 09:13 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 54,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The rumors of A-10 successors include things like the Scorpion, not the most advanced aircraft the world has ever known.
"world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft." does not sound promising.
  #207  
Old 02-04-2016, 09:23 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
They don't need an air-frame successor to the A-10. It would be cost effective to buy more of the same. whether they rewing them in a D check or buy new ones outright. The plane can sustain more punishment than any other plane and serves as a financial buffer to airplanes costing 2 or 3 times as much.
As a factual matter, there hasn't been any evidence of any consideration of restarting the A-10 line. There has been a rewinging program ongoing - but since the news reports indicate that the retirement of the last A-10 has simply been delayed to 2022 under the Air Force plan, there's no need to spend something just shy of a billion dollars to rewing planes that are now planned for retirement 5 years from now, instead of 3 years which the Air Force proposed last year.
  #208  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:21 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 54,387
A billion dollars? How many A-10s are there?
  #209  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:29 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 32,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
A billion dollars? How many A-10s are there?
Wiki says 716 built. So if none have been shot down, crashed, etc. then that's just under 1.4 million each.
Original unit cost was 18.8 million.

Last edited by running coach; 02-04-2016 at 10:29 PM.
  #210  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:59 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Wiki says 716 built. So if none have been shot down, crashed, etc. then that's just under 1.4 million each.
Original unit cost was 18.8 million.
There have been some losses, including this puzzling incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button
  #211  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:44 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
From my memory, I believe there's about 240 still in service.
  #212  
Old 02-05-2016, 12:15 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Oh, and one other point: the unit cost of an A-10 thirty years ago is meaningless today. Yes, it cost +-$18 million per back in the day, but even if the A-10 line were restarted, the cost of an A-10 would NOT be $18 million per plus inflation.

To use a comparison, an F-16 back around 1980 cost around $18 million, give or take. Today a modern F-16 probably costs somewhere between $60-90 million, depending on what you put on it. That's because there's been thirty years of development of better radars, engines, avionics, sensors, etc. Similarly, the A-10 has received upgrades over the years - those cost real money, and it would be senseless to trade in an A-10 with 2013 avionics and equipment for a brand-new A-10 with 1979 model avionics and stuff -- which probably couldn't even be built today.
  #213  
Old 02-06-2016, 12:18 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Why would you think we would order a 1979 A-10?

the design cost on the plane's frame and engine is already sunk. there is nothing in our inventory that matches what it can do. An F-35 simply can't do what an A-10 does. It means removing the functionality of an A-10 and using different tactics.

Avionics are always a constant upgrade item and should be looked at as a separate program. All aircraft go through that process.
  #214  
Old 02-06-2016, 12:45 AM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
An F-35 simply can't do what an A-10 does. It means removing the functionality of an A-10 and using different tactics.
Do we still need an A-10? B-52's and B-1's can loiter circling above a battle field for hours, ground spotters can call in laser guided strikes. Then we still have Apaches and F-35's and the AC-130 spooky. We also have Predator drones that can also loiter for hours and perform hellfire strikes called in by ground troops.

As far as I know A-10's don't get sent cruising for targets of opportunity, so genuine question isn't the job of close air support better now done by high fliers or fast movers that can lob laser guided munitions from out of reach of ground return fire?

Last edited by coremelt; 02-06-2016 at 12:45 AM.
  #215  
Old 02-06-2016, 08:26 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Why would you think we would order a 1979 A-10?

the design cost on the plane's frame and engine is already sunk. there is nothing in our inventory that matches what it can do. An F-35 simply can't do what an A-10 does. It means removing the functionality of an A-10 and using different tactics.

Avionics are always a constant upgrade item and should be looked at as a separate program. All aircraft go through that process.
Again, you miss my point. People, including in this thread, often tout the cost of an A-10 as what was paid 30 plus years ago - $18 million or so. That is a misleading figure to cite, because the replacement cost of an A-10 is surely several times that figure, even if one disregards that the tooling is probably long gone.

And avionics are not a separate program. They are part of the flyaway cost of any military airplane.

Last edited by Ravenman; 02-06-2016 at 08:29 AM.
  #216  
Old 02-06-2016, 10:01 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Again, you miss my point. People, including in this thread, often tout the cost of an A-10 as what was paid 30 plus years ago - $18 million or so. That is a misleading figure to cite, because the replacement cost of an A-10 is surely several times that figure, even if one disregards that the tooling is probably long gone.

And avionics are not a separate program. They are part of the flyaway cost of any military airplane.
The cost of the plane 30 years ago included the development cost. that cost no longer exists. It's now a pure production cost.

As for the avionics that really is a separate cost shared among other aircraft. If the plane were purchased today the development costs of avionics would no longer exist. .

Yes production costs go up over time but buying an existing plane does come with design savings. It's literally a case of not paying to invent the wheel all over again.
  #217  
Old 02-06-2016, 10:12 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Do we still need an A-10? B-52's and B-1's can loiter circling above a battle field for hours, ground spotters can call in laser guided strikes. Then we still have Apaches and F-35's and the AC-130 spooky. We also have Predator drones that can also loiter for hours and perform hellfire strikes called in by ground troops.

As far as I know A-10's don't get sent cruising for targets of opportunity, so genuine question isn't the job of close air support better now done by high fliers or fast movers that can lob laser guided munitions from out of reach of ground return fire?
While loitering on target is one of the assets of the plane it is not what makes it unique. It's the close support of a Vulcan Cannon and it's hardened design that no other aircraft has that makes it unique.

This is the plane that makes it possible for B-52's, Apaches and AC-130 gunships possible. It's one of a series of aircraft that are mission specific to a well developed method of warfare. It cannot be replaced with any of the aircraft you mentioned.

If it wasn't needed for the close support you claim isn't done anymore then it would have been retired years ago.
  #218  
Old 02-06-2016, 10:21 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
It's the close support of a Vulcan Cannon...
The A-10 uses a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger cannon. The Vulcan, also originally made by General Electric (now made by General Dynamics), is 20 mm.
  #219  
Old 02-06-2016, 01:00 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Here is an excellent video on the design of the A-10.
  #220  
Old 02-06-2016, 01:19 PM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
While loitering on target is one of the assets of the plane it is not what makes it unique. It's the close support of a Vulcan Cannon and it's hardened design that no other aircraft has that makes it unique.
You didn't really address my issue. low and slow is no longer a viable strategy for CAS since the proliferation of shoulder mounted SAM's. Also the A-10 is no longer viable for its primary design task as a tank killer since it can't penetrate the front armour of a modern Russian tank.

CAS is better done by a combination of high flier bombers with laser guided munitions and human operated drones with vulcans and JDAMs. CAS in the low and slow role is too dangerous for a manned plane nowadays. The A-10 has not been used much in the fight against ISIS because of the risk of shoulder mounted SAM's. If a drone gets shot down it doesn't require a dangerous and potentially political disaster of a search and rescue mission using special forces.

To be fair I think the CAS drones should be Army not air force, let the Army cover their own forces.

Last edited by coremelt; 02-06-2016 at 01:21 PM.
  #221  
Old 02-06-2016, 01:36 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The cost of the plane 30 years ago included the development cost. that cost no longer exists. It's now a pure production cost.

As for the avionics that really is a separate cost shared among other aircraft. If the plane were purchased today the development costs of avionics would no longer exist. .

Yes production costs go up over time but buying an existing plane does come with design savings. It's literally a case of not paying to invent the wheel all over again.
Look, this is a factual forum, and you don't know what you're talking about. The $18 million figure was the flyaway cost, not PAUC.
  #222  
Old 02-06-2016, 02:14 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Look, this is a factual forum, and you don't know what you're talking about. The $18 million figure was the flyaway cost, not PAUC.
Great, I never said that. The plane will always be cheaper than that nightmare that's suppose to multi-role in it's place.

Last edited by Magiver; 02-06-2016 at 02:15 PM.
  #223  
Old 02-06-2016, 02:17 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
You made several factually wrong assertions in your previous post. Those deserve to be corrected, as I did. Changing the subject doesn't relate to your errors.
  #224  
Old 02-06-2016, 02:33 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You made several factually wrong assertions in your previous post. Those deserve to be corrected, as I did. Changing the subject doesn't relate to your errors.
No, you've made assumptions that are just stupid. I never said it would cost the same as the original cost. I said it would make sense to buy it because the developmental costs have already been sunk as are the cost of the new avionics.

You on the other hand thought such a project would mean using the original avionics and that for some fuck stupid reason nobody else on the planet understands inflation.

By default it has to be cheaper to bring the plane back (in today's dollars for those too dense to grasp the obvious) than to substitute it with a more expensive plane that lacks the functionality. You can't use an F-35 for close support. It's not designed for it. It's a fucking hanger queen in search of a hanger.

Last edited by Magiver; 02-06-2016 at 02:33 PM.
  #225  
Old 02-06-2016, 02:39 PM
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,930
Moderator Note

This is GQ, so let's tone down the rhetoric and focus on the facts.

If you want to have an argument, GD and the Pit are both great places for those.
  #226  
Old 02-08-2016, 10:36 AM
swampspruce swampspruce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You didn't really address my issue. low and slow is no longer a viable strategy for CAS since the proliferation of shoulder mounted SAM's. Also the A-10 is no longer viable for its primary design task as a tank killer since it can't penetrate the front armour of a modern Russian tank.

CAS is better done by a combination of high flier bombers with laser guided munitions and human operated drones with vulcans and JDAMs. CAS in the low and slow role is too dangerous for a manned plane nowadays. The A-10 has not been used much in the fight against ISIS because of the risk of shoulder mounted SAM's. If a drone gets shot down it doesn't require a dangerous and potentially political disaster of a search and rescue mission using special forces.

To be fair I think the CAS drones should be Army not air force, let the Army cover their own forces.
Have you read the rest of this thread? I ask because those issues were referred to already. CAS has always been dangerous and MANPADs have been around long before the inception of the A-10.
As to your assertion that the A-10 isn't being used much, well you are flat out wrong.
  #227  
Old 02-08-2016, 10:54 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 54,387
Depleted uranium cannot penetrate Russian tank armor?
Surely it can penetrate the stuff that ISIS is using.
  #228  
Old 02-20-2016, 11:22 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
What's this then?---
the-u-s-air-force-still-plans-to-prematurely-retire-the-a-10

from http://warisboring.com/articles/the-...tire-the-a-10/
...But a planning document the Air Force published in mid-February reveals that 2022 is the flying branch’s deadline for the last A-10 retirement, not the first. In fact, according to the document, the first A-10s — those currently with the Air National Guard in Indiana and the Air Force Reserve in Kansas — will bow out as early as 2017. Active-duty Warthogs in South Korea and Arizona would cease flying as early as 2018, followed by their Guard counterparts in Maryland in 2019. The last A-10s — in Idaho, Michigan, Arizona and Georgia — would retire in 2020 and 2021.
The author riffs on this AF "Force Structure FY17" Map:
http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...for_Distro.pdf
  #229  
Old 03-11-2016, 04:55 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
I have not read this, but propose to, in parts. I hope others in this thread dive in. At 361 pages, the PDF is obviously a save to disk proposition:

http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

25 November 2015
Joint Chiefs of Staff Doctrine Publication

Close Air Support
  #230  
Old 03-11-2016, 07:07 PM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth View Post
Heh. All this kinda reminds me of another Air Force procurement plan that's underway, but not getting as much attention—several aircraft for the Light Air Support role, the A-29B.

Better known as the Super Tucano.
Just wanted to say I think it's awesome someone is still making turboprop military ground attack planes.

As for the A-10, I've always been surprised there's talk of getting rid of them - they strike me as an excellent plane and something very useful to have available.

Not thrilled with the F-35, though. Australia is looking to acquire them (because you guys won't sell us any F-22s) but the whole thing is beset by problems, delays, technical issues and all kinds of similar embarrassments with it all.
  #231  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:35 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
The new Trudeau Government in Canada has decided not to buy the F-35: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhe...ocurement#2015
  #232  
Old 03-12-2016, 04:49 AM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
I heard about that, which makes Australia's plans to continue with the purchase seem (IMHO) less prudent than before.

I'm actually not really sure what's wrong with our F/A-18s, to be honest.
  #233  
Old 03-12-2016, 05:11 AM
Ranger Jeff Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,608
I'm reminded of Australia's purchase of the early models of the F-111.
  #234  
Old 03-12-2016, 05:52 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
I'm actually not really sure what's wrong with our F/A-18s, to be honest.
I understand that Australia's interest in stealth has to do with what would happen if there were a war with China. F-18s are very capable airplanes, but each year that goes by, they are simply less and less capable of going up against a country with sophisticated air defenses and modernized fighters.

The US Navy has been investing more in the electronic attack version, the Growler, which would accompany the Super Hornet on strikes. The claim is that F-35s (or F-22s) would need significantly less in terms of EW support to conduct the same mission.
  #235  
Old 03-12-2016, 08:34 AM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I understand that Australia's interest in stealth has to do with what would happen if there were a war with China. F-18s are very capable airplanes, but each year that goes by, they are simply less and less capable of going up against a country with sophisticated air defenses and modernized fighters.

The US Navy has been investing more in the electronic attack version, the Growler, which would accompany the Super Hornet on strikes. The claim is that F-35s (or F-22s) would need significantly less in terms of EW support to conduct the same mission.
Admittedly I'm not involved with the Defence department in any way beyond having an interest in military equipment, but I would have thought upgrading the F/A-18 would be a better option than spending squillions of dollars (which could be better distributed elsewhere, even with the defence forces) on an aeroplane which, according to some of the reports I've read, has some glaring and very serious issues.
  #236  
Old 03-12-2016, 08:50 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
Admittedly I'm not involved with the Defence department in any way beyond having an interest in military equipment, but I would have thought upgrading the F/A-18 would be a better option than spending squillions of dollars (which could be better distributed elsewhere, even with the defence forces) on an aeroplane which, according to some of the reports I've read, has some glaring and very serious issues.
There's really nothing you can do to significantly upgrade a fourth generation fighter that you've already bought to address the modern air defense threats. The F-35 is stealthy, the F-18 is not, and nothing can change that. Some troubles with the F-35 will, over time, surely be overcome. For example, the engine is likely to be surpassed in the next decade or so with one that would provide about 20% more range. There isn't going to be a totally new engine for the F-18, ever.

It bears repeating that while some countries are cool to the F-35, like Canada, others that are in higher threat regions are warming to it. Israel, South Korea, and Japan have each bought into the F-35 program in the last few years.
  #237  
Old 03-12-2016, 09:42 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,037
Yes, but being in "Stealthy mode" (for want of a better term) means internal carriage, no.supersonic no external tanks. ..... in other words a major performance penalty.
  #238  
Old 03-12-2016, 10:00 AM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
F-18s are very capable airplanes, but each year that goes by, they are simply less and less capable of going up against a country with sophisticated air defenses and modernized fighters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
There's really nothing you can do to significantly upgrade a fourth generation fighter that you've already bought to address the modern air defense threats.
Aside from greater range/speed/agility, not being fooled by dumb noise jamming and being able to combine sensors/data links, what makes the sophisticated and modernized air defenses and fighters increasingly capable against 4th generation fighters?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The US Navy has been investing more in the electronic attack version, the Growler, which would accompany the Super Hornet on strikes. The claim is that F-35s (or F-22s) would need significantly less in terms of EW support to conduct the same mission.
Would an electronic attack version of the F-35 make sense, either used singly or in a trio?
  #239  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:54 AM
silenus silenus is offline
The Turtle Moves!
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 48,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Also the A-10 is no longer viable for its primary design task as a tank killer since it can't penetrate the front armour of a modern Russian tank.
Totally irrelevant considering that unless the A-10 was sitting on the ground, it would be attacking from an angle that would impact the top of the tank, where the armor is the weakest. Your comments on laser-guided weapons is mistaken as well. On a mobile battlefield, spotters would be next to useless.
  #240  
Old 03-12-2016, 02:21 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,037
I often wonder if th3 F35 and other whizbang weapons will end up being like the Dreadnaughts; technical marvels, which in practice were so expensive that their owners were reluctant to use them......its telling that the QE and Revenge class warships saw much more action in the Second World War when they were old, expendable units than in their prime in WW1 (Jutland and thats it).
  #241  
Old 03-12-2016, 03:33 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Aside from greater range/speed/agility, not being fooled by dumb noise jamming and being able to combine sensors/data links, what makes the sophisticated and modernized air defenses and fighters increasingly capable against 4th generation fighters?
I don't understand the question.

Quote:
Would an electronic attack version of the F-35 make sense, either used singly or in a trio?
Every F-35 has a limited EA capability, but it's probably inevitable that an F-35 will start carrying EW pods at some point.
  #242  
Old 03-12-2016, 04:13 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don't understand the question.
Through what means are sophisticated air defenses and modernized fighters too much for a 4th generation fighter, even with Growler support?
  #243  
Old 03-12-2016, 05:34 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 54,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
QE and Revenge class warships saw much more action in the Second World War when they were old, expendable units than in their prime in WW1 (Jutland and thats it).
Something was wrong with the bloody things at Jutland.
  #244  
Old 03-12-2016, 05:57 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don't understand the question.

Every F-35 has a limited EA capability, but it's probably inevitable that an F-35 will start carrying EW pods at some point.
Why would they send out an expensive stealth fighter with pods on it? We have a host of aircraft already fulfilling the role.
  #245  
Old 03-12-2016, 06:39 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Because the F-35 will be around into the 2050s, and EA-18s will not. At some point, F-35s will be the cheap option.

Even today, an F-35A costs roughly 10-15% more on a unit basis than what a new F-15 costs.
  #246  
Old 03-12-2016, 07:11 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Because the F-35 will be around into the 2050s, and EA-18s will not. At some point, F-35s will be the cheap option.

Even today, an F-35A costs roughly 10-15% more on a unit basis than what a new F-15 costs.
There is nothing cheap about an F-35 and hanging a pod on it defeats the stealth technology.
  #247  
Old 03-12-2016, 07:16 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
An F-35A costs around $100 million, and a new F-15 is north of $85 million or so. Those are facts; whether you consider something cheap is of no interest to me.

ETA: and F-35s are built to carry both internal and external stores, so even the designers knew from day one that one could choose stealthy/internal stores only, or not so stealthy/carry more stuff. You aren't the first one to think of this.

Last edited by Ravenman; 03-12-2016 at 07:18 PM.
  #248  
Old 03-12-2016, 07:29 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
An F-35A costs around $100 million, and a new F-15 is north of $85 million or so. Those are facts; whether you consider something cheap is of no interest to me.

ETA: and F-35s are built to carry both internal and external stores, so even the designers knew from day one that one could choose stealthy/internal stores only, or not so stealthy/carry more stuff. You aren't the first one to think of this.
Why would you make a new F-15? As planes are retired they can re-purpose them as Wild Weasels and use the retired planes as a parts supply.

I'm not seeing the need to buy extra F-35's for single-purpose mission status.
  #249  
Old 03-12-2016, 07:34 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,975
Israel is currently negotiating an F-15 purchase to complement the F-35s they have bought. They are paying just a little less for the F-15s.
  #250  
Old 03-12-2016, 09:39 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
How different are these new puppies going to be?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017