Actually, in my mind I thought I was saying the same thing you posted.
How many Aardvarks are/have been deployed by the Navy? :dubious:
That’s the point. The F-111 is a fine tactical bomber. Nobody disputes that. But we’re talking about a multi-service airplane that’s a tactical bomber and an air superiority fighter. The F-111 was an utter failure as a carrier-based fighter. The fiasco was the program to use the same airplane to do conflicting things, and that’s why I think it is germane to the F-35 program.
The problem with the F-111 was attempting to use the same aircraft for two very different roles. My understanding of the F-35 is that all three variants are essentially attack aircraft with some air-to-air capability. They have different take-off and landing requirements, but at the action end they are doing the same things.
[quote]
The Air Force’s F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F- 16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and want a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, dubbed the F-35B. The Marines want new aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets. The British want to replace Sea Harriers and GR.7 Tornado fighters. The Navy’s F-35C version of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It will replace earlier versions of the F/A-18 as well as the A-6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be:
[ul][li]Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements[/li][li]Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets[/li][li]Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions[/li][li]About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint[/ul][/li][/quote]
So the Air Force wants an air-to=air fighter that’s second only to the F-22, that is also as good a ground-attack aircraft as the A-10. The Marines want a ground-attack aircraft that is as good as the Harrier, and which is also as good an air-to-air fighter as the F/A-18. The Navy wants an air-superiority fighter as good as the F/A-18, and also a dump truck like the A-6.
So yeah, they’re doing the same things; with the USMC version focusing on ground attack more than air superiority and the USN and USAF focusing more on air superiority. Now, the F/A-18 has turned out to be a pretty good bomber. But I don’t think it’s as good at close support as an A-10. Making one airframe perform such different roles is like designing a car with the acceleration, speed, and maneuverability of a Ferrari, that also has the carrying capacity of a Ford F-350, plus the fuel economy of a Jetta, at the procurement cost of a Lincoln.
A platform is not a mission. Platforms come and go, but how one executes missions can change over time. Saying that the F-35 has to be an F-22 and an A-10 rolled up in one is misleading, because the F-35 isn’t supposed to be like two aircraft; it’s supposed to perform multiple roles.
Why does this definition matter? Because a few decades ago, the A-10 was primarily thought of as an interdiction aircraft, and secondarily a close air support aircraft. The whole idea was that the A-10 would be able to blow up tons of Soviet armor before they were rolling over ground troops. Now, most people think of the A-10 as being CAS CAS CAS and nothing but CAS. That’s fine, but it’s still the same airplane: a platform is a platform, and a platform is not a mission.
Another example: B-1s and B-52s. They were clearly designed as strategic platforms. Now, to the extent that virtually all interdiction and much of CAS consists of putting a GPS-guided bomb on a target identified by someone else, both of those airplanes are perfectly capable of doing that. An A-10 and a B-52 drop a JDAM in the same exact way: get coordinates from someone on the ground, and drop the bomb from 20,000 feet.
But nobody talks about the F-35 replacing the interdiction roles currently performed by the B-52 and B-1, do they? Well, they sure could: “Oh, the F-35 is so inadequate! It doesn’t have the payload of either of those planes!”
Let’s get away from this idea that platforms are the same as the missions they perform. Clearly, they change over time.
The F-35 is marketed as an aircraft that will perform fighter-to-fighter combat almost as well as the F-22, and ground support better than an A-10 and AV-8B. A platform should be suited to the mission. The F-35 is a platform that is supposed to perform different missions will equal alacrity. Let me try this: I want an airplane that will be faster than a Bonanza, carry a load like a Cherokee Six, maneuver like a Pitts, and cost the same as a Skylane. One platform isn’t going to perform all of those missions. You can go fast and/or maneuver, or you can carry a load. You can cary a load, or you can go fast. You can have any one and come in within your budget, but if you want to pick to you need to spend more money. Missions may change to suit the platform, but the F-35 won’t perform missions as they are described now as well as aircraft that more closely suit those missions.
A couple questions: let’s say the A-10 only spent 10% of its mission time at low altitude, and 90% at medium altitude. I remind you that JDAMs are dropped from medium altitude. Do you think the A-10 should be sustained, and F-16s and F-15s retired sooner than planned, because of that 10% of the mission that multi role fighters don’t do as well? What is the break even point for you: if the A-10 had the advantage in 0.05% of missions, is that worth $4 billion?
Second, if you were to design the ideal A-10 replacement, what would it look like? Should it be able to fly faster to cover distance to troops in a shorter period of time? Should there be better sensors? Should there be more armor? Should there be some stealth so it has at least a modest chance of surviving in a fight against China or another modern adversary with triple digit SAMs? Or maybe all of that should be dumped simply to make a really cheap airplane?
Oh, and I think describing the SDB as “the top close air support weapon” is just bizarre. The weapon is designed to glide about 50 miles, meaning it is primarily designed for interdiction. I don’t think the A-10 is even able to carry them now.
I really start to wonder if people understand that “blowing stuff up on the ground” is not the definition of CAS?