The WWII Era [Fighter] Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money

[TheComerator 31]

 

 

In an article written over at MOTHERBOARD, John Ismay, Adrian Bonenberger, and Damien Spleeters introduced us to an amazing plan that arose over the war in Afganistan.  It involved some good old fashioned WWII tech and the need to evolve to a changing battlefield.  This story is really all about oversight, oversight on many levels, but oversignt at its heart.  I am being generous here beacuse it would be easy to call this stupididty but lets dive into the story and you can make up your own mind.

 

There is little doubt amonst the military community and the world community at large that the wars of our time are not being faught as our fathers faught.  They are dirty, hit and run, gurrilla wars where the fast survive.  This type of battle is bringing home the fact that we need to revaluate how we fight.

 

As you can read in this article, there have been more than a few times where our technology has made us blind to mistakes that would be easy to spot if this war was as personal as war used to be.  Enter the hero of our story, The Super Tucano (wikipedia article).  This airframe may be old fashioned but there is nothing "old" about its design.  It may be classic in its style, but it symbolizes a threat that has been absent from the US airforce for quite some time, stamina.  For anyone who wants a history lesson about why air support should stay in the area longer than one pass (“One Pass, Haul ****” was a common phrase amongst pilots during Vietnam and the rise of the F-4), you should look up Silver Star reciepient Ron Catton.  Mr. Catton's story is just one amonst many that you can find to prove the effectivness of "close air support" for friendlies and how we have slowly moved away from this strategy in favor of high tech alternatives that often leave smaller, more mobile and less fortified targets still combat effective.

 

I dont want to spoil it all so here is a tasty sliver of the story to give you and idea...

 

"Like other American combat troops in Afghanistan, the SEALs sometimes found that high-tech gear couldn’t reliably get the job done, or that cheaper, lower-tech solutions worked better. This is how the US military almost adopted the A-29 Super Tucano (Sierra Nevada - manufacturer), a $4 million turboprop airplane reminiscent of WWII-era designs that troops wanted, commanders said was “urgently needed,” but Congress refused to buy."

 

--->  The WWII Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money  <---

 

Edited September 18, 2015 by TheComerator

[Zesphr 4,978]

The toucano isn't a WW2 era prop  :facepalm:

[ForGreatJustice 490]

the F-35 is the biggest failure and the most expensive piece of garbage ever conceived. the only F-35 that has even a fraction of use is the VToL variant, and only just because its VToL Capable.

 

 

the A-29 is being built in the U.S for the U.S Coast Guard, there's a plant here in Florida that manufactures them. i however don't really see the benefit of there use in U.S. Combat Forces as we already have a beast of a close air support called the A-10. they should scrap the F-35 program and focus on making the A-10's VToL capable, and keep the F-22's for Air Superiority.

Edited September 18, 2015 by ForGreatJustice

[TheComerator 31]

The toucano isn't a WW2 era prop  :facepalm:

 

We know that, its a modern plane built in Brazil.  But its a prop driven aircraft remeniscent of the craft from WWII and similar to the AT-6B and T-6 Texan II.  No face palm is required sir...

[DeNeko 358]

Super tucano ww2 era?  :facepalm:

Also... it's not a fighter , it's a light atacker.

[TheComerator 31]

the F-35 is the biggest failure and the most expensive piece of garbage ever conceived. the only F-35 that has even a fraction of use is the VToL variant, and only just because its VToL Capable.

 

 

the A-29 is being built in the U.S for the U.S Coast Guard, there's a plant here in Florida that manufactures them. i however don't really see the benefit of there use in U.S. Combat Forces as we already have a beast of a close air support called the A-10. they should scrap the F-35 program and focus on making the A-10's VToL capable, and keep the F-22's for Air Superiority.

 

I agree whole heartedly.  The F-35 project should be scraped to save and upgrade the A-10.  However, if you read the article, the Navy Seals requested the Super T specifically from the Secretary of the Navy.  They must have a good use for it.

[AncientRaig 1,378]

the F-35 is the biggest failure and the most expensive piece of garbage ever conceived. the only F-35 that has even a fraction of use is the VToL variant, and only just because its VToL Capable.

 

 

the A-29 is being built in the U.S for the U.S Coast Guard, there's a plant here in Florida that manufactures them. i however don't really see the benefit of there use in U.S. Combat Forces as we already have a beast of a close air support called the A-10. they should scrap the F-35 program and focus on making the A-10's VToL capable, and keep the F-22's for Air Superiority.

I agree completely with this. The F-35 tries to be everything at once. It wants to be a strike fighter, an air superiority fighter, a stealth fighter, a bomber, and a close air support aircraft all at the same time. The A-10 can only be replaced by something that can carry more ordinance at the same speed, or maybe even slower. CAS isn't about dropping a few bombs on a target and GTFOing. It's about staying above the ground pounders for as long as possible and blowing the everloving **** out of ANYTHING that isn't friendly. We learned this back in Vietnam with the A-1 Skyraider. And unless we learn this lesson now, eventually we're going to learn the hard way.

Edited September 18, 2015 by theOverLord

[TheComerator 31]

Super tucano ww2 era?  :facepalm:

Also... it's not a fighter , it's a light atacker.

 

We all appreciate your addition to the post.  Thank you for pointing this out.

[DeNeko 358]

We know that, its a modern plane built in Brazil.  But its a prop driven aircraft remeniscent of the craft from WWII and similar to the AT-6B and T-6 Texan II.  No face palm is required sir...

Just because it's a prop driven doesn't mean it has anything to do with WW2 , the super tucano has modern avionics and armament , and it doesnt rely on the flight performance like most ww2 era planes did.

Edited September 18, 2015 by KittyClaws

[ForGreatJustice 490]

I agree whole heartedly.  The F-35 project should be scraped to save and upgrade the A-10.  However, if you read the article, the Navy Seals requested the Super T specifically from the Secretary of the Navy.  They must have a good use for it.

 

the thing about the Navy Seals is if they really wanted one or two A-29's they could Requisition them from the U.S. Army or the Coast Guard and there's nothing that Congress can do about it.

[TheComerator 31]

Just because it's a prop driven doesn't mean it has anything to do with WW2 , the super tucano has modern avionics and armament , and it doesnt rely on the fight performance like most ww2 era planes did.

 

1.  It's called a "headliner".  It's meant to grab your attention and also be part of the story the journalist is presenting.

2.  I didnt write the article, I am simply presenting an interesting fact to the community.

3.  This is THE MOST insignificant portion of the topic.

 

But you are correct so thanks

the thing about the Navy Seals is if they really wanted one or two A-29's they could Requisition them from the U.S. Army or the Coast Guard and there's nothing that Congress can do about it.

 

I guess this is true because this is what is happening.  Also, the sales of these planes are begining to rise significantly.

[kev2go 5,112]

the F-35 is the biggest failure and the most expensive piece of garbage ever conceived. the only F-35 that has even a fraction of use is the VToL variant, and only just because its VToL Capable.

 

 

the A-29 is being built in the U.S for the U.S Coast Guard, there's a plant here in Florida that manufactures them. i however don't really see the benefit of there use in U.S. Combat Forces as we already have a beast of a close air support called the A-10. they should scrap the F-35 program and focus on making the A-10's VToL capable, and keep the F-22's for Air Superiority.

 

f35 isnt in service yet. Lets keep the final verdict until it finally enters service and goes into actual combat use. Besidies any 5th gen aircraft has its information highly classified, so even then we dont know everything.

 

many though during its design/ testing phase the f16 was going to be a fail, som thought that a light figter wasn't needed to be ins service alongside something like the F15, but look how that turned out.

 

F22 is what the F15 is a air superity figher, but with more sophistcated tech and stealth capabilties, whereas the F35 is going to basically be a a bit cheaper complimental aircraft,  single engine stealth Strike/multi role fighter. F22 is too high tech, and even if it was for export, some countries would still opt for the more affordable F35.

 

 

Technically the F16 tries to be everything too.  Its was suppsoed to be lightweight dogfighter, but also can used for air superoity ( C models has radar guided aim120) and can  be used for CAS an strike missions, as well as use smart munitions includingguided air to ground missiles such as the agm65.

Edited September 18, 2015 by kev2go

[ForGreatJustice 490]

I agree completely with this. The F-35 tries to be everything at once. It wants to be a strike fighter, an air superiority fighter, a stealth fighter, a bomber, and a close air support aircraft all at the same time. The A-10 can only be replaced by something that can carry more ordinance at the same speed, or maybe even slower. CAS isn't about dropping a few bombs on a target and GTFOing. It's about staying above the ground pounders for as long as possible and blowing the everloving **** out of ANYTHING that isn't friendly. We learned this back in Vietnam with the A-1 Skyraider. And unless we learn this lesson now, eventually we're going to learn the hard way.

A turret capable A-10 with 2 30mm Miniguns, and VToL Capabilities, after it got done there would be anything left.

[AncientRaig 1,378]

Just because it's a prop driven doesn't mean it has anything to do with WW2 , the super tucano has modern avionics and armament , and it doesnt rely on the flight performance like most ww2 era planes did.

You're reading the title wrong. It's not saying that the A-29 is a WW2 era plane, it's saying that the WW2 era concept for a CAS aircraft(Slow, enough weapons to level half a city, enough fuel to stay in the AO for hours at a time)is giving the F-35 a run for it's money.

[DeNeko 358]

1.  It's called a "headliner".  It's meant to grab your attention and also be part of the story the journalist is presenting.

2.  I didnt write the article, I am simply presenting an interesting fact to the community.

3.  This is THE MOST insignificant portion of the topic.

 

But you are correct so thanks

 

I guess this is true because this is what is happening.  Also, the sales of these planes are begining to rise significantly.

I know everything you pointed out , but they are desperate for attention with that half inaccurate headliner , and that annoys me a lot.

[AncientRaig 1,378]

f35 isnt in service yet. Lets keep the final verdict until it finally enters service and goes into actual combat use. Besidies any 5th gen aircraft has its information highly classified, so even then we dont know everything.

 

many though during its design/ testing phase the f16 was going to be a fail, som thought that a light figter wasn't needed to be ins service alongside something like the F15, but look how that turned out.

The difference is that the F-16 isn't trying to be a heavy fighter, a stealth fighter, and a ground attack fighter at the same time. It's a very versatile light fighter. That's it. That's all it wants to be. That's all it tries to be. If the F-35 fails, it will be because it is trying to fill too many roles at once. It's costing trillions of dollars, while we have tried and true platforms like the F-16, F-15, F/A-18, F-22, and A-10 that are still filling their roles perfectly. Versatility is one thing, but if you try to do too much with one thing, you're going to fail.

 

*Edit* There's also the fact that's it's already suffering from problems, ranging from over-complexity and failures, to extreme costs with no results. They can't even launch the thing without dumbing it down to the point where it's not even capable of competing with Russian and Chinese contemporaries. It won't even have a gun. A ****ing GUN.

Edited September 18, 2015 by theOverLord

[kev2go 5,112]

The difference is that the F-16 isn't trying to be a heavy fighter, a stealth fighter, and a ground attack fighter at the same time. It's a very versatile light fighter. That's it. That's all it wants to be. That's all it tries to be. If the F-35 fails, it will be because it is trying to fill too many roles at once. It's costing trillions of dollars, while we have tried and true platforms like the F-16, F-15, F-22, and A-10 that are still filling their roles perfectly. Versatility is one thing, but if you try to do too much with one thing, you're going to fail.

 

your wrong. F16 is multirole, its used for CAS, Strike Missions ( has access to both conventional & smart munitions too) and can shoot down planes at longer ranges ( has access to Aim120, not just aim9 heatseakers)

 

so in a way its trying to be a jack of all trades plane.

 

looking at the F35 it really does look like a very versatile plane sort of like the F16, except with stealth.

Edited September 18, 2015 by kev2go

[TheComerator 31]

I know everything you pointed out , but they are desperate for attention with that half inaccurate headliner , and that annoys me a lot.

 

Well get over it.  Be happy that there is a cool plane in the news and not some lies about how awesome the F-turdy 5 is.  And I wouldnt call it desperation so much as sensationilization.

You're reading the title wrong. It's not saying that the A-29 is a WW2 era plane, it's saying that the WW2 era concept for a CAS aircraft(Slow, enough weapons to level half a city, enough fuel to stay in the AO for hours at a time)is giving the F-35 a run for it's money.

 

This guy gets it...

[ForGreatJustice 490]

f35 isnt in service yet. Lets keep the final verdict until it finally enters service and goes into actual combat use. Besidies any 5th gen aircraft has its information highly classified, so even then we dont know everything.

 

many though during its design/ testing phase the f16 was going to be a fail, som thought that a light figter wasn't needed to be ins service alongside something like the F15, but look how that turned out.

 

no, lets not. the only people still defending the F-35 are the Contractors(who will lose billions should it fall though) and DoD who have thrown trillions of tax payer dollars on a doomed project.

 

every test pilot, that's flown it says its crap complaints range all around, low thrust power due to single engine, software issues, ejection seat issue, prolonged maintenance times. so its saving Grace is a stealth system that has to be upgraded every time another country builds a missile to defeat it? that's stupid on principle a million dollar missile vs a 50 million dollar hardware upgrade.

[kev2go 5,112]

no, lets not. the only people still defending the F-35 are the Contractors(who will lose billions should it fall though) and DoD who have thrown trillions of tax payer dollars on a doomed project.

 

every test pilot, that's flown it says its crap complaints range all around, low thrust power due to single engine, software issues, ejection seat issue, prolonged maintenance times. so its saving Grace is a stealth system that has to be upgraded every time another country builds a missile to defeat it? that's stupid on principle a million dollar missile vs a 50 million dollar hardware upgrade.

 

f22 had its fair share of issues, like problems with oxygen supply, asphyxiation is fun right?.

 

 thats also a "hangar queen" type of aircraft.

 

thats not to say the teething issues of the f35 can't be filtered out. New tech is always more expensive that previous tech. Military aircraft is only going to get more and more expensive as new stuff rolls out.

Edited September 18, 2015 by kev2go

[AncientRaig 1,378]

your wrong. F16 is multirole, its used for CAS, Strike Missions ( has access to both conventional & smart munitions too) and can shoot down planes at longer ranges ( has access to Aim120, not just aim9 heatseakers)

 

so in a way its trying to be a jack of all trades plane.

 

looking at the F35 it really does look like a very versatile plane sort of like the F16, except with stealth.

But the F-16 isn't trying to replace everything else. It's like the M4 Sherman of the sky. Good at most everything, but it's not trying to be an M10, an M5, and an M4A3E2 at the same time. Multirole and "trying to be everything" isn't the same. The Sherman was multirole. But it wasn't trying to be a heavy tank, or a tank destroyer, or a light tank. It was trying to be a jack of all trades that could work well off the more specialized tanks that were effective at one thing, but not so much at others.

[TheComerator 31]

The difference is that the F-16 isn't trying to be a heavy fighter, a stealth fighter, and a ground attack fighter at the same time. It's a very versatile light fighter. That's it. That's all it wants to be. That's all it tries to be. If the F-35 fails, it will be because it is trying to fill too many roles at once. It's costing trillions of dollars, while we have tried and true platforms like the F-16, F-15, F/A-18, F-22, and A-10 that are still filling their roles perfectly. Versatility is one thing, but if you try to do too much with one thing, you're going to fail.

 

*Edit* There's also the fact that's it's already suffering from problems, ranging from over-complexity and failures, to extreme costs with no results. They can't even launch the thing without dumbing it down to the point where it's not even capable of competing with Russian and Chinese contemporaries. It won't even have a gun. A ****ing GUN.

 

 

The F-35 is like my HP printer, it wants to print, scan and fax for me wired or wireless and it does all of those things...terribly.  It is no secret that the F-35 is a failure especially when the Secretary of the AirForce acknowledges it's bad.  <----LINK

Edited September 18, 2015 by TheComerator

[DeNeko 358]

Well get over it.  Be happy that there is a cool plane in the news and not some lies about how awesome the F-turdy 5 is.

Yeah it's a awesome plane for it's role and price , brazillians know how to build cheap but very effective stuff , unlike whoever designed the f-35.

[AncientRaig 1,378]

Some articles about just how bad the F-35 is:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-us-air-force-watered-down-the-f-35-to-avoid-embarrassment?trk_source=recommended

http://warisboring.com/articles/f-d-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-world-s-worst-new-warplane/comment-page-1/

 

Seriously. The plane is horrible. We used to build planes that were able to stay in service for DECADES. The B-52 is ANCIENT, and yet it's still one of the best bombers in the world because we can keep making it better. The A-10 is the an infantryman's best friend. Rugged, reliable, capable of decimating entire companies of enemies with ease. The F-16 is quick, nimble, and kicks like a mule. The F-15 is dependable and powerful. The F-35 is slow, bulky, too complex, incapable of beating even obsolete foreign jets, and will be launched underarmed and given to all of our allies. It will replace EVERY SINGLE OTHER FIGHTER AND ATTACKER AIRCRAFT IN THE USAF ARSENAL. Think about that for a moment. While there are upsides, everyone has the same aircraft, serving in all branches, with the same basic design. Quickens production, lowers production costs, makes it easier to repair on the field, sounds great right? But it's inferior to it's enemies, under-armed, slow, prone to failures, hard to maintain, and very, very expensive. What would YOU rather have if you were boots on the ground in the middle of a warzone, enemies on all side, air support a minute out? An aircraft that can stay above you for hours, raining high-explosive death on anything that dares attack our nation, or a plane that can barely get itself into the air, will be around for maybe 10 minutes, and will kill maybe a platoon or two?

[kev2go 5,112]

Some articles about just how bad the F-35 is:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-us-air-force-watered-down-the-f-35-to-avoid-embarrassment?trk_source=recommended

http://warisboring.com/articles/f-d-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-world-s-worst-new-warplane/comment-page-1/

 

Seriously. The plane is horrible. We used to build planes that were able to stay in service for DECADES. The B-52 is ANCIENT, and yet it's still one of the best bombers in the world because we can keep making it better. The A-10 is the an infantryman's best friend. Rugged, reliable, capable of decimating entire companies of enemies with ease. The F-16 is quick, nimble, and kicks like a mule. The F-15 is dependable and powerful. The F-35 is slow, bulky, too complex, incapable of beating even obsolete foreign jets, and will be launched underarmed and given to all of our allies. It will replace EVERY SINGLE OTHER FIGHTER AND ATTACKER AIRCRAFT IN THE USAF ARSENAL. Think about that for a moment. While there are upsides, everyone has the same aircraft, serving in all branches, with the same basic design. Quickens production, lowers production costs, makes it easier to repair on the field, sounds great right? But it's inferior to it's enemies, under-armed, slow, prone to failures, hard to maintain, and very, very expensive. What would YOU rather have if you were boots on the ground in the middle of a warzone, enemies on all side, air support a minute out? An aircraft that can stay above you for hours, raining high-explosive death on anything that dares attack our nation, or a plane that can barely get itself into the air, will be around for maybe 10 minutes, and will kill maybe a platoon or two?

 

I wasn't commenting on the aircraft it may be replacing, bur rather just individualy as an aircraft.

 

I do think anyone who thinks they can phase out A10, F16 entirely, need to be sent " to a re education camp"  or something.

 

 

makes me think that the us military is lead by armchair generals, who are living in fantasyland, and have no real understanding of how things work. ( remember how the same armchairs said guns werent needed in nam/)

 

its hard to believe some people actually believe this.

 

 

But i wouldnt discard f35, especially since so much work has gone into it.  it should serve as a seperate aircraft, like a strike fighter /compliment to the F22 raptor fleet, and serve along side it and other aircraft, for a specific and versatile roles.

 

 if the air forces does indeed phase out the a10,  Us army command would probably be giving them a call to set-up acquisition order for the A10. Im pretty sure theyd love to have a CAS plane under thier own command,flown by army aviators in support of Army units, if the Air Force doesn't actually want them anymore, and does actually phase them out.

Edited September 18, 2015 by kev2go