F-35 gun/software issues
01-05-2015, 09:35 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by 5spot
I agree with you regarding Rooster as a politician. Even more so now that he has moved on to the Joint Staff. One of the better decisions made by the USMC, in my pea-brained opinion, was to buy some F-35C variants as well. The F-35B's lift fan is made with "wizardry" and could become a maintenance issue at some point. Good to see an old "Bolt" on here USMCFLYR. S/F
He was my CO in -115 for his second CO tour
I'm not sure I had heard that the USMC had bought some -C models (maybe I read it on here in the past), but that is a very good move.
I hardly ever make hard and fast statements - but I'll walk the plank on this one and fix your one comment above to fit my prediction:
"The F-35B's lift fan is made with "wizardry" and WILL become a maintenance issue at some point."
01-05-2015, 09:47 AM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
I was a T-BOLT - but not with 'Rooster'.
He was my CO in -115 for his second CO tour
I'm not sure I had heard that the USMC had bought some -C models (maybe I read it on here in the past), but that is a very good move.
I hardly ever make hard and fast statements - but I'll walk the plank on this one and fix your one comment above to fit my prediction:
"The F-35B's lift fan is made with "wizardry" and WILL become a maintenance issue at some point."
He was my CO in -115 for his second CO tour
I'm not sure I had heard that the USMC had bought some -C models (maybe I read it on here in the past), but that is a very good move.
I hardly ever make hard and fast statements - but I'll walk the plank on this one and fix your one comment above to fit my prediction:
"The F-35B's lift fan is made with "wizardry" and WILL become a maintenance issue at some point."
S/F
01-05-2015, 09:58 AM
#23
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,224
Originally Posted by 5spot
Everyone needs to take a step back and let the F-35 program develop. A majority of the info "leaked" about the program is just 1- Pure BS or 2-taken out of context. Yes the program is expensive and has suffered set backs along the way but that is pretty standard for new technology and especially something produced on such a massive scale.
Most of the information on the F-35 we would want to know as experienced aviators is talked about in rooms with music playing in the wall's. Not in magazine articles.
The problem with the F-35 is it should have been created in parallel with the F-22 (for timing). The strike fighter shortfall that the services are experiencing is a product of poor planning. No one imagined the utilization rates we experienced in the last 15 years.
For todays war I want A-10's and F-18's/16's supporting me for CAS. For tomorrow's war, no matter where it is or what level of sophistication my enemy has, I want a section of F-35's overhead with 12(or more) SDB-II's a piece and the ability to communicate with me without a word spoken on the net.
Before the crap starts slinging my way for defending the program let me say I do not work for LM, I am an F-18 pilot and have spent a year on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a FAC and have worked in aviation requirements as my staff tour. I was initially a hater but my eyes have been opened. If money is being diverted from everyone's "favorite" platform, we all have one, to support the F-35 than take a look at your services leadership. Not the aircraft. All the services have spent silly amounts of cash on complete BS programs through the years. Most of them not even part of a kill chain. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Most of the information on the F-35 we would want to know as experienced aviators is talked about in rooms with music playing in the wall's. Not in magazine articles.
The problem with the F-35 is it should have been created in parallel with the F-22 (for timing). The strike fighter shortfall that the services are experiencing is a product of poor planning. No one imagined the utilization rates we experienced in the last 15 years.
For todays war I want A-10's and F-18's/16's supporting me for CAS. For tomorrow's war, no matter where it is or what level of sophistication my enemy has, I want a section of F-35's overhead with 12(or more) SDB-II's a piece and the ability to communicate with me without a word spoken on the net.
Before the crap starts slinging my way for defending the program let me say I do not work for LM, I am an F-18 pilot and have spent a year on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a FAC and have worked in aviation requirements as my staff tour. I was initially a hater but my eyes have been opened. If money is being diverted from everyone's "favorite" platform, we all have one, to support the F-35 than take a look at your services leadership. Not the aircraft. All the services have spent silly amounts of cash on complete BS programs through the years. Most of them not even part of a kill chain. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
My reservation has more to do with the cost, and the need. I'm concerned that we (the taxpayers) are being "up-sold" to counter caps which our near-peers would be very hard-pressed to actually develop in the near/mid-term, or afford in any quantity if they can develop.
I'm Ok with the quality over quantity approach but too much quality gets darn expensive, and too little quantity on our end exposes us to a lot of risk if a weakness develops...or is found and exploited
01-05-2015, 10:17 AM
#24
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I understand the new capabilities.
My reservation has more to do with the cost, and the need. I'm concerned that we (the taxpayers) are being "up-sold" to counter caps which our near-peers would be very hard-pressed to actually develop in the near/mid-term, or afford in any quantity if they can develop.
I'm Ok with the quality over quantity approach but too much quality gets darn expensive, and too little quantity on our end exposes us to a lot of risk if a weakness develops...or is found and exploited
My reservation has more to do with the cost, and the need. I'm concerned that we (the taxpayers) are being "up-sold" to counter caps which our near-peers would be very hard-pressed to actually develop in the near/mid-term, or afford in any quantity if they can develop.
I'm Ok with the quality over quantity approach but too much quality gets darn expensive, and too little quantity on our end exposes us to a lot of risk if a weakness develops...or is found and exploited
I can't argue with that. It is expensive and we do not necessarily need it now, but we will need it in the future. The development has to be done at some point. We developed 4 GEN fighters before anyone else and so now we are doing the same. As far as a weakness to exploit there will always be that to contend with, but 5th Gen aircraft have a HUGE piece of that area covered on the electro-magnetic spectrum.
In the end costs is a VERY valid point and is a huge problem across the board in the DoD.
Like I said earlier I am not in love with the F-35, but I have grown to understand it.
One thing to watch, as soon as The Super Hornet line goes cold a lot of the negative F-35 press will go cold with it. Boeing is just as powerful as LM and they do a much better job on the information warfare front.
01-05-2015, 10:31 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,187
Originally Posted by 5spot
Everyone needs to take a step back and let the F-35 program develop. A majority of the info "leaked" about the program is just 1- Pure BS or 2-taken out of context. Yes the program is expensive and has suffered set backs along the way but that is pretty standard for new technology and especially something produced on such a massive scale.
Most of the information on the F-35 we would want to know as experienced aviators is talked about in rooms with music playing in the wall's. Not in magazine articles.
The problem with the F-35 is it should have been created in parallel with the F-22 (for timing). The strike fighter shortfall that the services are experiencing is a product of poor planning. No one imagined the utilization rates we experienced in the last 15 years.
For todays war I want A-10's and F-18's/16's supporting me for CAS. For tomorrow's war, no matter where it is or what level of sophistication my enemy has, I want a section of F-35's overhead with 12(or more) SDB-II's a piece and the ability to communicate with me without a word spoken on the net.
Before the crap starts slinging my way for defending the program let me say I do not work for LM, I am an F-18 pilot and have spent a year on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a FAC and have worked in aviation requirements as my staff tour. I was initially a hater but my eyes have been opened. If money is being diverted from everyone's "favorite" platform, we all have one, to support the F-35 than take a look at your services leadership. Not the aircraft. All the services have spent silly amounts of cash on complete BS programs through the years. Most of them not even part of a kill chain. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Most of the information on the F-35 we would want to know as experienced aviators is talked about in rooms with music playing in the wall's. Not in magazine articles.
The problem with the F-35 is it should have been created in parallel with the F-22 (for timing). The strike fighter shortfall that the services are experiencing is a product of poor planning. No one imagined the utilization rates we experienced in the last 15 years.
For todays war I want A-10's and F-18's/16's supporting me for CAS. For tomorrow's war, no matter where it is or what level of sophistication my enemy has, I want a section of F-35's overhead with 12(or more) SDB-II's a piece and the ability to communicate with me without a word spoken on the net.
Before the crap starts slinging my way for defending the program let me say I do not work for LM, I am an F-18 pilot and have spent a year on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a FAC and have worked in aviation requirements as my staff tour. I was initially a hater but my eyes have been opened. If money is being diverted from everyone's "favorite" platform, we all have one, to support the F-35 than take a look at your services leadership. Not the aircraft. All the services have spent silly amounts of cash on complete BS programs through the years. Most of them not even part of a kill chain. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Hating the player, and fixing the game is slamming the door on the F-35. For the cost of SCIFing up the CVN's and hangars alone to deal with this piece of sh!t, we could buy another air wing worth of Block II (or fund a block III) super hornets.
01-06-2015, 07:48 AM
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Grumble
If you've been behind those doors, and you're intellectually honest about what we're getting, and what it's costing us not just in money but current capabilities that have to be scraped to free up money.... It's not worth it, not by a country mile.
Hating the player, and fixing the game is slamming the door on the F-35. For the cost of SCIFing up the CVN's and hangars alone to deal with this piece of sh!t, we could buy another air wing worth of Block II (or fund a block III) super hornets.
Hating the player, and fixing the game is slamming the door on the F-35. For the cost of SCIFing up the CVN's and hangars alone to deal with this piece of sh!t, we could buy another air wing worth of Block II (or fund a block III) super hornets.
Why don't you engage in debate and not question my "Intellectual Honesty". There is nothing I have said that is "sunshine" pumping. I guess I am giving you a point of view you do not like to hear. But in the end, I'd take the Block II super hornet over the F-35, for the next 5 years. After that, no way.
01-06-2015, 09:14 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,978
Every time I click this thread to see the updates, I wonder: Would I want an A10 scrambled to make some gun passes or one of multiple drones that are just orbiting overhead to nearly instantly drop a maverick/jdam/munition to a location? How valid is this close air support idea? Can it be done with AC-130s? Seems like the ability of a forward observer to call in an instant strike with a drone at nearly any time would be pretty powerful. The "drones" may have a ways to go, but they are being developed and implemented at a pretty astonishing rate.
01-06-2015, 09:38 PM
#29
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,224
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Every time I click this thread to see the updates, I wonder: Would I want an A10 scrambled to make some gun passes or one of multiple drones that are just orbiting overhead to nearly instantly drop a maverick/jdam/munition to a location? How valid is this close air support idea? Can it be done with AC-130s? Seems like the ability of a forward observer to call in an instant strike with a drone at nearly any time would be pretty powerful. The "drones" may have a ways to go, but they are being developed and implemented at a pretty astonishing rate.
AGM-65's are not compatible with UAS at this time to my knowledge...the guidance requires operator acquisition, unlike JDAM which just needs a target coord.
There's often more to CAS than dropping a munition on a point. Sometimes a gun is called for, other times the arrival azimuth and angle is important to get the desired effect on the badies (or avoid same effect on friendlies). That's why it's called CLOSE air support.
As far as a FO doing interdiction on bad guys of opportunity from a secure OP, sure drones work fine. But if the OP gets made, then it turns into CAS real quick...trust me on that.
01-07-2015, 06:19 AM
#30
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Every time I click this thread to see the updates, I wonder: Would I want an A10 scrambled to make some gun passes or one of multiple drones that are just orbiting overhead to nearly instantly drop a maverick/jdam/munition to a location? How valid is this close air support idea? Can it be done with AC-130s? Seems like the ability of a forward observer to call in an instant strike with a drone at nearly any time would be pretty powerful. The "drones" may have a ways to go, but they are being developed and implemented at a pretty astonishing rate.
None of these platforms could employ, because the bad guys were too close.
The Hawgs were cleared Danger Close in a fight that took more than an hour. They used ALL of their 30mm (1100 rounds each, as opposed to the F-35's non-existent gun of 180 rounds of 25mm).
When the bad guys started to retreat, the A-10s used Mk-82s and 2.75 inch rockets on them. At least 18 bad guys converted to "non-hostiles."
All the Americans---65 of them---survived, for one reason: in CAS, the A-10 has the highest level of precision.
That precision is from the GAU-8 Avenger cannon, and no other aircraft carries it, or CAN carry it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
