Comments on: F-35B “Warthog”

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:13:38 +0000

Its not stealth at all with things hanging on the wings. i cannot understand why we tossed all the eggs in to a basket that is totally unproven.

By: duuuuuuuuude

duuuuuuuuude — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:50:37 +0000

“building a 3rd Generation Harrier for the RAF “…
No, F-35 is superior to Harrier. Faster, stealthier, better range/payload performance.
Furthermore, the close-2-bankrupt UK cannot afford to fund the RnD of an all-new jet fighter by itself.

By: John

John — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:30:54 +0000

According to one of the UK’s Aviation magazines that was published this week, the UK is going to split it’s purchases of the F-35 between the F-35C for the Fleet Air Arm for use on our new carriers, and the F-35B for the RAF to replace the Harrier GR.9. The reasons they give is that the F-35C is 20% cheaper and has less technical problems assoicated with the design. The good thing about this is that we will have a proper carrier at last instead of these half a job harrys we were building. Bad news is that this idiotic government is still buying the flawed F-35. Add in the problems with the F-135 engine, the pork belly choice of the US Congress and we have a disaster in the making?
The UK would be better have cancelling the F-35, buying either the Rafele of the F/A-18E for the Navy and building a 3rd Generation Harrier for the RAF along with buying the Super Tucano Light Strike Aircraft.

By: mike j

mike j — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:50:15 +0000

yeah yeah yeah…
modern air defenses…
You mean the ones that aren’t anywhere near any of the places we’ve been fighting in about two decades? Anyway, that measure/ countermeasure game never quits, so why worry?
Don’t tell me what something can do til it does it. New high tech crap hasn’t made war any easier yet.
We’ve ignored and forgotten so much hard-gained knowledge, and it’s definitely gotten people unnecessarily killed.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:52:26 +0000

mike j,
It is YOU who does not get it.
Modern air defenses makes your antiquated idea of CAS a no-win game.
And the systems on the F-35 make it such that it can locate, identify & engage ground targets more effectively, more quickly & MUCH safer from 20,000+’ than an A-10 can flying ‘low & slow’.

By: mike j

mike j — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:43:59 +0000

pfcem–
That’s not CAS, that’s using a jet as ~$100mil SP artillery. CAS means a lot more than 9-line, but neither you nor USAF get that, apparently.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:49:17 +0000

I see than Captain Ned is not the only one who needs to join the 21st century…
Like it or not, CAS is now done by dropping guided munitions from 20,000′+. Deal with it.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:11:57 +0000

Random thoughts/replies:
IIRC the machining for the A-10 and B-52 have long since been destroyed. Creating more of these would thus involve a lot more than warming up the assembly lines again, to the point where you might as well design a new airframe.
The B-52’s longevity stems partially from its flight profile. It spends most of its hours in the high stratosphere, above the weather, so there is little wear on the airframe. The A-10 is built very ruggedly, but I’d still expect them to wear out sooner than the B-52s.
The F-35 isn’t meant to do CAS at all, and so it doesn’t need anything like the toughness that the A-10 has. Making the F-35 do CAS would be almost as stupid as making the A-10 do high-altitude deep strike against modern air defenses. USAF does have an unaddressed need for a CAS vehicle to replace the A-10, but given that branch’s disdain for the job, it’s probably for the best that SOCOM may procure Super Tucanos and do it themselves.

By: Tenn Slim

Tenn Slim — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:04:48 +0000

ALL
Having spent time building and using F4s,F16c, AV8B, F18A-D, and last but not least F22, I would offer this.
1. We need a replacement aircraft for most of the above types, period.
2. Day 1 combat, over Europe or over the Coast of China will be thick with aircraft of ALL types, as these folks tend to keep every bird built. The above list of USA Birds, leading with the Falcon, and the Hornet, plus the Raptor will make mince meat of MOST but not all, on Day 1.
3. CAS, almost always a USAF after thought, nearly brought down the Raptor EMD effort. We had the gun, per USAF Requirements, but adding wing roots, additional avionics, nearly broke the budget. Finally, adding internals and kluging the avionics, IE: Cheating the systems, allowed for CAS. The Raptor is and was designed to deal with clouds of fighters.
4. In Nam the F4 did CAS for the USMC. Also, a host of USN A1 Sky raiders off small deck CVs. This bird is indeed an awesome sight, but it has short legs, and needs a LOT of Maintenance after flight. Mainly cause it takes lots of holes to be repaired. The Wart Hog, a truly awesome bird, is pure CAS and probably the best.
Finally, the Venerable F111, old McNamara’s nemeis should be the example of How Not to build a multi use bird. Seems LM has learned that lesson well.
end
Semper Fi

By: Deltavee

Deltavee — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 04:28:55 +0000

The bloody A10 is probably going to be the only bird around for a long time that is this good at what it does, frankly. Soooooo
Why doesn’t the military realize they have an aircraft they can just keep building on and improving with avionics and god-knows-what weapon loadouts that research is going to come out with over the next couple of decades. Case in point? The B-52. BUFFs have been flying forever, with periodic improvements, so why not the Hog?