Ode to the F-35 and stealing tax dollars

Discussion in 'The Compound' started by Angroid, Feb 9, 2016.

  1. Medium Dave Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Message Count:
    162
    Reputation:
    1,137,634
    Ratings Received:
    +214 / 23 / -62
    I guess the bigger long range radars are in static posts which could be identified and or destroyed by F-22s before the F-35s hit the smaller targets.

    You are right about smaller planes being harder to stealth for certain bands.

  2. 313Chris Forum Veteran

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Message Count:
    1,649
    Reputation:
    92,707,217
    Ratings Received:
    +3,736 / 59 / -20
    U.S. Air Force already considering a cheap alternative:


    The US Air Force may make history and buy this ridiculously cheap jet

    [IMG]
    Armed Scorpion Jet from Textron AirLand
    Textron AirLand's armed Scorpion. Courtesy of Textron AirLand
    Years after initial development, Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II finally seems like it's well on its way to enter the US's fleet of fighter jets. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that the US Department of Defense isn't seeking alternative jets to supplement its squadrons.

    According to Defense News, the US Air Force announced that it would begin testing aircraft that were not planned to be in its inventory. After signing a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Textron AirLand, the Air Force will begin a series of tests to determine if Textron AirLand's flagship jet, dubbed "Scorpion," will be airworthy.

    "This is the first of its kind, we have not done a CRADA like this before and we have never had a partnership with industry to assess aircraft that are not under a USAF acquisition contract," an Air Force representative said in a statement from Defense News.

    The Scorpion is a different beast compared to the other jets around the globe. Starting with its cost, Textron AirLand's president, Bill Anderson, said in a Bloomberg video, "The Scorpion ... was designed to be very effective and very affordable."

    [IMG]
    Textron AirLand Scorpion Courtesy of Textron AirLand

    "The goal was to create a very mission-relevant aircraft for today's security environment that's below $20 million in acquisition costs, and below $3,000 an hour to operate," he said.

    By comparison, a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) costs about $13 million and $1,500 per hour to operate, while the conventional F-35A costs $98 million per unit and $42,200 an hour in 2015.

    The Scorpion features a tandem cockpit and a composite airframe in order to keep its weight and costs down. In addition to its twin turbofan engines that are able to achieve a flight speed up to 517 mph, it houses an internal payload bay that's capable of holding 3,000 pounds.

    "It's quite maneuverable," said Scorpion test pilot Andy Vaughan. "It reminds me of my days when I used to fly the A-10 in the US Air Force."

    [IMG]
    First Flight Anniversary of Textron AirLand’s Scorpion Courtesy of Textron AirLand

    From start to finish, the construction of the Scorpion was kept secret to maintain a competitive advantage. Nevertheless, the secret wasn't kept very long: Textron AirLand was able to conduct testing soon after the aircraft's conception.

    "In a classic DoD acquisition program, they can spend up to 10 years just developing and fielding an aircraft — and we've done it in less than two," Anderson said.

    But it's still too early to determine whether this move by the Air Force will also move the sale of Scorpion units in the US and abroad. According to Defense News, the program has attracted only one potential customer.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-may-buy-this-cheap-jet-2016-7?yptr=yahoo?r=UK&IR=T
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  3. Angroid CyberSperg 1138

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    5,689
    Location:
    EUSSR
    Reputation:
    96,951,859
    Ratings Received:
    +8,122 / 28 / -46
    I'm not as convinced as the Pentagon appears to be about this.

    Russian radars and AA complexes are second to none and they've been in, stuck with and refined the low frequency game for a long, long time after the West had moved on to higher freq systems. The Russians also don't solely rely on low-freq radars, but probably use these and other types as an advance warning system to get a general idea of where an attack is coming from while they've got narrower beam dars to do the pinpointing.

    Besides, in any real fucking war (not Jew-SA vs Camel-jockeys or Sticknigger fests we've grown accustomed to since the collapse of the Soviet Union) most airfields hosting potential F-35's and F-22's would be n00ked out of orbit already. It would be incredibly stupid to be so generous to gift the US Airforce a free pass over Eastern and Central Europe.

    What's the point in having nukes if you ain't going to use them?
  4. Medium Dave Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Message Count:
    162
    Reputation:
    1,137,634
    Ratings Received:
    +214 / 23 / -62

    Yes, but then when the B2s and F22s take those out what are they left with? You would want an A10 up against tactical AA systems?
  5. Angroid CyberSperg 1138

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    5,689
    Location:
    EUSSR
    Reputation:
    96,951,859
    Ratings Received:
    +8,122 / 28 / -46
    I doubt it will ever come to that. The airbases in the proximity, from which shorter range planes like the F-35 (its range without aerial refueling is near useless), F-22 or assorted F-16's, F-15's, GR4 Tornados, Gripens etc would be operating from, would have been nuked long ago leaving most of the shorter range planes out of the equation and only the longer range bombers in the equation.

    In my opinion, the notion entertained by the usual morons from Jewmedia, the Pentagoon and stooge politicians that NATO / US F-35's and F-22's are "going to be bombing across the Russian border" is absurd.

    I'd also be pretty surprised if the Russians haven't kept or stashed some ground-to-air or air-to-air nukes for "scattergun approach" insurance against the B-52, B-1 and B-2. By the time the US Airforce are "bombing Russia" life as we know it in the Northern Hemisphere will already be severely inhibited and keeping score about "how many targets the amazing F-35 will be taking out leaving the Russians defenseless" will be failed academic exercises.

    The problem with the F-35 is that it does almost everything badly, at an amazingly expensive price. Its "stealth", even if it is 1/2 effective (and this is by no means certain) is of little use against the Chinese or Russians considering that triggering a war with them would lead to rather unfortunate consequences for a large cross section of humanity.

    That leaves using it against Turd Worlders, and for bombing stickniggers, wogs, niggers and A-rabs you can probably do a better job at a fraction of the price with a Super Tucano or a Pilatus than a fucking piece of shiiite F-35. :lol:

    The F-22 is a different matter, because it appears to be an at least reasonably competent air superiority fighter, something which any nation needs for defensive purposes or maintaining pressure on adversaries to maintain their "respect". The F-35 just doesn't instill that fear factor, nor can it realistically be put to use for offensive operations against advanced adversaries.
  6. Medium Dave Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Message Count:
    162
    Reputation:
    1,137,634
    Ratings Received:
    +214 / 23 / -62
    The trouble is that there is a middle ground between full scale MAD between superpowers, and fighting some third worlders armed entirely with third world systems. A10s were being knocked down in Iraq, I think it was about 4 that got hit.
  7. Angroid CyberSperg 1138

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    5,689
    Location:
    EUSSR
    Reputation:
    96,951,859
    Ratings Received:
    +8,122 / 28 / -46
    The A-10's got knocked down because under any realistic war scenario that's what happens. There will be losses. It's a CAS plane, its operations are extremely high-risk and are prone to attract ground fire. That so relatively few of them got shot to pieces is a testament to how tough a machine it is.

    The F-35 doesn't even begin to address the role of the A-10.

    It simply cannot survive any kind of groundfire, it has poor range, poor flight characteristics, poor weapons loading, poor low speed performance, poor loitering abilities.

    It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist because even assuming its "stealth" half works (and thus far not many observers appear to be convinced that it does work as advertised) it cannot be used against a powerful adversary without attracting a retaliatory shit-storm and it is of no particular benefit against remaining targets, namely Turd Worlders. In fact, it's a much worse performing platform against Turd World targets because it cannot get in close the way it is supposed to and it costs an arm and a leg to operate vs currently flying inventory.
  8. Medium Dave Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Message Count:
    162
    Reputation:
    1,137,634
    Ratings Received:
    +214 / 23 / -62

    The A10s in Iraq were all downed with MANPADs I think. At this point they probably need to just go out of range as those advance and proliferate. A10s are at least becoming obsolete as a system I think you'll agree.
  9. Angroid CyberSperg 1138

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    5,689
    Location:
    EUSSR
    Reputation:
    96,951,859
    Ratings Received:
    +8,122 / 28 / -46
    Staying out of range is not really an option.

    The entire point of a CAS plane is to be down low to provide close air support for hairy situations where the pilot needs to be able to see what's going on on the ground, well within striking distance of AA guns and Manpads. It's a high risk role, bound to attract hits. That's why those types of planes need to be agile, need to be able to loiter for extended periods, need to be able to carry reasonable weapons loads and possess thick armour and redundant control systems instead of electronic gizmos and wankertech which provide little to no advantage and doesn't work or breaks down 1/2 the time.

    The A-10 definitely and infinitely is no more obsolete than the assault rifle or battlefield artillery. The US Air Force brass hates the thing because they're glory boys and detest having to provide what essentially boils down to a delivery service for the army / marines. It isn't a plane that fits in with the image they like to portray of themselves.

    The A10 (or the similarish Soviet SU-25) are tools for a particular job and they're much better at that kind of job than any of their touted replacements, no matter how much these are hyped by the media or the Military Industrial Complex. (The F-35 being the worst case in point here since it simply isn't designed for that kind of work and it isn't a platform which can sustain and survive damage.)

Share This Page