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

[nelsondx 958]

Isn't that a Super Tucano? lol. And they are Trainers in the Brazilian Air Force.

Edited September 18, 2015 by nelsondx

[AncientRaig 1,378]

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 gon into it.  it should serve as a seperate aircraft as a strike fighter /compliment to the F22 raptor fleet, and serve along side it and other aircraft, for a specific and versatile roles.

 

 

well if the air forces does 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 doenst want them anymore, and does actually phase them out.

The thing is, we already have a strike aircraft. It's called the F-15E Strike Eagle. Do we need more modern aircraft? Yes. Do we need the F-35? Not as it is, no. The problem is that they aren't willing to solve the problems, they're just pretending to by throwing out key components to launch the aircraft by deadline. Like the gun. Because apparently, we didn't learn how stupid it was to have fighter aircraft without a gun the last time we tried using an all-missile aircraft. F-4 Phantom anyone?

[kev2go 5,112]

The thing is, we already have a strike aircraft. It's called the F-15E Strike Eagle. Do we need more modern aircraft? Yes. Do we need the F-35? Not as it is, no. The problem is that they aren't willing to solve the problems, they're just pretending to by throwing out key components to launch the aircraft by deadline. Like the gun. Because apparently, we didn't learn how stupid it was to have fighter aircraft without a gun the last time we tried using an all-missile aircraft. F-4 Phantom anyone?

 

to be fair. missiles sucked back then, unlike todays tech which is Wunderwaffle compared to the 50s and 60s.

 

Current Gen Aim9X heatseakers and radar guided Aim120C are like 30x more lethal and effective, especially with helmet mounted hud, where you can just look at the direction of the aircraft and lock onto it.

 

but yes all planes needs guns for backup

 

The F15E strike eagle is still pretty capable in air to air, its just a 2 seater F15c with Strike functions.

Edited September 18, 2015 by kev2go

[AncientRaig 1,378]

to be fair. missiles sucked back then.

 

Current Gen Aim9X heatseakers and radar guided Aim120C are like 30x more lethal and effective, especially with helmet mounted hud, where you can just look at the direction of the aircraft and lock onto it.

 

but yes all planes needs guns for backup

 

The F15E strike eagle is still pretty capable in air to air, its just a 2 seater F15c with Strike functions.

True. But we both agree that guns are a must. And the F-15E can still carry more ordinance that the F-35A by a good 5000 pounds and has almost triple the ammo for the gun. It's also faster by at least .9 mach. The F-16 is faster by at least .4 mach, and carries only 1000 pounds less ordinance while still having more gun ammo. And the F-22 carries 4000 pounds more with only slightly less ammo for the gun than the F-15 and F-16, while being stealth-capable and faster than the F-16 and slower than the F-15E by only about .25 mach. I don't see how the F-35A should be replacing any of these aircraft when they are blatantly better.

Edited September 18, 2015 by theOverLord

[kev2go 5,112]

True. But we both agree that guns are a must. And the F-15E can still carry more ordinance that the F-35A by a good 5000 pounds and has almost triple the ammo for the gun.

 

bu bu.... mah staealth....., must need for da supwise attak. :Ps

 

 

 

Id also like to note its interesting that the F15A/C were never used in a ground strike role in the US air force, and I don't think they ever trained for that

 

yet... according to standard aircraft characteristics both variants had air  to ground munitions available in inventory, and could actually mount various bomb types

 

 

F-15A - stat sheet ( circa 1976)

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/mcdonnelldouglas/f-15eagle/f-15-eagle-characteristics-summary-january-1976.html

 

 

F-15C stat sheet ( circa 1992)

 

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/mcdonnelldouglas/f-15eagle/f-15c-eagle-standard-aircraft-characteristics-february-1992.html

Edited September 18, 2015 by kev2go

[AncientRaig 1,378]

bu bu.... mah staealth....., must need for da supwise attak. :Ps

 

 

 

Id also like to note its interesting that the F15A/C were never used in a ground strike role in the US air force, and I don't think they ever trained for that

 

yet... according to standard aircraft characteristics both variants had air  to ground munitions available in inventory, and could actually mount various bomb types

 

 

F-15A - stat sheet ( circa 1976)

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/mcdonnelldouglas/f-15eagle/f-15-eagle-characteristics-summary-january-1976.html

 

 

F-15C stat sheet ( circa 1992)

 

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/mcdonnelldouglas/f-15eagle/f-15c-eagle-standard-aircraft-characteristics-february-1992.html

I'm talking about the F-15E, which is a dedicated strike aircraft, not the A and C.

[kev2go 5,112]

I'm talking about the F-15E, which is a dedicated strike aircraft, not the A and C.

 

yes. i know  but i just wanted to point out regarding F15A/C out that i  never earlier realised they had secondary strike capability.

 

never seen photos of a USAF f15a/c armed with bombs, or a actuall recorded event of them being used as such.

 

but yet its there in the manual.

Edited September 18, 2015 by kev2go

[AncientRaig 1,378]

yes. i know  but i just wanted to point out regarding F15A/C out that i  never earlier realised they had secondary strike capability.

 

never seen photos of a USAF f15a/c armed with bombs, or a actuall recorded event of them being used as such.

 

but yet its there in the manual.

Ah. Gotcha.

[Spuds_McHaggis 899]

The US should just build an updated version of the AD-1 Skyraider for a prop CAS vehicle.

[waffles1945 913]

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.

called the A10

[AncientRaig 1,378]

called the A10

Being phased out in 2028, USAF-only aircraft, still better than anything out there if you want something on the ground dead from the air. AKA the modern application of the WW2 concept.

[TheComerator 31]

The US should just build an updated version of the AD-1 Skyraider for a prop CAS vehicle.

 

I believe this is the role the Super T will be taking on.

[Blazingskitters 952]

I prefer this in the CAS role
[attachment=161984:TAL-Scorpion-Media4.jpg]

[attachment=161985:JK8bkYh.jpg]

Good alternative with higher performance. Edited September 19, 2015 by Blazingskitters

[kev2go 5,112]

 a10 is still best for CAS:

 

the Super Tacano, doesn't look like it can hold that much ordinance, 

 

Hell the a1 skyraider can probably hold more.

[TheComerator 31]

I prefer this in the CAS role
TAL-Scorpion-Media4.jpg

JK8bkYh.jpg

Good alternative with higher performance.

 

I think the SEALS are specifically NOT wanting a jet because a prop airplane can fly much slower without stalling and is more fuel efficient so it can stay in the battle zone longer.  The stall speed of the Super T is something like 92 mph.

 a10 is still best for CAS:

 

the Super Tacano, doesn't look like it can hold that much ordinance, 

 

Hell the a1 skyraider can probably hold more.

 

That may be true but they must be wanting a more modern airframe with the benefits of the turboprop engine.  Also, it seems to me that the Super T has a better field of view and it is a dual seater so there may be some benefit there.

Edited September 19, 2015 by TheComerator

[kev2go 5,112]

It isnt all about slow jets for cas.

 

Helicopters are efficient, and advanced enough enough to have a significant role in CAS too.

 

 attack choppers like the a64 apache longbows are fantastic, and there also the older but more economical ah1w supercobra, or its updated variant the AH1Z viper, the viper can also equip sidewinders for self defense, so a jet going in for the kill, may end up having go dump flares, and abort the first attack run, so it does have that 1 advantage over the more expensive A64D

Edited September 20, 2015 by kev2go

[Nope 10,634]

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.

 

Do you even know what you're even saying right now? After accounting for potential factors, the A-10 slowly loses its role. The gun is not used much compared to the ATGMs, and the F-35 is a superior missile platform. Yes, the A-10 has more hardpoints, but one of them is pretty much reserved for a targeting pod and the two others usually have drop tanks, while the F-35 wouldn't have those measures. This leaves it at 8 hardpoints vs 8 hardpoints, and the F-35 carries heavier loads. Even the durability is not a good argument. The A-10 was made out of a desperation maneuver, as it was thought to be pretty much unlikely for an aircraft to survive AAA and SAMs at the same time, so it's all about making a cheap airframe that takes AAA hits. This is the A-10. The F-35 has a more sophisticated system for airframe redundancy, which is the primary factor in aircraft durability. Not to mention it has the option to get closer to SAMs, thus providing an effective solution to the exact same reason the A-10 was made: avoiding AA defenses. The A-10 was a result of finding no alternative while the F-35 is that theoretical alternative. I will also try not to mention the fact that the A-10 has the most amount of friendly fire incidents so far, even compared to the B-1 Lancer.

 

Also, making A-10s VTOL-capable would also cost a lot of money, and you might as well kiss the A-10's ability to fly a mission without drop tanks goodbye if it isn't the case already. I honestly don't know what keeps the A-10 from being considered so good. The gun argument is somewhat moot as the main course of action is always JDAM, Paveway or ATGM bombardment, which is a role the F-35 is by far superior at with no contest. Even the F-15E and F-16 do the same, and just aren't as good. Sure, they're still very good, but one has to come up with a backup plan. Backup plans are why nations keep their nukes.

 

 

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?

Congrats, you've linked to an article that has completely misinterpreted a test. The F-35 had severe flight restrictions, the F-16 did not. The goal was to use the F-16 as reference, and to see whether the F-35 is stable enough in low AoA turns to transition to more severe AoA turns. The F-35 is actually surprisingly maneuverable, and there's even proof of it being supermaneuverable.

 

Not to mention your interpretation of CAS is a bit off. The gun is just risky in a situation where actual air defenses are set up. The only reason other planes stay there is because what is considered a serious air defense nowadays is Syria's territory, and even then it's not particularly good, it's just somewhat likely to knock out an F-16 that tries going for an attack run, thus ruining a very good record for the USAF. On top of that, going in with guns is still a risky bet. When the enemy MAY be packing missiles, you MIGHT AS WELL get out in the first place. That's literal suicide right there as it would require dependency on flares and chaffs, which means getting within range, which means basically not playing to the strengths of having a ridiculous supply chain even if MiG-21s cannot lock onto a target under them. It's not always one plane, it's mostly shifts of F-35s coming in.

 

"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PYLONS". Just in case you mention that, the pylons would still result in a lower RCS than other planes anyway. To top that off, a stealth operation is like an assassination: if you kill people other than the main target, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

 

 

The thing is, we already have a strike aircraft. It's called the F-15E Strike Eagle. Do we need more modern aircraft? Yes. Do we need the F-35? Not as it is, no. The problem is that they aren't willing to solve the problems, they're just pretending to by throwing out key components to launch the aircraft by deadline. Like the gun. Because apparently, we didn't learn how stupid it was to have fighter aircraft without a gun the last time we tried using an all-missile aircraft. F-4 Phantom anyone?

 

Oh yeah, the F-4! Man that thing totally needed the gun! I mean, its 3 20mm gun kills are really important with the dozens of Sparrow and Sidewinder kills!

 

I'm serious, the F-4 argument is completely laughable. It's used to "prove" that missiles are not reliable, yet when you look at the statistics you see that it's literally the opposite. F-105s got a ton more gun kills, but that's because they rarely received AIM-9s and AIM-7s anyway. What else could they use for self-defense? Rockets and bombs? I really do not understand the F-4 argument at all as it only serves to reinforce the importance of BVR and WVR missiles, especially BVR.

 

As for the Super Tucano, well, the advantage is not one that will replace the F-35. It's a matter of stealth I believe. VTOLs leave scorch marks. Jets in general leave scorch marks. Helicopters are too vulnerable and slow. There's the small gap the Super Tucano fills, and it's rather interesting. Props are known for their STOVL capabilities and their ability to not scorch a field. This role hasn't been really considered by the USAF or USMC yet, maybe because it's too niche, similar to the reason why Po-2s are no longer used despite being night ninjas. I'm not too sure at the moment, but can it handle JP-8? The reason the US declined the offer is because the mission would involve too many unnecessary risks. It's not the right tool for the job yet.

[TheComerator 31]

Do you even know what you're even saying right now? After accounting for potential factors, the A-10 slowly loses its role. The gun is not used much compared to the ATGMs, and the F-35 is a superior missile platform. Yes, the A-10 has more hardpoints, but one of them is pretty much reserved for a targeting pod and the two others usually have drop tanks, while the F-35 wouldn't have those measures. This leaves it at 8 hardpoints vs 8 hardpoints, and the F-35 carries heavier loads. Even the durability is not a good argument. The A-10 was made out of a desperation maneuver, as it was thought to be pretty much unlikely for an aircraft to survive AAA and SAMs at the same time, so it's all about making a cheap airframe that takes AAA hits. This is the A-10. The F-35 has a more sophisticated system for airframe redundancy, which is the primary factor in aircraft durability. Not to mention it has the option to get closer to SAMs, thus providing an effective solution to the exact same reason the A-10 was made: avoiding AA defenses. The A-10 was a result of finding no alternative while the F-35 is that theoretical alternative. I will also try not to mention the fact that the A-10 has the most amount of friendly fire incidents so far, even compared to the B-1 Lancer.
 
Also, making A-10s VTOL-capable would also cost a lot of money, and you might as well kiss the A-10's ability to fly a mission without drop tanks goodbye if it isn't the case already. I honestly don't know what keeps the A-10 from being considered so good. The gun argument is somewhat moot as the main course of action is always JDAM, Paveway or ATGM bombardment, which is a role the F-35 is by far superior at with no contest. Even the F-15E and F-16 do the same, and just aren't as good. Sure, they're still very good, but one has to come up with a backup plan. Backup plans are why nations keep their nukes.
 


Congrats, you've linked to an article that has completely misinterpreted a test. The F-35 had severe flight restrictions, the F-16 did not. The goal was to use the F-16 as reference, and to see whether the F-35 is stable enough in low AoA turns to transition to more severe AoA turns. The F-35 is actually surprisingly maneuverable, and there's even proof of it being supermaneuverable.
 
Not to mention your interpretation of CAS is a bit off. The gun is just risky in a situation where actual air defenses are set up. The only reason other planes stay there is because what is considered a serious air defense nowadays is Syria's territory, and even then it's not particularly good, it's just somewhat likely to knock out an F-16 that tries going for an attack run, thus ruining a very good record for the USAF. On top of that, going in with guns is still a risky bet. When the enemy MAY be packing missiles, you MIGHT AS WELL get out in the first place. That's literal suicide right there as it would require dependency on flares and chaffs, which means getting within range, which means basically not playing to the strengths of having a ridiculous supply chain even if MiG-21s cannot lock onto a target under them. It's not always one plane, it's mostly shifts of F-35s coming in.
 
"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PYLONS". Just in case you mention that, the pylons would still result in a lower RCS than other planes anyway. To top that off, a stealth operation is like an assassination: if you kill people other than the main target, you need to reevaluate your priorities.
 

 
Oh yeah, the F-4! Man that thing totally needed the gun! I mean, its 3 20mm gun kills are really important with the dozens of Sparrow and Sidewinder kills!
 
I'm serious, the F-4 argument is completely laughable. It's used to "prove" that missiles are not reliable, yet when you look at the statistics you see that it's literally the opposite. F-105s got a ton more gun kills, but that's because they rarely received AIM-9s and AIM-7s anyway. What else could they use for self-defense? Rockets and bombs? I really do not understand the F-4 argument at all as it only serves to reinforce the importance of BVR and WVR missiles, especially BVR.
 
As for the Super Tucano, well, the advantage is not one that will replace the F-35. It's a matter of stealth I believe. VTOLs leave scorch marks. Jets in general leave scorch marks. Helicopters are too vulnerable and slow. There's the small gap the Super Tucano fills, and it's rather interesting. Props are known for their STOVL capabilities and their ability to not scorch a field. This role hasn't been really considered by the USAF or USMC yet, maybe because it's too niche, similar to the reason why Po-2s are no longer used despite being night ninjas. I'm not too sure at the moment, but can it handle JP-8? The reason the US declined the offer is because the mission would involve too many unnecessary risks. It's not the right tool for the job yet.

Wow, do you work for Lockheed or something cause every expert in the nation admits that the F-35 falls far short of anything we currently use. I linked and article just yesterday quoting the Secretary of the Air Force and his admission that it is not a good aircraft.

[kev2go 5,112]

 

 

 

Oh yeah, the F-4! Man that thing totally needed the gun! I mean, its 3 20mm gun kills are really important with the dozens of Sparrow and Sidewinder kills!

 

I'm serious, the F-4 argument is completely laughable. It's used to "prove" that missiles are not reliable, yet when you look at the statistics you see that it's literally the opposite. F-105s got a ton more gun kills, but that's because they rarely received AIM-9s and AIM-7s anyway. What else could they use for self-defense? Rockets and bombs? I really do not understand the F-4 argument at all as it only serves to reinforce the importance of BVR and WVR missiles, especially BVR.

 

 

 

I honestly would have stopped reading if your statement regarding the F4 was mentioned at the beginning of your post.

 

the F4 didnt need guns as backup? during the early days of early unreliable missile tech?

 

My god not even Blacktail Defense  would make such a dense statement as that, and the most "armchair general" you can get.

 

 

no the F4 did benefit  guns as backup. otherwise the Air forces wouldn't have bothered devising the interim solution; the external gun pods, and they would have bothered adding the internal 20mm gatling gun into the F4E if that was really the case.

 

Todays missiles are much better true, but its better just to continue keeping the guns just in case, basically everyone does. It would be really nasty for history to repeat itself, Not worth the risk.

Edited September 20, 2015 by kev2go

[Blazingskitters 952]

Right no, stop. In off topic there already is a huge F35 argument thread, don't turn this into another one guys.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/160986-f-35-xxxx-or-amazing/page-50#entry5082760

Let's stick more to Tucanos and that sort of stuff.

[Nope 10,634]

Wow, do you work for Lockheed or something cause every expert in the nation admits that the F-35 falls far short of anything we currently use. I linked and article just yesterday quoting the Secretary of the Air Force and his admission that it is not a good aircraft.

 

It's not the F-35 being bad that's the problem, it's the cost required to have such a program. The Secretary of the Air Force takes into consideration how much money is being spent, especially factoring in the cost of 4 different potential replacement programs for the F/A-18E, the F-15E, the F-16 and the A-10C. But as an aircraft? The F-35 is fine, though some kinks need to be worked out in terms of software. In performance it's actually good in mobility even if you analyze it from a theoretical standpoint and the electronics, despite a couple of bugs, are just giving it a real advantage in BVR and WVR. It still won't replace the F-15s and such though. Never would just yet, as it would arrive when the older fighters cannot stand up to the enemy.

 

I honestly would have stopped reading if your statement regarding the F4 was mentioned at the beginning of your post.

 

the F4 didnt need guns as backup? during the early days of early unreliable missile tech?

 

My god not even Blacktail Defense  would make such a dense statement as that, and the most "armchair general" you can get.

 

 

no the F4 did benefit  guns as backup. otherwise the Air forces wouldn't have bothered devising the interim solution; the external gun pods, and they would have bothered adding the internal 20mm gatling gun into the F4E if that was really the case.

 

Todays missiles are much better true, but its better just to continue keeping the guns just in case, basically everyone does. It would be really nasty for history to repeat itself, Not worth the risk.

 

I'm just saying that the F-4 argument is pretty irrelevant when its Vietnam combat record specifically shows a lot more missile kills than gun kills. What argument is that? Using proof to back up a statement that is effectively countered by that proof? The gun is more of a "what if" scenario if anything, just like combat knives. Would the lack of a combat knife be a massive loss? No, because guns kill more in wars than knives. Is it still a good thing to keep a combat knife? Yes it is, but it doesn't contribute to as many kills. Guns are not as big of a factor as people make them to be, but it still doesn't justify removing the gun because it is convenient in certain cases. You see where I am going with this? Not to mention that Sparky would just bash the F-35 using myths that I don't exactly fall for and praise the Su-35 anyway, so yeah.

 

Still, the statement that the Super Tucano will be giving the F-35 a run for its money is too bold. This would only be an attacker obviously, but the only reason to use it is STVOL on fields and other unfavorable terrain, and also short runways. That means in the middle of nowhere it can be possible to operate A-29s. The issue is that it's niche at the moment, though one squadron will receive training for it. However, the payload would not be anything special, neither would the combat radius nor range. Those considerations may have led to the USAF having doubts, but it's still an interesting concept nevertheless.

[ProdigyGamer15 2,289]

Interesting...always nice to see old stuff with modern tech.

[Bombastikus 14,039]

Interesting article. So basically they need STUKAS, lol.

 

Well..I always thought planes like that are never obsolete.

[TheComerator 31]

Interesting...always nice to see old stuff with modern tech.

Yes it is. I don't think any of these other jokers see the cool level of this aircraft.

Interesting article. So basically they need STUKAS, lol.

Well..I always thought planes like that are never obsolete.

Not as long as the physics of fluid dynamics and our atmosphere never change. This is also why I find this article so friggen amazing.

Also, I love your avatar Bombastikus. Edited October 9, 2015 by TheComerator