• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. A-10 Warthog: The Ultimate Close Air Support Showdown

kanabco said:
Speaking of obsolete
Remember the TOW missiles? Wire guided from chopper to tank. So old school. It meant the Apache had to be up high enough and linger long enough to give away their position.
But then we got the Hellfire which required no wire. It just needed a laser target supplied by the helicopter or a ground system. But even then, if the laser was in the Longbow then the Longbow had to remain high until impact and still give away its position.
Now we have the Hellfire II which is an anti tank missile with its own computer and radar. The Apache pops up, defines the radar signature of the thank, fires, and then drops behind the trees or the hill, kills the tank, and moves off in some other direction to pop up again 90 degrees afar and kills again.
All of this from two miles away where the four blades and turbines cannot be heard.

Pay your taxes
Support military research
Stop bitching.
Click to expand...

No I think I'll keep bitching about a trillion dollar aircraft that barely functions.
 
ksu_aviator said:
What is that supposed to prove? An unsubstantiated article written by non-aviation technology experts is supposed to prove something?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...readiness-data-improves-in-2015-as-fl-421499/

The aircraft is as reliable as its counter parts, is cheaper to operate as its reliability is improving and just beat every jet in Denmark's competition to replace its F-16's. It is the best jet out there. Period.
Click to expand...

It won the Denmark compitition mainly due to

Denmark has a few billion in contracts to supply parts for it.
The life cycle costs being lower due to buying about 15 or so fewer planes then it would have bought if it went with the typhoon or f18

The f35 costs more per hour the the f16 (nearly double) aND just a little more then 30 year old f15's. Newer f15's are cheaper
 
ksu_aviator said:
So you just want to ignore the article that stated the aircraft was cheaper to build and operate than any other aircraft being built today while providing more capability and reliability? You just have it in your head that that is that and nothing is going to change it eh?
Click to expand...

The F35's targeting pod is not as advanced as the most up to date one in the f16. It does not have the ROVER system that other jets have, developed after the 2000's.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Don't take my word for it. The Eurofighter and Super Hornet have all but been eliminated from the western fighter market by the F-35. You can't get another jet of its size that goes 48,000 miles and can carry a wide array of tools from Air-Air, Air-Ground, counter electronic, stealth and more. AND it is the cheapest to produce and operate. It isn't my judgement. It is literally every military's judgement that is an ally with the US. Except France...they build the Eurofighter. I hear it is very good at running away.

The 11 countries expected to buy F-35 fighter jet | Reuters
Click to expand...

The euro fighter is built by Germany, the UK and Italy mainly. France has the Rafale.

In dogfights with either the Eurofighter or rafale the f35 will lose. Against those two planes it's only advantage is its stealth and more advanced com system.

Excluding projected airframe flight hours 8000 for the f35 and I believe 6000 for the f18 and Eurofighter the ovreally operating cost I expect will be similar
 
kanabco said:
I apologize if I come across as superior or better or whatever.
You obviously have first hand experience using systems that we can only hope to provide without flaws.
But we did listen.
Two times per year in Mesa we had peer-on-peer conferences where pilots and arms officers sat down and talked off-the-record to our designers.
Indeed it was OTR and everyone from the draftsmen to the VPs listened to them.
What did they like?
What did they hate?
You know we love these(you) guys, right?
But what we could not do is change their experiences using the weapon which were beyond our control.
We could never change how the Apache was used.

Yes I am defensive. I am as defensive as the BAE engineers and assemblers and the rest of the people who manufacture things that some users come to hate.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing against engineers as much as the dod. The engineers listen quite often, however they can build the best jet/chopper/truck on earth and that would not stop the dod from saying you have the contract but we demand xyz.

Like the maxpro mrap, and the matv, both used international diesels, and international in recent years has produced junk. They have had to buy back entire trucks from companies because they were threatening to sue after buying lets say 30 dump trucks, and 29 of them being on the road less than one day a week.

I doubt the engineers all said lets build the matv with the least reliable engine we can find. Most likely they designed their vehicle around many platforms, and the dod heads said nope we are using xyz because. The maxpro is a different story, it was an international dump truck converted to a military truck.

I was in an aviation unit, and the chinook and blackhawks were very loved. The apaches though spent too much time in maintenace and not enough time flying. Mechanically they were extremely sound, almost every single failure that kept them from flying was electronics. Even then the chinooks at one point were falling out of the sky left and right, and it ended up being the filters used who the dod contracts switched to were so bad. They switched contractors and the problem was solved.
 
beerftw said:
I am not arguing against engineers as much as the dod. The engineers listen quite often, however they can build the best jet/chopper/truck on earth and that would not stop the dod from saying you have the contract but we demand xyz.

Like the maxpro mrap, and the matv, both used international diesels, and international in recent years has produced junk. They have had to buy back entire trucks from companies because they were threatening to sue after buying lets say 30 dump trucks, and 29 of them being on the road less than one day a week.

I doubt the engineers all said lets build the matv with the least reliable engine we can find. Most likely they designed their vehicle around many platforms, and the dod heads said nope we are using xyz because. The maxpro is a different story, it was an international dump truck converted to a military truck.

I was in an aviation unit, and the chinook and blackhawks were very loved. The apaches though spent too much time in maintenace and not enough time flying. Mechanically they were extremely sound, almost every single failure that kept them from flying was electronics. Even then the chinooks at one point were falling out of the sky left and right, and it ended up being the filters used who the dod contracts switched to were so bad. They switched contractors and the problem was solved.
Click to expand...

Just so ya know.... the electronics problems are almost always weapons interface. In Mesa AZ we do not mount weapons. We provide hard points and then fly them to Yuma or they are picked up across the street at the Falcon field where they are flown to Alabama in an Air Force C-something where all the Longbows live first. The weapons manufactures take over and "tune" the chopper there (Fort Rucker).

This may sound silly but as Vice President of Manufacturing I held the lowest security clearance there is, "Confidential" and that is the way the Pentagon likes it. So I can only hear things second hand as you print it. However I swear by our avionics. I mean we are Boeing for crissake. We know flying.
 
kanabco said:
Just so ya know.... the electronics problems are almost always weapons interface. In Mesa AZ we do not mount weapons. We provide hard points and then fly them to Yuma or they are picked up across the street at the Falcon field where they are flown to Alabama in an Air Force C-something where all the Longbows live first. The weapons manufactures take over and "tune" the chopper there (Fort Rucker).

This may sound silly but as Vice President of Manufacturing I held the lowest security clearance there is, "Confidential" and that is the way the Pentagon likes it. So I can only hear things second hand as you print it. However I swear by our avionics. I mean we are Boeing for crissake. We know flying.
Click to expand...

Well you said you have low security clearance over what goes on, most likely you have seen the same. Engineers make one thing, dod buys it and flips it a 180 then later awards the contract to a company who had no effort designing it.

The matv was fully computerized, it's failure was often it had no mechanical backup, aviation however always has mechanical backup of some kind. Ofcourse even military bigwigs are not dumb enough to put a 15-30 million dollar piece of equipment in the air with no failsafe.

And btw to be highest, targeting computers were among the highest deadline for the apaches, which made them mission incapable meaning they would not be flown, radio equipment in my unit seemed to always be number two, they would do pre flight tests and the radio would not work, so they would ground it until fixed.
 
beerftw said:
Well you said you have low security clearance over what goes on, most likely you have seen the same. Engineers make one thing, dod buys it and flips it a 180 then later awards the contract to a company who had no effort designing it.

The matv was fully computerized, it's failure was often it had no mechanical backup, aviation however always has mechanical backup of some kind. Ofcourse even military bigwigs are not dumb enough to put a 15-30 million dollar piece of equipment in the air with no failsafe.

And btw to be highest, targeting computers were among the highest deadline for the apaches, which made them mission incapable meaning they would not be flown, radio equipment in my unit seemed to always be number two, they would do pre flight tests and the radio would not work, so they would ground it until fixed.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, as manufacturing engineer I had no need to know. The CEO, VP Research and Development, VP of Systems Research, etc, etc, held higher security clearance. Nevertheless as an emeritus they still pay my subscription to Aviation Week, Janes, and other Military rags so I do read some. But your input is more personal and I appreciate it.
 
jpn said:
The primary role of the two are totally different. I wonder how the A-10 would do as an air superiority fighter?
Click to expand...


It would lose to the F22 and other 5th Gen Fighters. Just like the F35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom