Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

There are obviously a lot of boosters and detractors of the F35 program.

Canada not the least.

I am certain the program is neither as good as some advertise nor as bad as other advertise. Inevitably the boosters focus on capability - the detractors on capability verses cost. We wont really have definitive assessed proof probably for many years ( as we learned with the F4 Phantoms with no guns, the F14 Tomcat as a carrier monster, the F16 as too big and heavy)

One can search the "interweb thingy" and find an article to support any view you wish to forward. Some reputable some not some current some old etc. Pro or Con

I think it is important to recall

1) A single plane or squadron of planes do not fight on their own. In addition other air superiority measures - AWACs, GPS, Drones heavens knows what - contribute to the overall tactical plan. This is not 1917 - dog fights over the trenches are not the 'only' facet of air combat.

2) The planes are also part of 'much more' combined arms tactics nowadays. Far more so since 1945. Far more so than Nam. Far more so than the first Gulf war although that is the most relevant comparison. Its not just other air superiority measures. Its ground forces / ships / helicopters and heaven know what more.

3) Western programs are subject to far more scrutiny than Russian / Chinese / weapons programs etc. Simply freedom of the press and public cost accounting drive this greater transparency. There is a laundry list of failed Soviet / German (Axis) / Japanese (Axis) programs - however we generally find out many years latter because their military's are not subject to the same level of scrutiny or analysis.

As I say there are plenty of booster / detractors with many (self serving - argument) points.

Its all rather academic as they are just deploying now and have hardly been used.

Eh, how are our old Hornets adjusting to the cold?

The F-35 is the only true 5G plane option to the West. Critics have simply not understood what true 5G is. The F-35 is not intended to be all the things which the critics find fault with. The correct viewpoint is to view the F-35 (and any true 5G plane) as the conductor of the orchestra. A conductor brings out the greater synergy of the parts. The resulting performance is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alfred

I think the F22 also qualifies as 5G

And are not the Sentrys and Hawkeyes supposed to do that battlespace management thingy?

I remember the Spruance DDs were built with not a lot of weapons with the idea that they would easy to upgrade. Never really happened in a material way. The Kidds always seemed to be more capable and are still around today (Taiwan I believe).

I hope the program ends up being a success. But I am a firm believer in having specialized aircraft rather than 'everything in one'.

And I really hope we never live to see how good/bad Russian/Chinese models are, because as alluded to - that will only happen via combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Not sure what a firth generation fighter is

I missed your interpretation on 5G aircraft available to the West as opposed to the US. Mea Culpa.

I never did claim that Sentrys and Hawkeyes were 5G. But they are dedicated platforms. And as an ex tech guy I prefer a dedicated plane/crew rather than a single seat computerized unit somehow managing the battlespace. One dog's opinion.

On the specialized aircraft I think we may agree and disagree. But to retire already paid for A-10s to finance more F-35s just seems dumb to me. In WW2 would you want to strafe in a P51 or a P47? In any case I think maintaining an A-10 will be oodles cheaper than maintaining an F35. But the AF doesn't seem to like CAS. But the guys on the ground sure seem to.

Larger forces on less dollars I can get my head around

Which I think would be the actual outcome. And like you mentioned it would not take almost 20 years to get a platform into service.

One can dream.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Just don't see how a single seat fighter can manage all that. A two seater with a RIO I can kind of get my head around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The A-10 does not fly fast and it does not look sleek. So the Air Force people in charge of things don't like it since they are more of the fighter air combat and fighter bomber types that can do many things. They usually don't have boots on the ground nor any ground training. Let the army have some more fixed wings and I am sure that they would take the A-10s. The Marines are trained in ground combat even if they are pilots, think of Marine A-10s although I don't know about putting a hook on them but since so many Marine pilots are hookers . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Just don't see how a single seat fighter can manage all that. A two seater with a RIO I can kind of get my head around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The A-10 does not fly fast and it does not look sleek. So the Air Force people in charge of things don't like it since they are more of the fighter air combat and fighter bomber types that can do many things. They usually don't have boots on the ground nor any ground training. Let the army have some more fixed wings and I am sure that they would take the A-10s. The Marines are trained in ground combat even if they are pilots, think of Marine A-10s although I don't know about putting a hook on them but since so many Marine pilots are hookers . . .

When I was at a base in the Carolinas to pick up Airborne Troops for an exercise in Canada, the air base nearby had A-10s practicing takeoffs and landings. They flew a very tight oval and the turn of 180º to line up with the runway was beautiful to watch, a quick flip into a wingover, turn on a dime and straighten out. Fantastic maneuverability and slow speed that are needed to engage ground targets.

I saw a film once of what it looks like for a pilot of a low-flying F-104 Starfighter doing a treetop level ground attack mission. Stuff went by so fast it was all a blur and when he got to the target zone he had less than a second to acquire the target and release his bomb! Then he had to go full afterburner and turn hard to avoid potential light AA (they hated the ZSU-23/4 flack vehicles). The armoured A-10 with its better sensors and ability to go slow enough to make precision strikes is just such a huge advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Just don't see how a single seat fighter can manage all that. A two seater with a RIO I can kind of get my head around.

Which is why so much computational power is packed into the F-35.

The modern ide is that smart algorithms do a much better and quicker job than a second pilot/bombardier/navigator whatever, at a cheaper price in the long run too. Main reason why so much development time and cost is involved.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

My manager's manager was a West Point guy. I don't think he appreciated when I mentioned the early 80s Cav were meant as a speed bump to a potential Warsaw Pack invasion, but he was surprised when I said Sheridans firing shillegahs might cause some damage. He ran a platoon of Sheridans. I think I got some of the spelling wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Half of the armoured vehicles in the Soviet initial forces were broken down. If that ever changed, that would have been a warning to the West.

I thought that Red Storm Rising had the initial Cavalry units with the M-1 tanks. I thought that it was an earlier book about the Third World War that had the Sheridans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Half of the armoured vehicles in the Soviet initial forces were broken down. If that ever changed, that would have been a warning to the West.

I thought that Red Storm Rising had the initial Cavalry units with the M-1 tanks. I thought that it was an earlier book about the Third World War that had the Sheridans.

You could be right - I read them both about the same time. Easy to mix memories after a few years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Half of the armored vehicles in the Soviet initial forces were broken down. If that ever changed, that would have been a warning to the West.

.....<SNIP> Red Storm Rising

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Soviets also had an emphasis on items produced, not items maintained. So they would produce the tanks, farm tractors, or whatever but not enough spare parts.

I talked with someone who had been in the Polish Army before he relocated and some of his fall field exercises was harvesting potatoes. So there was that problem as well.

If a Soviet solder got into trouble, his enlistment was extended. I am sure that helped with the morale when then soldiers became too inebriated then got extensions to their enlistments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Soviets also had an emphasis on items produced, not items maintained. So they would produce the tanks, farm tractors, or whatever but not enough spare parts.

I talked with someone who had been in the Polish Army before he relocated and some of his fall field exercises was harvesting potatoes. So there was that problem as well.

If a Soviet solder got into trouble, his enlistment was extended. I am sure that helped with the morale when then soldiers became too inebriated then got extensions to their enlistments.

IIRC, the alcohol for vodka comes from .... potatoes. Looks like a self-sustaining loop there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The airborne still used Sheridans for awhile after the US Cavalry replaced them.

By the way, do you happen to know the full strength of the 11th or 2nd ACR when they were on the border in West Germany?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Three ground squadrons each with 3 troops of cavalry, 1 tank company, 1 how battery of 155mm M109s.

The troops had 2 platoons with 4 tanks (M60, then M1) controlled by the platoon sergeant, the scouts had 2 dragon equipped M113s and 2 M901 ITVs with TOWs plus one M113 for the platoon leader. Later, the scouts were put into 2 platoons and the tankers were put into 2 platoons with the same number of vehicles overall. The hq platoon had a GSR M113 and 3 M113 series with 4.2" mortars. The M113s and M901 ITVs were later replaced with Bradleys.

That is without the stinger platoon at HQ troop with any other support. The regiment also had a combat engineering company. Not to mention an Air squadron with Cobras and Kiowas. There were even Air Farce people assigned to call in their people to play with the Soviets.

In the Bekaa Valley in 1982, one M60a1 destroyed 9 T72s starting at a range of 4000 meters with 9 rounds fired. Of course, that was an Israeli sniper tank.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Three ground squadrons each with 3 troops of cavalry, 1 tank company, 1 how battery of 155mm M109s.

The troops had 2 platoons with 4 tanks (M60, then M1) controlled by the platoon sergeant, the scouts had 2 dragon equipped M113s and 2 M901 ITVs with TOWs plus one M113 for the platoon leader. Later, the scouts were put into 2 platoons and the tankers were put into 2 platoons with the same number of vehicles overall. The hq platoon had a GSR M113 and 3 M113 series with 4.2" mortars. The M113s and M901 ITVs were later replaced with Bradleys.

That is without the stinger platoon at HQ troop with any other support. The regiment also had a combat engineering company. Not to mention an Air squadron with Cobras and Kiowas. There were even Air Farce people assigned to call in their people to play with the Soviets.

In the Bekaa Valley in 1982, one M60a1 destroyed 9 T72s starting at a range of 4000 meters with 9 rounds fired. Of course, that was an Israeli sniper tank.

Crikey OOB felon