The Mess - Military Forum Off Topic Thread!

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I think that is a little inaccurate.
The USAF have always said that there will be a separate A-10 replacement programme.

Because the fleet as is is sustainable for another 12 years at least, it is not yet a priority.... however the AF will be proceeding in due course

The question is, what will it be replaced with.
The purpose of the plane is to smash Soviet armour, so if that mission is no longer on the cards, what replaces it?
And it has to be replaced, the spare part supply line shut down over 20 years ago, the fleet survives by cannibalising itself.

IMO, better drones & probably a propeller driven plane will replace it... but we will know in a decade.

And (again IMO) the F-35 isn't replacing the A-10, its largely already been replaced.... the F-35 is replacing it's replacement.

I've bigged up Jerry before, but do read this one about the A-10 , it's past present & future and the glorious pictures thereof
http://jerryofgarcia.kinja.com/fairchild-a-10c-the-wicked-warthog-1771117956



Why not?

The Lightning can/is:
- Faster than the viper under combat load....as fast as the hornet
- More maneuverable than the Viper and similarly so to the Hornet
- Carries far more ordnance than either.
- Has better range than either.... much more than the viper.
- Can see the viper further away than the Viper can it, by an order of magnitude.... (the hornet is stealthier but can still be seen first).
- Has a better & more accurate gun, (if that will ever matter)
- And is on a different planet compared to the Harrier which it replaces in the USMC

Where will the Viper/Hornet be superior?

I don't agree that the A-10 is incapable of performing any of the roles it was designed for. While its cannon may not be capable of defeating the most modern of MBT designs, it is still perfectly able to shred any other class of vehicle on the battlefield. It is already equipped with Hellfires and GBUs, the exact armaments that any other platform is apt to use tackling such threats.

What the A-10 needs is refreshed airframes, to include new engines, and improved sensors. If the decision is that the plane will no longer serve in an anti-armor role, then dedicate it purely to CAS. You're not going to improve upon its capabilities with a A-29 or similar aircraft. This line of argument that it is too old and should be scrapped falls on its face when you consider the decades of service enjoyed by the B-52. The A-10 is orders of magnitude more capable at the CAS mission than any other platform out there. Stand off bombing from 10,00ft is not CAS, which the mission that the F-25 will do, probably quite well.


As to the F-35, where do draw support to say that it has superior performance to the Viper/ Hornet in terms of its flight profile. Everything I have read re: the F-35 points to a plane with degraded flight characteristics. Overweight, slow to turn, underpowered due to the single engine design and terrible cockpit visibility.

It could carry more ordinance, if it utilises external hard points, which means that it is no longer stealthy. Its internal stores only allow it 4x A2A missiles, hardly ideal in a scenario involving contested airspace. The cannon is joke, 150rds is good for maybe 1 sec burst on a strafing run. Might as well not have one.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Everything I have read re: the F-35 points to a plane with degraded flight characteristics. Overweight, slow to turn, underpowered due to the single engine design and terrible cockpit visibility

Where & how recently was it published?
I ask because the testing feedback from NorAF & RAF pilots has been very positive.

While it is heavy, it also has the most powerful engine ever put in a fighter plane anywhere on the planet.
Accordingly, it's thrust/weight & acceleration numbers tally quite well for a multi-role plane.

You seen the turn rate in the video I posted.... 180 degrees in under 8 seconds... around 20 degrees per second.
if you look up instantaneous turn rates for planes you'll see that is very good.

Also you have to remember that the paper performance is 'clean'.
ie: no external ordnance or stores.

But this moves a helluva lot slower.... it's something like mach 1.4 at high altitude.
Obviously the Lightning does not have any drag penalty.

As for cockpit visibility, nothing matches being able to see through the plane!
But planes with lower RCS have a bulkhead behind the seat impeding view the old fashioned way... look up any picture of Russian efforts.
The cockpits are lower slightly rather than the 'bubble' enjoyed by F-16 pilots.

But apparently it isn't a huge deal anyway...

But Hanche was able to improve his visibility by moving forward in his seat and leaning slightly sideways, before turning his head and looking backwards. This enabled him to see around the sides of the seat.

Hanche stressed that he was still able to maintain visual contact with his opponent during aggressive maneuvering, and the cockpit’s visual limitation is not “a genuine problem with the F-35.”

It could carry more ordinance, if it utilises external hard points, which means that it is no longer stealthy

If the plane is WVR, why on earth does that matter?
The mk 1 human eye ball on the ground can see it anyway.
And even if it was carrying external stores, it's RCS would still be much lower than any 4th Gen, including the super hornet, which is the stealthiest 4th Gen.

Its internal stores only allow it 4x A2A missiles, hardly ideal in a scenario involving contested airspace

Luckily that's what air-superiority fighters are for
But it's loadout will be the same as the f-16.

In full A2A loadout it will have 4 x AIM-120s internally & 2 x AIM-9 on the wing tips (these will never be integrated internally because of how they launch).

The F-16 has to carry at least 2 external fuel tanks and at least 2 external pods, sometimes 3... so it's combat loadout is drastically reduced.

There is apparently early efforts to see if an extra AIM-120 can be carried on the weapons bay door itself.

The cannon is joke, 150rds is good for maybe 1 sec burst on a strafing run. Might as well not have one.

Same ammo capacity as the SU-30 & its many derivatives as well as the MIG-29 & it's family tree.
Seems to work for them.

The other US competitors are also exhausted in 3-4 seconds of fire...

Interesting podcast here, talking about the merits of eliminating the USAF. His arguments would hold water for me, I think there would significant benefits, both fiscally and doctrinely to the idea.

https://soundcloud.com/war_college/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-the

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Interesting podcast here, talking about the merits of eliminating the USAF. His arguments would hold water for me, I think there would significant benefits, both fiscally and doctrinely to the idea.

https://soundcloud.com/war_college/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-the

Listened to that today while gardening.

I'd sooner scrap the marines than the AF (the navy having their own army with it's own air force seems bizarre).

They would also need a seperate agency to manage the GPS system & nuclear weapons... so in that sense, I'd keep the AF

Lockheed & the Israeli Air Force are having a 'rolling out' ceremony for their 1st F35-I right now....

Currently being regaled by hebrew country music.... slightly odd!

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

From a training deployment to an AFB



interesting if we get more information on this assessment.

That would be a promising development, need to see the details involved.

Rogoway has some fairly damning articles concerning the USAF's impending issues relating to both pilot shortages and budgetary shortfalls. There really does seem to putting itself in a precarious position.

Some great shots from a full-to-the-brim Pearl Harbour for RIMPAC..

Click into the tweet for expanded images.

https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/750054724125069312

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-problem-with-personnel-reform-who-are-the-army%E2%80%99s-best-and-brightest

Article examining the US Army's philosophy on Officer promotion and retention. From my personal experience, there is certainly an issue of talented members, on both sides of the house, being forced out in the last few years. It seems that the Army is more focused on slashing its bottom line than ensuring that they maintain the hard won institutional knowledge and thus lessening its ability to fight and win the nation's wars.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

F-35A declares Initial Operational Capability

The 34th Fighter squadron becomes the first USAF squadron to declare readiness.

Saw that, it's really a bit of joke. The amount of goal post shifting by the Pentagon would embarrass the average After Hours poster.

In this month's installment of the on-going series...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5033/scathing-reports-on-both-the-f-35-program-and-the-a-10-divestment-plan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

In this month's installment of the on-going series..

The series of pseudo-journos struggling to come to terms with them being incorrect for years!

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, it's really more of a report on a report, which generated by the Government itself.

Well, by one man, in one office, in on area of the government.... who managed to be very incorrect!

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What portion do you think is incorrect?

Most all of it.

He doesn't mention that the sensor fusion 'ghosting' is being fixed in 3F which is in testing now.

Then:

"the Department is paying almost $400 billion by the scheduled end of its development in 2018."

Which is laughably wrong for a supposed expert (not mentioning the journo).
The total DOD expenditure on all R&D, testing, evaluation, fixes, mods & infrastructure associated with the project, through the next 55 years is $55bn

achieving full combat capability is not likely to occur before developmental testing is complete and operational testing begins.

This is a misnomer masquerading as insight.
Everyone knows it won't be FOC by the time IOC starts!
Nothing in the field of military aviation has ever been so.
I can only assume this is to falsely cast the plane in a poor light.

The program 'is running out of time and money to complete the planned flight testing and implement the required fixes and modifications' needed

Nothing to do with the plane, Congress cut everyone's budget.
They, like all projects, work with what they have.
If Washington cuts their budget, it isn't their fault.

And the biggest of the lies:

older aircraft would be needed to provide critical support for the F-35 in order to be considered as such, including to “locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies

When both you & I know that this isn't true.
The Lightning, just like it's sister Raptor has been cleaning legacy platforms clocks...
It could not do so if its sensory package was not in rude health, which it is.
(As the below from the last couple of weeks attests).

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/208489/vicious-cycle-f-35a-continues-5th-gen-tradition-bullying-legacy-aircraft

http://jerryofgarcia.kinja.com/f-35b-does-the-impossible-kills-fighter-while-bombing-1786109599


Strange how the journo forgot to mention these contradictions!

A quote from the 'red team' at the Wisconsin exercise (F-16s were acting as the red team)

"We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw them (the F-35A)."

Big shout out to the DF truck driver yesterday who ran me off on a dead straight road, coming from the Curragh heading (probably) towards the glen.

Good going pal.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Pretty neat piece about the F-35 and its integration with naval missile assets.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/f-35-just-proved-russian-192811263.html

Here's a short video from the launch site.... nothing much.
Obviously that launch silo would be embedded into the deck of a ship if used operationally.


The SM-6 is probably the USN's longest range SAM that can counter both aircraft and missiles.
Interestingly, due to a recent software update the missile can now also be used against surface targets.

Op-ed piece concerning the US's ICBM stock. Author argues for scrapping the land based missiles.

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.ased3qinc

People probably seen in the news that a high speed ferry (HSV-2), which was on lease to the UAE government was struck and destroyed by Iranian/Shia rebels in Yemen.

The vessel did not sink, but was gutted by fire.
Looking at the damage, it's survivable seems remarkable.

There is debate over the type of missile used.

The vessel was towed to Eritrea.
The USN say they will dispatch 2 x Arleigh Burkes to the area to ensure the sea lanes remain open.

The not-as-old-as-you-might-think admiral Kuznetsov transited the English channel yesterday

One wonders when so much smoke and soot is being billowed out how this affects flight ops?

I think the head gasket might be leaking.

ISIS release footage of a Russian attack helo getting nailed today near Palmyra.

Some are saying it was a spec-ops rendevous (hence the ground vehicles) others say the struck helo had suffered mechanical failure and the crew were being picked up by the 2nd helicopter.
The one that got away acted in the nick of time.

https://twitter.com/RamiAILoIah/status/794309898662215680

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Looks that way alright, crazy to think given the potential of the original design. Instead they'll waste billions buying the LCS piece of garbage and the America class carriers, whose design is seemingly insurmountably flawed at present. Sure what's a few billion between friends?

Its a shame alright.

I presume they will instead work on accommodating some army artillery for the role instead.... it won't have the same range.... but better than the literal nothing that the alternative is.

The zumwalt baffles me.
It is so big, yet packs so little.
Then on the other side, the built-instead flight III Burke's are the opposite, trying to cram way too much into a vessel that is too small.

What is wrong with the America class?
There are only two of them & they seem a very good complement to the rest of the Wasp class.
Coupled with the San Antonio's, it makes the nowadays more aviation-centric marines rather formidable IMO