The Aircraft Image Posting Contest

[fredgiblet]

And speaking of close air support: I recall reading about the US Army, and their determination to keep A10's (one of my favorite aircraft) in their close air support role, while the Air Force keeps wanting to upgrade those big slow old aircraft to something that matches the rest of their force.

Yep. Somehow the Chair Force thinks that F-35s will do the job at least as well as the A-10. I wonder how many people are going to die before they figure it out.

Didn't we discover that Phantoms (and similar high performance aircraft) make worthless close air support in Vietnam?
Silly USAAF

Well yes, but you have to understand that it would cost less money to replace the A-10s with new A-10 type aircraft then it will cost to replace them with F-35s. Therefore we can't go that route because *mumblegrumblemumble*. Understand?

[javcs]

And speaking of close air support: I recall reading about the US Army, and their determination to keep A10's (one of my favorite aircraft) in their close air support role, while the Air Force keeps wanting to upgrade those big slow old aircraft to something that matches the rest of their force.

Yep. Somehow the Chair Force thinks that F-35s will do the job at least as well as the A-10. I wonder how many people are going to die before they figure it out.

Didn't we discover that Phantoms (and similar high performance aircraft) make worthless close air support in Vietnam?
Silly USAAF

Well yes, but you have to understand that it would cost less money to replace the A-10s with new A-10 type aircraft then it will cost to replace them with F-35s. Therefore we can't go that route because *mumblegrumblemumble*. Understand?

Ayup. The F-35 is crap. It's trying to do too much in one platform.

Dogfighting ability and the ability to provide close air support generally do not mix well when you try and cram it into one platform via committee.

[fredgiblet]

V/STOL variant killed it. Ditch that and the other 2 variants would probably work fine, but V/STOL is just too damn expensive in an airframe. Also stealth is too expensive IMO for the niche the F-35 is supposed to fill.

[javcs]

I'm not entirely sure the F-35 has a 'niche' anymore, I mean, from what I can tell, the design requirements tried to make it a one-platform fits all needs kind of thing, and that just kill the whole 'niche' deal.

The Harrier is a V/STOL, too, technically, but they almost never use the vertical takeoff capability, as far as I know.

When are they going to learn that you can't put everything you want in the size of a fighter jet?

A fighter/interceptor doesn't really need full-up V/STOL capabilities, it can make do just fine with short takeoff and landing capabilities.
A bomber/ground attack plane doesn't really need full-up V/STOL capabilities either, it can make do with short takeoff and landing capabilities, too.
A close air support bird ... that's a plane that could actually use V/STOL.

Didn't they cut out the laser designator in the design, too?

[CptWinters]

Didn't we discover that Phantoms (and similar high performance aircraft) make worthless close air support in Vietnam?
Silly USAAF

Well yes, but you have to understand that it would cost less money to replace the A-10s with new A-10 type aircraft then it will cost to replace them with F-35s. Therefore we can't go that route because *mumblegrumblemumble*. Understand?

Pretty much sums up the US Military's entire procurement policy.

[Arioch]

I thought they already cut the Marine V/STOL version of the F-35.

I'm not worried about close-air support; helicopters can do that. I'm worried about the fact that they stopped F-22 production, and the F-35 is no replacement for the F-22. It's like stopping F-15 production in 1980 and relying on F-16's. F-16's are nice, but they're not better than what the other guy has.

[TrashMan]

Nothing can replace the A-10. Taht thing is a flying tank.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn10 ... /gau-8.jpg

[Absalom]

According to Wikipedia, they didn't stop it, just reduced the requirements a bit.

As for the F-22, the theory they're claiming is that they don't think a big enough war to need more will come along. The F-35 realistically wasn't even expected to replace it, just to take on every other job. Of course, how long Lockheed will go before they try to pitch the F-35 as a full replacement, so they can sell more...

I'd say that the Army should resign themselves to buying F-35Bs & strapping on some Gau-8s, but the plane would probably fall apart if they tried.

[GeoModder]

The Harrier is a V/STOL, too, technically, but they almost never use the vertical takeoff capability, as far as I know.

The vertical landing ability on the other hand...

[fredgiblet]

I'm not worried about close-air support; helicopters can do that.

A-10s have double the cruise speed, significantly heavier payload and I believe better loiter time compared to the Apache. Additonally helicopters require a crew of two (though if I were redesigning the A-10 I would strongly consider adding a WSO), and require more training to fly in general. The Apache is nice, but it's not really the same thing as an A-10.

I'm worried about the fact that they stopped F-22 production, and the F-35 is no replacement for the F-22. It's like stopping F-15 production in 1980 and relying on F-16's. F-16's are nice, but they're not better than what the other guy has.

Indeed, at the very least they should be pursuing upgraded F-15s.

According to Wikipedia, they didn't stop it, just reduced the requirements a bit.

So it can't meet the requirements and it screwed the other versions, obviously instead of dropping it we should just reduce the requirements.

As for the F-22, the theory they're claiming is that they don't think a big enough war to need more will come along.

In truth this is a valid point, doesn't make me any happier about it.

[Trantor]

I'm not worried about close-air support; helicopters can do that.

A-10s have double the cruise speed, significantly heavier payload and I believe better loiter time compared to the Apache.

Plus waaaaay more firepower (a heli can´t be a platform for the GAU-8 because of it´s huge recoil force), less vulnerable and they´re cheap, roughly half the price of an Apache plus way cheaper and quicker maintenance.


Also back OnT: Is Reed going "Reedshirt"?

[javcs]

The Harrier is a V/STOL, too, technically, but they almost never use the vertical takeoff capability, as far as I know.

The vertical landing ability on the other hand...

True. Vertical take off on a fixed-wing aircraft is almost always going to be unnecessary, and a bitch to include. Vertical landing ability is actually something that's useful.


A modern equivalent of the A-10 would be an incredible plane.


@Absalom - the Air Force would never allow the Army to buy F-35Bs and add Gau-8s. The Air Force barely let the Army have helicopters, and if they could, would probably try to take away both Marine and Navy Aviation, and amalgamate it all into the Air Force. This would be an terrible idea to anyone outside the Air Force, except maybe some politicians.
What should happen is the Army should be allowed to support it's own Army Aviation Division, which should mainly consist of helicopters, and close air support aircraft, though perhaps some other ground attack aircraft as well. Then, the Army could make itself happy and get an updated derivative of the A-10, and the Air Force wouldn't need to keep its A-10s anymore, which would make it happy.
Also, we should stop trying to design by committee, and stop trying to have a single aircraft be capable of doing everything that we need aircraft to do.

[Mr Bojangles]

Ah, the A-10. Ugly as sin, but a damn good plane. And seeing that cannon let go is, quite frankly, awe-inspiring. The F-35 ground attack variant couldn't possibly match it.

I'd say that the Army should resign themselves to buying F-35Bs & strapping on some Gau-8s, but the plane would probably fall apart if they tried.

I don't think the GAU-8 would fit into, or onto, the F-35 airframe, though I think it would be hilarious to see. Also, the US Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing combat aircraft. Sometime after WWII, the Air Force pitched a fit to keep fixed-wing combat aircraft away from the Army. It's still something of a contentious point, and the Air Force isn't too happy that the US Navy and USMC maintain their own air wings.

[Absalom]

According to Wikipedia, they didn't stop it, just reduced the requirements a bit.

So it can't meet the requirements and it screwed the other versions, obviously instead of dropping it we should just reduce the requirements.

Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. Remember, the F-35 is intended to be 'the cheap option' anyways, genuinely difficult stuff is intended for other airframes (e.g. the F-22) so unless they completely botch the job the F-35 should be able to handle whatever they assign it to. As for the Harrier: it is, from my understanding, very much of it's era. If they started again from the proof-of-concept design then they might get good results, but the Harrier fleet is old & in need of replacement, so one way of another new airframes are needed.

@Absalom - the Air Force would never allow the Army to buy F-35Bs and add Gau-8s. The Air Force barely let the Army have helicopters, and if they could, would probably try to take away both Marine and Navy Aviation, and amalgamate it all into the Air Force. This would be an terrible idea to anyone outside the Air Force, except maybe some politicians.

The Air Force can have that when their highest ranks are dominated by Marines, Navy, & Army brass .

What should happen is the Army should be allowed to support it's own Army Aviation Division, which should mainly consist of helicopters, and close air support aircraft, though perhaps some other ground attack aircraft as well. Then, the Army could make itself happy and get an updated derivative of the A-10, and the Air Force wouldn't need to keep its A-10s anymore, which would make it happy.

Amen, but intelligence is never the first trait of a bureaucracy. That having been said, I have heard it claimed that the Army doesn't want fixed-wing craft because it would have to deal with runways, and even a STOVL aircraft wouldn't ACTUALLY help with that.

Also, we should stop trying to design by committee, and stop trying to have a single aircraft be capable of doing everything that we need aircraft to do.

But we NEED a hybrid heavy-lift/VTOL-interceptor !

I'd say that the Army should resign themselves to buying F-35Bs & strapping on some Gau-8s, but the plane would probably fall apart if they tried.

I don't think the GAU-8 would fit into, or onto, the F-35 airframe, though I think it would be hilarious to see.

Yeah, I was pretty literal about 'strap' .

Also, the US Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing combat aircraft. Sometime after WWII, the Air Force pitched a fit to keep fixed-wing combat aircraft away from the Army. It's still something of a contentious point, and the Air Force isn't too happy that the US Navy and USMC maintain their own air wings.

I recall hearing this before, but can't find any mention of a current regulation. Can you point me in the right direction?

[Fotiadis_110]

the key to the A-10 isn't the ability to fly fast.
It isn't that it can mount loads of missiles.
The A-10 was DESIGNED to suit that epic gun.
I know we aren't facing tank columns, but we don't need to be using the depleted uranium rounds, thats all, and a magazine of ammo for that monster is still significantly cheaper than firing a single Maverick.

The fact they also have developed minigun pods for Anti-infantry purposes to suit more normal combat also helps

The fact you can blow the engine off with a guided missile and the plane still comes home?
Priceless.
Why go for a fast modern fighter?
We already have all the aircraft we need built into the original frame, just send an order to the guys who built it and ask for a quote.

It does it's job perfectly as is: why upgrade the damn thing? It's not like the army replaces it's tanks every 20 years, it just refurbishes them.
I must admit however that planes aren't tanks, and do have a real operational lifetime till you have to replace the damn thing, but why start from scratch when what we have WORKS BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE EVER SEEN? Politicians that's why.

Although I must admit, looking at the F-18 Super-hornet, I'm curious how they'd upgrade the A-10... Maybe a bigger gun? *drools*

___________________

Back on topic for a moment: Alex is a tactical mastermind, with a tendency to enjoy practical jokes.
What he just did was probably a simple analysis: the only Loroi he's ever met with the ability to throw him around is Fireblade.
If she doesn't speak or show reaction to his speaking it could be a sign that Loroi with telekinesis are incapable of speech, or choose to be totally ignorant of using it.
Such intelligence could work wonders for diplomats, you could hold a conversation in front of her without any issues and such forth.
By confirming the one he knows has no such 'flaw' then he can definitely say for certain that others also won't have the same disability.
Hence rendering her lack of speech somewhat of a personal trait, clever boy .


Edit: sniped by Absalom

If I understand the politics correctly the origin of the air force demanding army aircraft as it's own right is due to one simple fact:
Being able to keep tabs on all aircraft in the field of operations.
It's hard enough scheduling all the landing times, refuelling requirements and generally keeping aircraft from flying into each other as it is, giving the army it's own aircraft to work with independently? It's just asking for trouble, and results in needless duplication of roles.
Helicopters aren't such an issue due to low travel speed and low operating heights, but the air war is something completely different.
Unfortunately this does result in the Air Force developing an 'idea' for how their job should be done... a job the A-10 doesn't fit into the generalised profile.
The A-10 is close air support first and foremost, the AF prefers aircraft that can do more jobs, besides, is it really that hard to drop bombs on a target?
(Personal opinion: Well yeah, that's why they realised they needed an A-10 designed from scratch for that very purpose, but hey, apparently they don't think that counts)

[javcs]

According to Wikipedia, they didn't stop it, just reduced the requirements a bit.

So it can't meet the requirements and it screwed the other versions, obviously instead of dropping it we should just reduce the requirements.

Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. Remember, the F-35 is intended to be 'the cheap option' anyways, genuinely difficult stuff is intended for other airframes (e.g. the F-22) so unless they completely botch the job the F-35 should be able to handle whatever they assign it to. As for the Harrier: it is, from my understanding, very much of it's era. If they started again from the proof-of-concept design then they might get good results, but the Harrier fleet is old & in need of replacement, so one way of another new airframes are needed.

The problem with the F-35 is that it was originally supposed to be 'everything we needed' and 'on the cheap'. The two are mutually exclusive, and they're also mutually exclusive with proper function and design.

[quote="Absalom]

@Absalom - the Air Force would never allow the Army to buy F-35Bs and add Gau-8s. The Air Force barely let the Army have helicopters, and if they could, would probably try to take away both Marine and Navy Aviation, and amalgamate it all into the Air Force. This would be an terrible idea to anyone outside the Air Force, except maybe some politicians.

The Air Force can have that when their highest ranks are dominated by Marines, Navy, & Army brass .[/quote]
Yeah, fortunately, it'll never happen.

[quote="Absalom]

What should happen is the Army should be allowed to support it's own Army Aviation Division, which should mainly consist of helicopters, and close air support aircraft, though perhaps some other ground attack aircraft as well. Then, the Army could make itself happy and get an updated derivative of the A-10, and the Air Force wouldn't need to keep its A-10s anymore, which would make it happy.

Amen, but intelligence is never the first trait of a bureaucracy. That having been said, I have heard it claimed that the Army doesn't want fixed-wing craft because it would have to deal with runways, and even a STOVL aircraft wouldn't ACTUALLY help with that.
[/quote]
Their fixed-wing aircraft would need rough-field capabilities, but there's only a change in degree from building a rough airstrip and building a rough helo field or vehicle park. In addition, any fixed wing army base could safely be further back from a combat area than the helo bases can be.
Also, the Army could just look at how the Marines approach their Aviation, and then adjust for the different needs and approaches of the Army and the Marines.

[quote="Absalom]

Also, we should stop trying to design by committee, and stop trying to have a single aircraft be capable of doing everything that we need aircraft to do.

But we NEED a hybrid heavy-lift/VTOL-interceptor !
[/quote]
Don't forget it needs to have Stealth and replace the current generation of AWACS birds.


[quote="Absalom]

I'd say that the Army should resign themselves to buying F-35Bs & strapping on some Gau-8s, but the plane would probably fall apart if they tried.

I don't think the GAU-8 would fit into, or onto, the F-35 airframe, though I think it would be hilarious to see.

Yeah, I was pretty literal about 'strap' .
[/quote]
F-35 wouldn't be capable of being slow enough to actually use a Gau-8 properly, even if it had one.
[quote="Absalom]

Also, the US Army isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing combat aircraft. Sometime after WWII, the Air Force pitched a fit to keep fixed-wing combat aircraft away from the Army. It's still something of a contentious point, and the Air Force isn't too happy that the US Navy and USMC maintain their own air wings.

I recall hearing this before, but can't find any mention of a current regulation. Can you point me in the right direction?[/quote]
I don't think it's an actual regulation issue. As I recall, it's due to politics, and way back when the Air Force was new, it wanted to own every fixed-wing aircraft, and strings got pulled. Unfortunately, it meant Army Air got the shaft; IIRC, the Army had to fight tooth and nail to even get helicopters, and Army helicopters are a couple generations behind the rest of the military, even now.

[Mr Bojangles]

@Absolom - When you said "strap," I actually imagined a sort of bandolier-like sling, around the fuselage and over the wings. The F-35 "Rambo," when you absolutely, positively have to kill everything in front of you, and look impractically ridiculous while you do it.

As for the "regulation," I've never been able to find one. To my knowledge it's a political outgrowth of the US Air Force's roots. Believe it or not, the current Air Force came from the US Army Air Force. It operated pretty independently of the US Army, but after WWII, its leadership wanted formal independence. So, for the first half of the 20th Century, the Army actually maintained and flew combat aircraft. But, at this point, it would be very redundant and expensive for the Army to maintain its own combat air forces. Aside from its helicopters.

@javcs - You are right, the Air Force would love to be the sole source of military air power. But, as you point out, and has been pointed out by many, many others, that would be monumentally stupid.

When it comes to the armed forces, part of the delineation is political. Aside from the Air Force, the other branches have existed for centuries, and have fought tooth and nail to continue to exist as independent entities. There have been a instances (pretty much after every major war) where the Army has argued that the USMC should be dissolved. The other part is practicality. Having one force to do everything would likely be unwieldy, to put it mildly.

[Absalom]

Although I must admit, looking at the F-18 Super-hornet, I'm curious how they'd upgrade the A-10... Maybe a bigger gun? *drools*

Two would be good as well .

If I understand the politics correctly the origin of the air force demanding army aircraft as it's own right is due to one simple fact:
Being able to keep tabs on all aircraft in the field of operations.
It's hard enough scheduling all the landing times, refuelling requirements and generally keeping aircraft from flying into each other as it is, giving the army it's own aircraft to work with independently? It's just asking for trouble, and results in needless duplication of roles.
Helicopters aren't such an issue due to low travel speed and low operating heights, but the air war is something completely different.

Of course, in the case of the A-10, it shouldn't be operating that much higher than the helicopters anyways. Also, my understanding of current operational methods is that in-theater operations are integrated. Back at base, you might have a conventional separation of forces, but out in the field your command structures are somewhat integrated.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't think of any sane reason for it to be otherwise. To the best of my knowledge, the whole 'Future Warrior' & such projects were all about furthering this integration.

None of which is to say that the same old arguments wouldn't be used today.

Their fixed-wing aircraft would need rough-field capabilities, but there's only a change in degree from building a rough airstrip and building a rough helo field or vehicle park. In addition, any fixed wing army base could safely be further back from a combat area than the helo bases can be.
Also, the Army could just look at how the Marines approach their Aviation, and then adjust for the different needs and approaches of the Army and the Marines.

That change in degree is one of size (as in, a proper runway is much larger), and can potentially be pretty major. Further, helicopters can often land on unprepared areas, whereas that can potentially be fatal for conventional aircraft. This is why I suggested the laughable option of strapping a Gau-8 onto a F-35B, instead of some other model .

and Army helicopters are a couple generations behind the rest of the military, even now.

I wouldn't expect this to be that big of an issue, the supposed lack of good water-capable helicopters & airframe-age worries me more than the lack of advanced helicopters.

@Absolom - When you said "strap," I actually imagined a sort of bandolier-like sling, around the fuselage and over the wings. The F-35 "Rambo," when you absolutely, positively have to kill everything in front of you, and look impractically ridiculous while you do it.

It sounds perfect! We'll take 4 at the per-unit cost for 200!

[Trantor]

Although I must admit, looking at the F-18 Super-hornet, I'm curious how they'd upgrade the A-10... Maybe a bigger gun? *drools*

Two would be good as well .

In case of jamming of one cannon it would make a fancy merry-go-round.

I´m also pretty sure there´s no way you can built in a GAU-8 in an F-35 or anything else. Remember: They didn´t fit the cannon into a plane, but rather built a plane around the cannon. And they took very much care on things like center of gravity and center of forces because they learned from earlier failures.
In 2nd world war the Luftwaffe fitted 50mm-cannons to the ME 262, but results were mediocre at best; main problem was a wandering center of gravity when they spend their rounds and their fuel. Plus, the ME was a bitch to fly in low altitudes.

[NOMAD]

I find this whole discussion to be interesting because many of the points that are being drawn up and simular to what is being discussed but decision makers all around the world who are buying the F-35.

the basic concept i agree with, the F-35 being an "affordable" multi-role stealth fighter that is adaptable to different roles (IE A model is for the air force ( light and more for dog fighting and light strikes), B is the more stronger navy version and the C being the marine VTOL/STOL replacement for the harrier). One plane to sever in all the US forces and other NATO countries (with the plane being adapted to different climates and tailor to each countries needs). The other plus is in a war situation, with everyone has having the same plane ( more or less) supply and parts avaliablity is less of a burden ( IE instead of having 12-20 plane types you have 2-3 types).

However,as javcs pointed out trying to get the level of flexibility and cheap is not practical nor workable for the foreseeable future (and one of the major reasons why some many countries and even the US is reducing or cancelling their orders because of the high per-unit cost in a depressed and debt-ridden countries). heck, even the price has not been fixed and is changing with every order ( few plane = increase unit costs to make up for all the R/D testing flying etc).

Besides, the way the current global counter-insurgency war is being fought (with side conflicts like Libya) cost is a major factor in the war ( look at how drones and UCAV have exploded given their cheaper unit and running cost, less rick in manpower ( and recovering downed pilots in danage enemy territory). yes their is a risk of key tech being reverse engineered ( IE the Stealth black hawk that crashed, while taking out Osama, was remarkably and quickly removed to parts unknown in a very short time )

Now I not against the F-35 concept nor the actual plane ( with is a neat combination of roles/abilities in one plane). But what I don't like about the program is trying to buy a plane that is still having teething problems ( and facing cancellation in the US). Sure their was a competition between rival aircraft (IE Boeing/McDonald Douglas F-32) and the better won: yet the final product is still a year or more away. As well, the full capabilities and limits of the F-35 are not known with a definite degree of certainty.

If the US can pull off a successful F-35 program then it will be an achievement and proof the critic of the program wrong. If the US jumps the gun with a so-so aircraft then defence of the nation and war fighting may suffer for it.

I find it ironic that the US is trying to develop a purpsoe multi-service fight when a singel Navy fighter interector became that in the 1960s and early 1970`s. the good old F-4 phantom