The USAF is getting rid of 5 A-10 squadrons in favor of the F-35. This shows poor air power thinking. The USAF has been woefully short of real air power leaders for some years now. This also highlights how a service that consumes up to $160B per year has trouble making ends meet. Scary.
The general quoted in the article somehow thinks that the F-35 will be combat capable in a multi-role environment but has no proof to back up that idea. The F-35 program is in deep trouble.
This quote from a recent government report makes things very clear:
"Operational Assessment
The JSF Operational Test Team completed an operational assessment of the F-35 program and determined that it is not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements. The JSF Operational Test Team assessed the program based on measured and predicted performance against requirements from the JSF Operational Requirements Document, which was re-validated in 2009."
Even in the unlikely event that the F-35 ever gets fielded, it only carries 150 rounds of gun ammo. Experience has shown that ground troops still need strafing.
Someone got a bee in their bonnet about multi-mission aircraft having the only true value. OK, well, you have to actually field something that works to replace existing capability. What the USAF is doing is hoping that the F-35 works out with no proof to back up their pet theory. That makes their version of air power thinking just as dangerous to the defense of the United States as any enemy.
Current USAF leadership are ruining the combat capability of the service. It is time for our Congress to realize this and stop it.
15 comments:
No worries! they can just attach an external gun pod to the F35. Oh that's right, that would make it non-stealthy. Gun pods being less accurate that fuselage versions.
Wonder how the F35 skin, will hold up to ground fire? Oh that's right it doesn't have double redundant systems and a titanium bathtub for the pilot.
Good luck with that.
re:"It is time for our Congress to realize this and stop it."
Time to dust off this Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." 47 states have F-35 jobs, with ≈130,000 employed. How many people are depending on the A-10 these days? Of course that's just a perfect example of why military projects should not be treated as jobs programs.
-mike j
be the no problem at all cause usaf will use a-35 lightning ii, not a f, for future cas role. drn.
Well gents, we have a new version: the A-35!
Still wish we would keep a few A-10s around. They just happen to WORK compared to JSF. Also I am sure they are a lot cheaper to operate....
The A-10 is a specialty niche weapon, giving unique options in the low and slow. It also is probably the closest manned aircraft to a Reaper, if only a few hours on station is considered close. The A-10 is much better protected and armed, however. Didn't I hear that niche weapons are the old way; multi-role is the new way, the effective way, the cheap way, the other way. I've heard it all before in a previous life. Does the A-16 concept (or the F-100 for that matter) sound familiar? I guess it worked out well because it is a winning "new" idea again. If is weren't so life and death serious, it would be boring.
"Mulit-Role" is a fancy phrase for "Not the best at anything".
Fancy phrase?? Multi-role designates a competent capability in both air-superiority and strike/BAI. The Rafale for marketing reasons alone (while a truly superb modern multi-role jet) calls this itself an 'omni-role'. Su-35 would be another multi-role, as could be the F-15SG/K/SA variants (with IRST).
Multi-role would be different from a strike-fighter -- a more restricted capability -- in that a strike-fighter, eg a Super Hornet or F-35, cannot sufficiently climb, accelerate, or sustain turns in a dog-fight.
Here's a recent contract award to Gen Dynamics for "more than two dozen" of the GAU-22 25mm cannon for the F-35. It doesn't mention how many, if any, are podded, so I suspect not. It does say that it's over $23M for the lot.
Kind'a pricey, just like everything else on the jet. Esp that half million dollar Buck Rogers helmet that doesn't seem to work...
Maybe ought'a remember to paste in the link BEFORE I hit 'publish'...
JRL
http://investorrelations.gd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=85778&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1654688&highlight=
Or, maybe not.
Time to crash...
JRL
Well, turn over the A-10s to the Marine Corps. They'll do a lot better than F-35B.
Time for Australia to put in their order now.Get some real thinking going.
Very interesting. The F-35 program is paying $23.5M for "more than 2 dozen" (probably 25-26) 4 barrel 25mm GAU-22/A, or about $940K ea. Whereas, in an additional GD news release (same GD wesite), they also just sold "more than 2 dozen" 3 barrel .50 cal helicopter GBU-19/B for only $7.3M, or about $292K ea. 3 times the cost? That extra barrel must be gold plated and engraved.
Once upon a time in the strange universe of the DoD the Army was denied its own vital support assets ...
GIVE THE A-10 TO ARMY AVIATION!!
No, this an opportunity for the RAAF, to obtain something that works.uran
Post a Comment