Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

[randomradio]

It's jobs, it's 100% jobs. The A-10's are based in Arizona.

Davis–Monthan Air Force Base - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks Senator Mccain.

Gallego, McSally trying to protect the A-10 'Warthog,' a boost to Tucson

The House Armed Services Committee added a provision to the upcoming Pentagon budget that would spare the A-10 "warthog" from efforts to mothball it.

www.azcentral.com

Also the 2020 senate race and the 2018 senate race this all came up.

McCain saving the jet in 2014 was fine. The F-35 didn't exist then. It's not the case now.

 

[Innominate]

McCain saving the jet in 2014 was fine. The F-35 didn't exist then. It's not the case now.

No it was not fine. A-10 is pretty much useless in a conflict against a nation with any semblance of a military. A-10 has sucked up a lot of money from USAF that could have gone to... oh lets say upgrade F-15C's? Upgrade F-16s? HMD for F-22s?

Here's what Gen Horner had to say..

-A-10s vs. F-16s

Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?

A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.

Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.

Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.

Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.

Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.

Q: This conflict has shown that?

A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Q: At what point did you do that?

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.
Gen. Horner (mackenzieproductions.com)

 

[Bon Plan]

It’s an excellent bomb truck in an uncontested airspace.

Made to destroy CCCP tanks in the fulda zone.... all but uncontested airspace.

 

[Bon Plan]

Only a simpleton like you would toss to this. Go research what Gen. Charles A. Horner, Desert Storm Air Boss, did to the A-10 during desert storm...

Oh who am I kidding like a child like you is going to research anything that goes against your narrative. Gen Horner pulled back the A-10s from attacking Republican Guard mech units and replaced them with F-16s because they were getting hammered. A-10s were put to hunt less capable regular forces.

I see that you recognised yourself as specialist in nothing. a progress.

 

[_Anonymous_]

No it was not fine. A-10 is pretty much useless in a conflict against a nation with any semblance of a military. A-10 has sucked up a lot of money from USAF that could have gone to... oh lets say upgrade F-15C's? Upgrade F-16s? HMD for F-22s?

Here's what Gen Horner had to say..

-A-10s vs. F-16s

Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?

A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.

Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.

Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.

Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.

Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.

Q: This conflict has shown that?

A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Q: At what point did you do that?

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.
Gen. Horner (mackenzieproductions.com)

@Hellfire

Interesting from the PoV of using Hawks as CAS which you were advocating.

 

[Herciv]

US congress report for the FY22 budget ...

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

PAGE 47 table A1:

F-35 A vs F-35B vs F-35C

Combat radius 590 nm Air Force mission profile vs 450 nm Marine Corps mission profile vs 600 nm Navy mission profile

Sortie generation 3 surge / 2 sustained vs 4 surge / 3 sustained vs 3 surge / 2 sustained

Source: F-35 program office, October 11, 2007 included in a congressional report in late 2021 and therefore still relevant ...



That is to say twice less than the Rafale.

If we add the number of bombs/missiles carried for a "close air support" mission for the same mission we need 2 Rafale or 4 F-35 (smooth to keep in stealth profile so 2 for the bombs and two for the protection). That means that to assume this mission H24 it is necessary 4 times more F'35 than rafale...

 

[Optimist]

US congress report for the FY22 budget ...

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

PAGE 47 table A1:

F-35 A vs F-35B vs F-35C

Combat radius 590 nm Air Force mission profile vs 450 nm Marine Corps mission profile vs 600 nm Navy mission profile

Sortie generation 3 surge / 2 sustained vs 4 surge / 3 sustained vs 3 surge / 2 sustained

Source: F-35 program office, October 11, 2007 included in a congressional report in late 2021 and therefore still relevant ...



That is to say twice less than the Rafale.

If we add the number of bombs/missiles carried for a "close air support" mission for the same mission we need 2 Rafale or 4 F-35 (smooth to keep in stealth profile so 2 for the bombs and two for the protection). That means that to assume this mission H24 it is necessary 4 times more F'35 than rafale...

Oh my little troll. The Rafale has shorter legs than the F-35 with 2x 2k bombs. Even with the big non supersonic tanks. When it's as draggy as a pig.

 

[Innominate]

US congress report for the FY22 budget ...

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

PAGE 47 table A1:

F-35 A vs F-35B vs F-35C

Combat radius 590 nm Air Force mission profile vs 450 nm Marine Corps mission profile vs 600 nm Navy mission profile

Sortie generation 3 surge / 2 sustained vs 4 surge / 3 sustained vs 3 surge / 2 sustained

Source: F-35 program office, October 11, 2007 included in a congressional report in late 2021 and therefore still relevant ...

No. But nice try. It's good to know how you frenchy french plane fanboys are just so infatuated with the F-35. That is all you french plane fanboys think about, eh? Even at airdefense you and your ilk cannot stop talking about the F-35 while F-35 fans don't give your plane a second thought.


Time to get slapped with reality.


-Shigeru Iwasaki also emphasized that the endurance of F-35A fighters exceeds that of F-15J fighters. This allows F-35A fighters to adapt to more types of combat missions than F-15J fighters. In the future, many AWACS ("AWACS" Control”) task can be completed by F-35 in the future. Shigeru Iwasaki did not give specific figures on the endurance of the F-35A, and Lockheed Martin did not release any specific data on the F-35 version. However, based on this conversation, the outside world believes that there are reasons to believe that the F-35A should have a longer flight time than the F-15J.

From the currently public data,It is widely speculated that the F-35A fighter has a combat radius of about 1100 kilometers; while the Japanese F-15J fighter has a maximum range of more than 4,600 kilometers and a combat radius of close to 2,000 kilometers, but this figure is that the F-15 fighter is carrying three auxiliary fuel tanks. , Together with the internal fuel volume of 16 tons of fuel, the endurance that Shigeru Iwasaki claims is more than that of the F-15J.

An F-35 pilot and former Japanese Chief of staff is not giving you the exact range of the F-35 (classified) but they are telling you that the F-35 outranges a fighter that was known as the US longest range fighter all while carrying drop tanks!

Look I get it if I were a french plane fanboy whose plane has been getting its butt kicked by the F-35 I'd be wishing and hoping for something to hold on to that paints the F-35 in a negative way even if the info is BS. Yes if I were a french plane fanboy I would happily live in denial with fellow french plane fanboys and maybe have some forum where all french plane fanboys can live in denial together... Oh wait that already exist.


Your planes range was done at optimum altitude which is somewhat deception because we all know that your plane with three fat tanks and bombs will be nothing but a flying pig with a HUGE radar signature which means it's going to have to fly low in denser air to avoid line of sight which is going to make an already draggy pig into a draggier piggy. That will not be an issue for the F-35 which can stay at optimum altitude and not worry about being detected unlike your plane.

That is to say twice less than the Rafale.

If we add the number of bombs/missiles carried for a "close air support" mission for the same mission we need 2 Rafale or 4 F-35 (smooth to keep in stealth profile so 2 for the bombs and two for the protection). That means that to assume this mission H24 it is necessary 4 times more F'35 than rafale...

F-35 with external weapons is stealthier BY A LOT than your 4th gen fighter, sweetie. F-35 is capable of hiding a flight of four 4th gen fighters from eight Red Air 4th gen fighters while keeping its signature from detection. I've already posted a source about this combat exercise taking place so you look for it and humble yourself to the F-35s superior capabilities over your 4th gen fighter that is no better than the F-18E blk II and EPAWSS F-15E.

 

[Herciv]

So you're comparing some LM or unknown documents with totally officials one from the US congress and aknownledge by the US DOD ? If the DOD wanted to communicate an other range he could have inform the congress since 2007 ?
But the range is one thing the sortie generation is an other. F'35 is not able of doing more than 3 even in a surge rate combine with the very poor payload capacity making that for the same mission in a H24 mission tempo you need 4 more f-35 than rafale .... you can have 6 bomb and 4 missile in one rafale, but the same load must be divided into 2 F-35 if you want them to stay stealth ... Or you Put this load in one F-35 but it is no more stealth and is very draggy then it has to be escorted by a lot of ... F-15 and tanker to be refuelled ...

 

[Optimist]

You foolish boy. those ranges are taken from the SAR document. It is a specific mission profile.
In F2. With 4x 2000lb bombs, the rafle would be internal fuel and 1 tank. Quite pathetic. The F-35 is also a larger aircraft and less affected with weapon weight as the rafale would be. The Radfale max takeoff is 24k kg where the F-35 is 30% more at 32k kg

Also the US will have stealth refueling. It doesn't need to weigh itself down with tanks and lose stations.. till it can't carry a weapon load

 

[Herciv]

Not exactly : in close air support the rafale load is 3*2000 liter tank, 6 AASM, 4 mica. 1300 km combat range .
For the same weapon load two f"35 are needed if stealth is still a parameter.

 

[Optimist]

Not exactly : in close air support the rafale load is 3*2000 liter tank, 6 AASM, 4 mica. 1300 km combat range .
For the same weapon load two f"35 are needed if stealth is still a parameter.

With an RCS of a barn door, calling it close air support is a joke. it can't get close. Then when it is challenged, it has to drop it's tanks and go home, because it's a pig. It can't even get a weapon load to the target.

Count again how many missiles the F-35 can carry, I count 10 at the moment. then add another 4 internal for block 4. Then multiple external missiles per station. It gets scary when you add the loyal wingen currently in development. Then of course add the interconnected SAMS

 

[Optimist]

France is a joke of an air force, even compared to Australia. You are lucky to get 35 Rafale into the air. We retired our old hornets. France is still flying their obsolete old stuff.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

It's a shame that Strategic Frontier has become a nest of Anglo-Saxon trolls.

 

[Herciv]

Count again how many missiles the F-35 can carry, I count 10 at the moment. then add another 4 internal for block 4. Then multiple external missiles per station. It gets scary when you add the loyal wingen currently in development. Then of course add the interconnected SAMS

External load... To compare with rafale you are not able to keep f-35 stealth. What a pity.
And when you add the very poor surge rate it become to be a joke.

 

[randomradio]

No it was not fine. A-10 is pretty much useless in a conflict against a nation with any semblance of a military. A-10 has sucked up a lot of money from USAF that could have gone to... oh lets say upgrade F-15C's? Upgrade F-16s? HMD for F-22s?

Here's what Gen Horner had to say..

-A-10s vs. F-16s

Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?

A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.

Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.

Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.

Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.

Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.

Q: This conflict has shown that?

A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Q: At what point did you do that?

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.
Gen. Horner (mackenzieproductions.com)

You misunderstood. The A-10s stopped being useful the moment it was invented... in a war with the SU, with the invention of the mobile Buk and the S-300. But it was useful in 2014 due to the ISIS and Taliban. So I was being specific to a certain situation. And the argument made in 2014 was also around supporting ground troops in insurgencies, not conventional war.

 

[_Anonymous_]

It's a shame that Strategic Frontier has become a nest of Anglo-Saxon trolls.

Negative. @WHOHE has Irish ancestry. How did I conclude thus ? He dismissed contemptously a video on the F-35 I posted, critically appraising it because it didn't align with his views & blindly praise the fighter aircraft or laud it's capabilities, calling the channel biased & it's creator ill informed & ignorant. A few weeks , he posted a video from the same source out here.

Next, he latched on to a quotation from Gen Hostage , like a blood sucking leech does a host never to let go, in what was obviously a marketing ploy wherein the good general "predicted" that in the not so distant future the F-35 would be able to download an E Virus like Stuxnet to disable the computer networks of ADS.

He also believes that anything black & triangular shaped flying in daytime at high altitudes are part of the Skunkworks Black Projects. If you were to ask him why doesn't he think they're UFOs he'd retort they aren't circular shaped or fly at night. He posts videos by aviation geeks in support of his claims who frankly apart from looking obviously unemployed & extras from The Big Lebowski still dreassed in the same costumes also look like they're part of the trailer park community & come across as potheads methheads & borderline loons.

He obviously believes in leprechauns & fairies - pun unintended .

He's also not yet 18. So pls go easy on him.

 

[randomradio]

It's a shame that Strategic Frontier has become a nest of Anglo-Saxon trolls.

The French are feeding them.

 

[Innominate]

It's a shame that Strategic Frontier has become a nest of Anglo-Saxon trolls.

You're just pissed off that your BS claims are being debunked. You want this place to be like airdefense where your cute 4th gen plane isn't allowed to be critique.

 

[Innominate]

Not exactly : in close air support the rafale load is 3*2000 liter tank, 6 AASM, 4 mica. 1300 km combat range .
For the same weapon load two f"35 are needed if stealth is still a parameter.

I just love how stealth/RCS is an F-35 problem if going external but never for the french plane which isn't even a LO fighter to begin with. You start hanging tanks, targeting pod, missiles, pylons and bombs somehow the cute 4th gen french plane is more survivable than the F-35 carrying external load. The mind of a french french plane fanboy is delusional.

The frenchmen delusional mind believes his plane in this configuration...

Is more survivable than this fighter in this configuration...

Herciv you've lost your mind. Although you're not as big a troll as halloweene but you're getting there.

Stick to airdefense where your BS is taken as truth.