# F-35: top gun or 'dog' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914 "2013-08-22T22:22:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/181 "2013-09-03T16:24:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It doesn’t require a C-5 to read your own cite: > > U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan warned Congress last month that the $396 billion F-35 program, the most expensive ever U.S. arms program, remained at risk of a “death spiral” in which cuts in orders drive up the cost per plane, leading to more cuts… Here’s what else he said on death spiral: “I don’t think that’s the fate of this program,” Bogdan said. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/182 "2013-09-03T16:26:54Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Was an A-10 expected to take an AIM-120 hit and survive? I doubt the A-10 was expected to survive much beyond a SA-9 Grail (or one of its descendants), as far as SAMs are concerned. AAA on the other hand, is what it’s supposed to survive. Not that it’ll be a fun day for the pilot, but the idea is that it’s designed to be redundant and tough, and get the pilots back, because ultimately it’s that guy at the stick that makes an aircraft dangerous, not the airframe itself. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/183 "2013-09-03T16:27:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Here’s what else he said on death spiral: “I don’t think that’s the fate of this program,” Bogdan said. Which is what I said already. It’s too far down the pipeline to cancel in the United States but other countries still have a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/184 "2013-09-03T16:32:32Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Historically, carrier-capable planes have always performed distinctly less well than land-based planes, so I agree with that assessment. The difference is particularly evident when comparing planes that used the same powerplant. The P-47 Thunderbolt, a land-based plane using the legendary Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, significantly outperformed the similarly-shaped Grumman F6F Hellcat, using the same engine. > [@Magiver](#): > > The Hellcat had a much better rate of climb and carried a 60% greater payload. Still, significantly outperformed by the Thunderbolt, as I said. P-47 was _decisively_ faster, carried 33% more guns, and had much greater service ceiling, among other things. besides, my larger point still stands – there’s solid historical evidence that very similar aircraft perform significantly less well (in terms of combat, where small differences make a large difference in the outcome) when they are optimized for carrier landings. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/185 "2013-09-03T16:36:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Which is what I said already. It’s too far down the pipeline to cancel in the United States but other countries still have a choice. So why is it that you posted a link to an article entitled, “Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program, leaked documents suggest” when you do not think that the story is true? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/186 "2013-09-03T19:04:04Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > I’m still not clear on why the UK got itself involved in this mess instead of navalising the Typhoon which would have been a lot cheaper as I understand it, would have lead to more standardisation across the services, would have more than sufficed for the sorts of engagements the UK finds itself in, and wouldn’t see us developing supercarriers with no planes to fly off them for years to come. Well put…and when the mighty Royal Navy took on the Argentine AF in the Falklands War, Argentine pilots flying long-obsolete jets got through the best defenses that the RN had. The only thing that saved the RN-the Argentines had no more missiles left-they were reduced to dropping bombs-that were incorrectly fused (the bombs went right through the ship hulls without detonating). Had the bombs worked, most of the British task force would have been sunk. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/187 "2013-09-03T23:13:27Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Well put…and when the mighty Royal Navy took on the Argentine AF in the Falklands War, Argentine pilots flying long-obsolete jets got through the best defenses that the RN had. The problem was the best defenses the RN had were even more obsolete. While the Sea Dart provided effective mid to high altitude air defense, it wasn’t effective against low altitude targets. The Sea Wolf, a modern (at the time) low altitude SAM was only just entering service in the RN, only 3 ships were armed with it in the entire RN. There was not a single CIWS in the entire RN. The air defenses of almost every frigate sent to the Falklands consisted of one or two quad [Sea Cat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Cat) launchers, a horribly obsolete subsonic semi-active command line of sight missile and a pair of optically aimed 20mm Oerlikons. The average British frigate from the end of WW2 was far better armed for low altitude air defense than the frigates of 1982 were. The Sea Cat made only one confirmed kill out of over 80 launches. > [@](#): > > The only thing that saved the RN-the Argentines had no more missiles left-they were reduced to dropping bombs-that were incorrectly fused (the bombs went right through the ship hulls without detonating). Had the bombs worked, most of the British task force would have been sunk. This is a common misconception. The bombs were fused perfectly fine; the problem was the Argentineans were releasing them from too low of an altitude to allow the fuse to arm. Had the Argentineans released them from the proper minimum altitude or adjusted the fuses the bombs would have worked as designed. Also, the bombs did not go right through the ship’s hulls, they were embedded inside the British ships. [HMS _Antelope_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Antelope_(F170)) was lost when an attempt to defuse one of the two unexploded 1,000lb bombs inside her failed and caused the bomb to detonate. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/188 "2013-09-03T23:49:04Z")
Yeah, talk about [A-4’s at low altitude.](http://coverjunction.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/256/1e4748f2-ef52-4d98-aebb-1c47ce63b62e.jpg) attacking. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/189 "2013-09-04T00:12:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The whole thread is based on whether the F-35 program is producing a top gun plane or a dog. It’s not a dog but it’s not a top gun plane either. It seems like an expensive plane for what they are as a group. None of the variants can replace something like an A-10 The F-35 can’t replace my toothbrush either. But it was never designed to do so and isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/190 "2013-09-04T01:54:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So why is it that you posted a link to an article entitled, “Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program, leaked documents suggest” when you do not think that the story is true? To show you what the Pentagon thought of the plane. I thought you could guess that when I wrote: “If only the Pentagon was as excited over the F-35 as those in this thread”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/191 "2013-09-04T01:56:57Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The F-35 can’t replace my toothbrush either. But it was never designed to do so and isn’t. That is incorrect. One of the planes it’s replacing is the A-10. [From Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II): The JSF program was designed to replace the United States military F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding newer E/F “Super Hornet” variants) and AV-8B tactical fighter aircraft. To keep development, production, and operating costs down, a common design was planned in three variants that share 80 percent of their parts: ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/192 "2013-09-04T02:00:31Z")
Yeah, I’m gonna need a better cite than wikipedia for that. A-10s will be in service until 2040. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/193 "2013-09-04T02:01:42Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Still, significantly outperformed by the Thunderbolt, as I said. P-47 was _decisively_ faster, carried 33% more guns, and had much greater service ceiling, among other things. > > besides, my larger point still stands – there’s solid historical evidence that very similar aircraft perform significantly less well (in terms of combat, where small differences make a large difference in the outcome) when they are optimized for carrier landings. Your point doesn’t stand. The Navy plane did not serve the same function. It was designed to haul metal off a ship and bomb targets. It was considerably quicker at low altitudes and made a better defensive aircraft for carriers. They were entirely different aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/194 "2013-09-04T02:09:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Yeah, I’m gonna need a better cite than wikipedia for that. A-10s will be in service until 2040. I didn’t see any cite from you? But here’s the cite from the [A-10 page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II): In 2007, the A-10 was expected to be in USAF service until 2028 and possibly later,[84] when it may be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.[30] Critics have responded by saying that replacing the A-10 with the F-35 would be a “giant leap backwards” given the performance of the Warthog and the rising costs of the F-35 program. What it comes down to is that as the F-35 goes forward it’s going to suck all the financial oxygen out of the room. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/195 "2013-09-04T02:14:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I didn’t see any cite from you? > > But here’s the cite from the [A-10 page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II): > > In 2007, the A-10 was expected to be in USAF service until 2028 and possibly later,[84] when it may be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.[30] Critics have responded by saying that replacing the A-10 with the F-35 would be a “giant leap backwards” given the performance of the Warthog and the rising costs of the F-35 program. > > What it comes down to is that as the F-35 goes forward it’s going to suck all the financial oxygen out of the room. “This enhanced wing assembly will give the A-10 new strength and a new foundation for its continued service into 2040,” said Mark Bass, maintenance, modifications and upgrades vice president and general manager for Boeing Defense, Space & Security. [http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/02/16/10-thunderbolts-getting-new-wings-hill-air-force-base](http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/02/16/10-thunderbolts-getting-new-wings-hill-air-force-base) The F-35 isn’t going to obsolete the A-10. Advances in portable SAMs will. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/196 "2013-09-04T03:20:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > “This enhanced wing assembly will give the A-10 new strength and a new foundation for its continued service into 2040,” said Mark Bass, maintenance, modifications and upgrades vice president and general manager for Boeing Defense, Space & Security. > > [http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/02/16/10-thunderbolts-getting-new-wings-hill-air-force-base](http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/02/16/10-thunderbolts-getting-new-wings-hill-air-force-base) > > The F-35 isn’t going to obsolete the A-10. Advances in portable SAMs will. I don’t think you understand what’s going on with the A-10. It would already be retired if the wing mods were not made. It was at the end of it’s service life. Technically it might make it close to 2040 but that would be it’s next service cycle drop dead date. They’re not going to run it up to the last possible day and wave goodby. They’re going to faze in the F-35 and faze out the A-10. But that’s not what will kill the plane. It’s money. The Air Force has so much money to work with. The F-35’s mission is to replace the planes already listed above. This plane has gone over budget. It’s going to replace the A-10 because that’s what it was set up to do. [Another](http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/)article with the 2028 date: The precision engagement upgrade programme for the A-10 includes enhanced precision target engagement capabilities, which will allow the deployment of precision weapons such as JDAM (joint direct attack munition) and wind-corrected munitions dispenser (WCMD), as well as enabling an extension of the aircraft’s service life to 2028. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/197 "2013-09-04T03:26:59Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > To show you what the Pentagon thought of the plane. I thought you could guess that when I wrote: “If only the Pentagon was as excited over the F-35 as those in this thread”. But the story didn’t say anyone was considering cancelling or curtailing the program due to performance. There are no quotes saying that the plane is viewed as unsuccessful – and the reference to General Bogdan’s criticism of the contractor and the shortcomings is from a person who is on the record as supporting the program. The story said at first that sequestration might cause some terminations, but then two paragraphs later are multiple quotes from DoD officials that they will not terminate the program. Please, seriously, explain what you thought you were showing when you linked to that story. It’s like you didn’t even read it, and you have said the program won’t get cancelled. So why did you post an article that you described so grossly incorrectly? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/198 "2013-09-04T03:47:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But the story didn’t say anyone was considering cancelling or curtailing the program due to performance. There are no quotes saying that the plane is viewed as unsuccessful – and the reference to General Bogdan’s criticism of the contractor and the shortcomings is from a person who is on the record as supporting the program. > > The story said at first that sequestration might cause some terminations, but then two paragraphs later are multiple quotes from DoD officials that they will not terminate the program. > > Please, seriously, explain what you thought you were showing when you linked to that story. It’s like you didn’t even read it, and you have said the program won’t get cancelled. So why did you post an article that you described so grossly incorrectly? at this point you’re just arguing for the sake of it. I was clear when I posted it and if you don’t like it too bad. It was clear in the article that the Pentagon is not happy with the program. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/199 "2013-09-04T04:37:39Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yeah, talk about [A-4’s at low altitude.](http://coverjunction.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/256/1e4748f2-ef52-4d98-aebb-1c47ce63b62e.jpg) attacking. Reminds me of a comment a British officer made in an interview for some documentary or the other. Something to the effect of “They make some of the world’s best race car drivers and it didn’t occur to us they might make excellent pilots”. There’s a picture of the fuse on a Mark 82 bomb [here](http://a4skyhawk.org/8e/html/va93-904e2-fuze-mk82-mylar.htm). When released the arming wire is pulled free from the fuse’s propeller, which then must make an adjustable set number of revolutions to arm the bomb. The blurry writing on the bottom reads “seconds delay”; the point of the delay before arming is to prevent the aircraft that’s dropping the bomb from being caught within the blast radius of its own bomb. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914/200 "2013-09-04T05:00:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t think you understand what’s going on with the A-10. It would already be retired if the wing mods were not made. It was at the end of it’s service life. Technically it might make it close to 2040 but that would be it’s next service cycle drop dead date. They’re not going to run it up to the last possible day and wave goodby. They’re going to faze in the F-35 and faze out the A-10. > > But that’s not what will kill the plane. It’s money. The Air Force has so much money to work with. The F-35’s mission is to replace the planes already listed above. This plane has gone over budget. It’s going to replace the A-10 because that’s what it was set up to do. I don’t think you understand what’s going on and has gone on with the A-10. From the A-10 wiki page you cited: > [@](#): > > In 2007, the A-10 was expected to be in USAF service until 2028 and possibly later, [84]when it **may** be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Note the operative word “may”. The Air Force has never liked the A-10 since it’s a slow, unsexy plane and has been trying to retire the plane for a long time with no success due to vociferous opposition from the Army and Congress. It was to be replaced by the A-16, a dedicated ground attack version of the F-16 shortly after the first Gulf War. Here is what happened to that [idea](http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html): > [@](#): > > There were two block 15’s that were converted to this modification; they were based at Shaw airforce base. The Block 60 did not go into production and the A-16 became wrapped up in the debate about close air support. The supporters of the A-16 project wanted the USAF to replace its A-10A Thunderbolt IIs with A-16’s, arguing that the A-10 was too slow to survive above a high-tech battlefield. Detractors argued that the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire. > > The Army argued that the Key West agreement of 1948 (under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft) was now obsolete, and that the USAF’s A-10’s should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. **In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10A’s and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991**. > > However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CAS mission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed. Bolding mine, before the whole attempt to replace the A-10 with the A-16 was scrapped, Congress was going to take the rather extreme step of ordering the Air Force to turn over A-10s to the Army and Marine Corps. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-top-gun-or-dog/666914.md?page=11)