A-10 vs F-35 - taking (virtual) bets

[zantron]

F-35 can still fill in that role barring minor problems like loiter time.

uh, thats a minor problem?!

[OutOnTheOP]

 

Also I don't really see the point in comparing the A-10 with local artillery as then you're essentially comparing air support with artillery support, and as you know there often be cases where one or the orther isn't available. Furthermore artillery support also relies completely on your coordinates as a fire support officer, where'as by comparison an Apache or A-10 can actually keep track of and engage a mobile threat that you the grunts on the ground can't see anymore.

 

Anyway just my thoughts on the matter...

 

That's the thing, though: comparing CAS to CCA to mortars to artillery is EXACTLY the comparison we should make, because the goal is not to determine "what system is best at loitering the longest and making low gun runs the best", it is "what system is best at most rapidly and effectively providing the required battlefield effects", and quite often, not only is the answer to that question not the A-10, its NOT EVEN CAS AT ALL.

 

CAS is nice in a non-contiguous (IE, COIN) battlefield, because, as you point out, the forces may not always be in range of a surface-fired system. However, that's unlikely to be the case in a high-intensity conflict, where there will be far more well-defined front lines and much more concentration of assets (and the artillery crews will actually be manning their guns instead of playing infantry redux thanks to ROE that prevent using their guns in the first place). CAS will always be required in support of special operations, who operate way beyond the range of surface fires. It'll always be required for COIN because of the vast distances the COIN force must control (but again, you probably don't need anything quite as powerful and sophisticated as the modern A-10C for the job). It'll always be required for airborne operations, because parachute forces cannot generally bring enough heavy weapons and artillery of their own. It's kind-of necessary for air assault, but they can usually bring a lot of heavy weapons, and have gunship helicopters anyway. However, for the majority of the units in the US military, CAS is a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have.

 

For most up-close-and-personal fights, the infantry (and supporting armor and artillery) actually have better weapons for dealing with the enemy- to include armor- within a couple kilometers of themselves than CAS. They don't need CAS to kill the stuff they can kill themselves with sabot, Javelin, CDTE airburst grenades, and mortar/ artillery fires. In that scenario, all CAS is doing is providing another source of fires, which are less timely and lower volume than the artillery is already providing, and which isn't accomplishing anything the artillery isn't already... except that the artillery often has to cease fire to allow the CAS into the area.

 

No, it's stupid to use airpower to attack the targets that surface fires are already successfully prosecuting. Instead, air should be used to engage the targets that surface fires CAN'T successfully engage. By conducting BAI and interdiction missions, killing armor reserves behind the lines, disrupting artillery behind the lines, and crushing the supply lines behind the lines, air power provides a much greater force multiplying effect than it would by simply directly attacking forces already in contact.

 

And for that mission, an F-16 or F-35 is as, if not more, well suited than an A-10.

Edited May 6, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

uh, thats a minor problem?!

 

What exactly *is* the loiter time for the F-35, anyway?

 

I mean, we know roughly it's maximum cruising radius, so we can work out it's endurance at cruise speed... but best-distance cruise speed is not the same as best-endurance cruise speed. I'm sure the F-35 will happily cruise at 250 knots at ridiculously low power settings, if you want.

 

And since it can do so with clean aerodynamics even with an 8x SDB CAS loadout, and since it does so at much higher altitude than the A-10, I would not be surprised if the F-35 maximum loiter isn't too terribly far off that of the A-10.

Edited May 6, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Sweep]

90 min at 200 nmi, not sure if its internal A/G or external.

 

Quicky edit, that's for an A.

 

Also, if its internal, note that there's no mach limit...So transit to a tanker *could* be far faster than just about anything else (except a B-1! Probably...).

Edited May 6, 2016 by Sweep

[OutOnTheOP]

90 min at 200 nmi, not sure if its internal A/G or external.

 

Quicky edit, that's for an A.

 

Also, if its internal, note that there's no mach limit...So transit to a tanker *could* be far faster than just about anything else (except a B-1! Probably...).

 

 

90 min at 200 nmi, with loiter conducted at what speed, though? If they're claiming 90 minutes at, say, 500 knots, I'd bet it'll do 150 minutes at 300 knots loiter. Sure, distance-traveled fuel efficiency would drop if it was below optimum cruise, but time-aloft fuel efficiency would almost certainly increase.

[Sweep]

90 min at 200 nmi, with loiter conducted at what speed, though? If they're claiming 90 minutes at, say, 500 knots, I'd bet it'll do 150 minutes at 300 knots loiter. Sure, distance-traveled fuel efficiency would drop if it was below optimum cruise, but time-aloft fuel efficiency would almost certainly increase.

 

Not sure on the specifics - I kinda doubt 422nd would give those out for free! :P

[RoflSeal]

When the F-35s flew to Oshkosh, figures given were 5000lbs of fuel burned in 2hrs 10 minutes at 270KIAS in the 900 mile flight.

[Mike5560]

When the F-35s flew to Oshkosh, figures given were 5000lbs of fuel burned in 2hrs 10 minutes at 270KIAS in the 900 mile flight.

 

Assuming flight as the crow flies with 270 KIAS as the average, then that checks with a 415KTAS at about 34,000 feet cruising altitude.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Mike5560

[OutOnTheOP]

Not sure on the specifics - I kinda doubt 422nd would give those out for free! :P

 

...and that's why we're swagging it on fuzzy maths =P

 

When the F-35s flew to Oshkosh, figures given were 5000lbs of fuel burned in 2hrs 10 minutes at 270KIAS in the 900 mile flight.

 

Alright, so we're looking at 6-8 hours total time aloft on full internal, maybe reduced to 4-6 once ordnance is added; possibly more loiter at lower speeds (though I'm not sure you'd want to get much below 270 indicated) Doesn't seem to me like there's any lack of loiter.

Edited May 7, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Sierra99]

Not sure you'd get any different from many riflemen, though; they love the A-10 because they have been told, again and again, how amazing it is. It is literally a meme. That doesn't mean the A-10 *is* better, but plenty of riflement think it is.

 

That's funny. You really believe the people with first hand experience on the ground are mindless trolls who aren't making informed decisions and basement fighter pilots like you know what's best.

 

Some urban myths are just self-perpetuating.

 

So you realize how arrogant you sound?

[probad]

That's funny. You really believe the people with first hand experience on the ground are mindless trolls who aren't making informed decisions and basement fighter pilots like you know what's best.

 

 

 

So you realize how arrogant you sound?

 

perhaps I should point out that for YEARS, I was a fire support officer. You know, the ACTUAL guys on the ground. The ones that have to actually figure out how to "make it to breakfast".

 

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol: :doh:

[Sierra99]

What exactly *is* the loiter time for the F-35, anyway?

 

I mean, we know roughly it's maximum cruising radius, so we can work out it's endurance at cruise speed... but best-distance cruise speed is not the same as best-endurance cruise speed. I'm sure the F-35 will happily cruise at 250 knots at ridiculously low power settings, if you want.

 

And since it can do so with clean aerodynamics even with an 8x SDB CAS loadout, and since it does so at much higher altitude than the A-10, I would not be surprised if the F-35 maximum loiter isn't too terribly far off that of the A-10.

 

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt Incorrect.

 

"Crucial hardware within the F-35B's weapons bay interferes with the full contingent of eight SDBs being carried, thus the bay needs to be redesigned to accommodate this very necessary loadout. As a result, the F-35 program has delayed the integration of this key weapon as a whole until 2022, at which time modifications to existing aircraft, which there will be many, will supposedly take place."

[Tirak]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt Incorrect.

 

"Crucial hardware within the F-35B's weapons bay interferes with the full contingent of eight SDBs being carried, thus the bay needs to be redesigned to accommodate this very necessary loadout. As a result, the F-35 program has delayed the integration of this key weapon as a whole until 2022, at which time modifications to existing aircraft, which there will be many, will supposedly take place."

 

Grasping at straws already? As you yourself note, this issue only affects the F-35B, the Marine version replacing the AV-8B Harrier. The SDB issue affects the SDB II, the issue has been known about for quite some time. The fix is literally moving two lines a few inches over to the side to prevent conflict. This change is well within budget and will not delay the program as this upgrade has been planned for to coincide with SDB II integration with the airframe and other changes to the bays that may be required. They opted to do it this way so that they'd only have to make this change once, rather than several times in piecemeal fashion.

[Hummingbird]

Thing is... it's not. The 7.62x39 is a terribly anemic round, and at 300 meters has under 2/3 the energy on it that a 62-grain M855 5.56x45mm does. 7.62x39 comes out about 700-800 feet per second slower, and the round is very unaerodynamic, so what little energy it does have, it quickly dumps through air resistance. It has something like 8% more energy at the muzzle, but somewhat less by the time it reaches 100 meters. The one thing 7.62x39 does well is penetrate low-density, thick intermediate barriers like wood or cinderblock- but that's not a function of the cartridge itself, it's because the Russians were cheap and used mild steel instead of lead in the bullet core. It *also* means the bullet doesn't deform in any way in tissues, so it actually causes a pretty mild wound, comparatively speaking. You can accomplish the same with 5.56x45mm by using the M995 armor-piercing round: it will zip right through intermediate cover as well as the 7.62x39 does, and it'll make little icepick wounds just like the 7.62x39, too.

 

There ARE better rounds out there, but 7.62x39 isn't it (for example, if you open the case neck of the 5.56x45mm up to 6mm, and put in a decent 87-grain 6mm bullet, it will fly a trajectory similar to 7.62x51mm NATO, and will have 30% more energy at the muzzle than 5.56mm M855, and something like twice the energy at 500 meters because the bullets are much more aerodynamically efficient. It's the caliber I'm using for a project gun I'm working on at the moment).

 

Aaaaand, sorry for the de-rail.

 

Just out of curiousity I went to check out the ballistic coefficient of Tula manufactured 7.62x39mm FMJ ammunition and it is listed at 0.304 G1 with an average muzzle velocity of 758 m/s. Kinetic energy is 1996 Joules at the muzzle and 995 Joules at 300 m.

 

By comparison, and quite amusingly, the 5.56mm M855 projectile's BC is exactly the same 0.304 G1, with a kinetic energy of 1661 Joules at the muzzle and 787 Joules at 300 m.

[OutOnTheOP]

Just out of curiousity I went to check out the ballistic coefficient of Tula manufactured 7.62x39mm FMJ ammunition and it is listed at 0.304 G1 with an average muzzle velocity of 758 m/s. Kinetic energy is 1996 Joules at the muzzle and 995 Joules at 300 m.

 

By comparison, and quite amusingly, the 5.56mm M855 projectile's BC is exactly the same 0.304 G1, with a kinetic energy of 1661 Joules at the muzzle and 787 Joules at 300 m.

 

Tula is either inflating their claimed BC, or has produced an upgraded ammunition from the military issue. I lean toward "they're lying". Lab- measured G1 BC for M43 and M67 is almost impossible to find, because the Russian military uses a different measuring system, not G1/ G7 BC (unless you want to rely on wikipedia?) Every commercially available 123gn .310 bullet out there is in the range from 0.260 to 0.280. This includes all-copper bullets and ones with polymer nose inserts (both of which greatly improve BC over a conventional solid core jacketed design). I find it hard to believe that the M43 or M67 breaks 0.28 BC. Having shot plenty of surplus M43, I can say that the math doesn't add up for a BC of .304; the observed drop from actual firing is greater than would result from .304. That means either a) the MV is lower I was calculating for, or b) the BC is lower than 0.304... but I've verified the MV on a chrony, so it must be the BC. Observed results line up closer to 0.28 G1 BC, possibly a little under. Sellier & Bellot, a Czech manufacturer that produced ammunition under the Warsaw Pact, distributes 123gn FMJ with an advertised 0.276 G1 BC, in line with observed results from my testing, and I have no reason to believe they went through the effort to re-tool their production line away from the military issue design.

 

Anyhow, I was comparing M43 non-AP (BC 0.28 and MV 2337 as verified on chronograph and through observed ballistic drop) with M855 (BC 0.304 and MV 3215, also verified on chronograph and verified through observed ballistic drop); IE the two issued rounds, as fired through issue-length barrels (20" M16 vs 16.3" AKM; the Tula claimed MV may be for a longer barrel?) This means at the muzzle, you're looking at 1503 ft-lb energy on the 7.62x39 vs 1431 ft-lb on the 5.56x45. However, at 300 meters, it's a mere 643 ft-lb on the 7.62, and 734 on the 5.56 for a 20% energy advantage to the 5.56mm

 

Yes, the 7.62x39 starts with a little more energy... but it's kind of irrelevant, as it is a steel-core bullet that will never deform in tissue, so it will never dump that energy into the target the way a fragmenting 5.56x45 M855 will (with reliable fragmentation at impact velocities above 2600 FPS, IE out to around 200 meters; feel free to check with Dr Martin Fackler's work on the subject). To get any sort of deformation, you must go with a lead-core military issue 7.62x39, which means M67, which is shorter than the M43, and has no boat-tail, so it's BC plummets to something around 0.245.

 

If we want to start talking aftermarket, improved rounds (or AP rounds), I would not be surprised if Tula managed to make a .310 caliber bullet with a .304 BC by putting on a very aggressive boattail (and perhaps polymer insert or airspace to lengthen it), but at the same time, the Mk262 (aka SMK 77gn HPBT) for the 5.56x45 has been introduced into limited military service and launches a 77gn bullet to ~2950 FPS with a BC of .372 (for 1496 ft-lb at muzzle and 855 at 300 meters). Likewise, the new M855A1 is the same weight as M855, but significantly longer, and with a much more pronounced boat-tail, which will lead to BC improvement... how much, hard to say. I would guess in the 0.350-ish range. So even if we look at improved rounds for each, the 5.56 is still pushing higher velocity and better BC. It's just the limitations of the x39. When you make a cartridge with a proportionally small case capacity and comparatively large bullet, it will not have tremendous performance, and when you use a short, light bullet (for caliber), BC will suffer.

 

Anyhow, there's a reason the Russians went away from the 7.62 and moved to 5.45x39.

 

I'd be happy to discuss more in PM, but I suspect some folk are getting impatient with our thread de-rail.

Edited May 7, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Hummingbird]

Tula is either inflating their claimed BC, or has produced an upgraded ammunition from the military issue. I lean toward "they're lying". Lab- measured G1 BC for M43 and M67 is almost impossible to find, because the Russian military uses a different measuring system, not G1/ G7 BC (unless you want to rely on wikipedia?), but every commercially available 123gn .310 bullet out there is in the range from 0.260 to 0.280. This includes all-copper bullets and ones with polymer nose inserts (both of which greatly improve BC over a conventional solid core jacketed design). I find it hard to believe that the M43 or M67 breaks 0.28 BC. Having shot plenty of them, I can say that the math doesn't add up for a BC of .304; the observed drop from actual firing is greater than would result from .304. That means either a) the MV is lower I was calculating for, or b) the BC is lower than 0.304 But I've verified the MV on a chrony, so it must be the BC. Observed results line up closer to 0.28 G1 BC, possibly a little under. Sellier & Bellot, a Czech manufacturer that produced ammunition under the Warsaw Pact, distributes 123gn FMJ with an advertised 0.276 G1 BC, in line with observed results from my testing, and I have no reason to believe they went through the effort to re-tool their production line away from the military issue design.

 

Anyhow, I was comparing M43 non-AP (BC 0.28 and MV 2337 as verified on chronograph and through observed ballistic drop) with M855 (BC 0.304 and MV 3215, also verified on chronograph and verified through observed ballistic drop); IE the two issued rounds, as fired through issue-length barrels (the Tula MV seems to be for a longer barrel?) This means at the muzzle, you're looking at 1503 ft-lb energy on the 7.62x39 vs 1431 ft-lb on the 5.56x45. However, at 300 meters, it's a mere 643 ft-lb on the 7.62, and 734 on the 5.56 for a 20% energy advantage to the 5.56mm

 

Yes, the 7.62x39 starts with a little more energy... but it's kind of irrelevant, as it is a steel-core bullet that will never deform in tissue, so it will never dump that energy into the target the way a fragmenting 5.56x45 M855 will (with reliable fragmentation at impact velocities above 2600 FPS, IE around 200 meters; feel free to check with Dr Martin Fackler's work on the subject). To get any sort of deformation, you must go with a lead-core military issue 7.62x39, you're talking M67, which is shorter than the M43, and has no boat-tail, so it's BC plummets to something around 0.245.

 

If we want to start talking aftermarket, improved rounds (or AP rounds), I would not be surprised if Tula managed to make a .310 caliber bullet with a .304 BC by putting on a very aggressive boattail (and perhaps polymer insert or airspace to lengthen it), but at the same time, the Mk262 (aka SMK 77gn HPBT) for the 5.56x45 has been introduced into limited military service and launches a 77gn bullet to ~2950 FPS with a BC of .372, so even if we look at improved rounds, the 5.56 is still pushing higher velocity and better BC. It's just the limitations of the x39.

 

Anyhow, there's a reason the Russians went away from the 7.62 and moved to 5.45x39.

 

I'd be happy to discuss more in PM, but I suspect some folk are getting impatient with our thread de-rail.

 

 

This where I got the info on the Tula ammunition:

http://en.tulammo.ru/products/rifle_cartridges/762x39_fmj/

 

A BC of .304 G1 doesn't seem out of place for a lead cored 123 gr 7.62 FMJ, esp. not when considering the ~.280 of the steel cored M43.

 

Anyway as for a direct comparison using std. military ammunition & G7 data this is how the rounds seem to stack up:

 

From this we can at least deduce that the M43 is the more powerful round energy wise out to ~350 m, after which point the M855 takes over. But most engagements don't take place beyond 300 m, so I can see why some soldiers would argue for the 7.62 round, esp. due to its better barrier penetration characteristics, whilst the higher caliber would prompt some soldiers to think that it's also more lethal.

 

As for why the Russians later went with the 5.45x39 round, well I'm sure they saw the sound reasoning behind having a smaller lighter round that you can carry more of and that is much easier to shoot recoil wise. The Russian engineers also wisely went for a very long & slender bullet design increasing the SD and thus achieving a BC of .176 G7 (~.351 G1), which is very respectable for an assault rifle cartridge.

 

That having been said we probably need a seperate thread for this as we're awfully OT at this point :P

[OutOnTheOP]

This where I got the info on the Tula ammunition:

http://en.tulammo.ru/products/rifle_cartridges/762x39_fmj/

 

A BC of .304 G1 doesn't seem out of place for a lead cored 123 gr 7.62 FMJ, esp. not when considering the ~.280 of the steel cored M43.

 

It's absolutely out of place; if you go from a less dense metal (steel) to a more dense (lead), but maintain the same weight, volume will decrease. Since diameter must remain the same, this means that length will decrease. Lower length= lower BC, all else remaining equal. That's why competition bullet makers put lightweight polymer inserts or air gaps (Open-tip-match design) in the bullet: it makes it longer and therefore more aerodynamic, without making it heavier (and therefore reducing MV)

 

I'm not contending that you don't have numbers from Tula that claim a higher BC. I'm contending that they are not honest with their numbers (or at the least, got their numbers from test barrels that are not representative of service rifles). They're a business. They want to make their product look good. Ammunition manufacturers have a long history of inflating their BCs. Most are kept honest by shooters that do just what I did: test shoot it and reverse-calculate BC from where it DID hit, compared to where the claimed BC said it SHOULD have hit. This means that bullets commonly used in competition calibers generally have pretty accurate BC, because the company would pick up a bad rap otherwise (though even Nosler and Sierra *still* fudge their numbers, with my experience showing they often claim 0.005 to 0.01-ish above reality; there is a 1.5 MOA variance between what I ACTUALLY have to hold at 1000 yards vice what Nosler's data CLAIMS I should at my measured MV). However, not many people shoot lightweight 123-grain .310 caliber bullets for long-range (because it's a terrible design for that purpose!), so there aren't as many people interested in making sure the claimed BC for that bullet is accurate, so Tula can get away with fudging it: not many people care. I only did the test shoot and calculations previously because I've had this exact same debate years ago with an S3 major who thought that 5.56x45 was too weak and that we should go back to 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 for standard rifle use.

 

I can see why some soldiers would argue for the 7.62 round, esp. due to its better barrier penetration characteristics, whilst the higher caliber would prompt some soldiers to think that it's also more lethal.

 

That was my point: Soldiers see "bigger bullet" and automatically think "more lethal", and it's not true. The wounding mechanism of the complex-construction 5.56x45mm M855 is more damaging than that of the 7.62x39mm bimetallic M43 series within normal combat distances, and while the M43 is better at penetrating thick, "soft" barrier material like wood and masonry (because the mild steel core doesn't deform or break up), the M855 is significantly better at peforating harder, thinner barrier materials (like helmets, body armor, or armor steel) because it has a lot of velocity and a small frontal area.

 

Edit: the .351 BC for the 5.45, I can believe. It is a pretty aerodynamically efficient bullet, long and thin, with a significant air gap in the nose. And of note, the Mujahideen called it the "adder" or "viper" bullet (translated, of course) when the Soviets used it against them, because of the grievous wounds it inflicted. Curious that they made special note of how lethal it was, when 7.62x39 and .303 (7.7x56R) were their baseline they were accustomed to. Point is, small-and-fast is a lot more effective than it looks like it should be.

 

Edit 2: 2944 FPS for the M855A1, and only 2650 for the Mk262? That data is obviously fired from a 14.5" M4 barrel... which doesn't mean it's not valid, but it's also not representative of the actual performance of the rounds; they have a good 200 FPS more when fired from a 20" barrel. Smartest thing the Marines have done lately is keeping the full-length barrel. I've always thought short barrels are a terrible combination with cartridges designed around velocity. (note I've never argued that the M4 is the optimal design, only that the *cartridge* delivers a lot of energy. Look at an AKSU74 and you'll have the same problems there too). I went out of my way to carry an M16A2 instead of an M4 for just that reason. Everyone thought I was crazy to take it over the "tacti-cool" M4s. Anyhow, the comparison chart is valid for an M4 versus an AKM, but it is NOT representative of an M16A2/A4 versus an AKM. Add a couple hundred FPS to the 5.56mm bullets and you'll see their energy delivery is practically identical at typical combat ranges, and higher at "long" ranges. Even at only 3100 FPS (a low-ball for M16), the M855A1 at 0.152 G7 is holding 856.6 ft-lb at 200 m vice the 822 for 7.62x39 on your chart, or 1331 (M855A1) vice 1521 at muzzle, making the change-over point around 150-ish meters. If we go with milspec 3200+ FPS on the M855A1, it's got even more energy in comparison (at 3200 MV, it's holding 919 ft-lb at 200m) Also... 2557 FPS for M80 ball? Absolutely not; it's milspec to 2750 measured a whopping 78 feet from the muzzle; that puts it at closer to 2850 FPS at the muzzle (and again, I have chrony'd it at 2800+). 2557 is even slower than the actual measured MV for the M118 LR super-heavy sniper round!

 

How do we break out a thread, anyhow? Does the moderator need to do it?

Edited May 7, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Sweep]

Yeah, the mods seem to be very helpful with that if you ask.

[Hummingbird]

It's absolutely out of place; if you go from a less dense metal (steel) to a more dense (lead), but maintain the same weight, volume will decrease. Since diameter must remain the same, this means that length will decrease. Lower length= lower BC, all else remaining equal. That's why competition bullet makers put lightweight polymer inserts or air gaps (Open-tip-match design) in the bullet: it makes it longer and therefore more aerodynamic, without making it heavier (and therefore reducing MV)

 

Well a shorter length doesn't necessarily equal a lower BC at equal weights.

 

The reason people tend to say that longer length = higher BC is because usually a longer projectile length also means a higher projectile weight which in turn increases the sectional density (SD) and the SD is indeed directly proportional to the BC. But in the case of the Tula & M43 the weight and therefore SD remains the same.

 

More important in this case is the form factor and if the Tula projectile for example features a different shaped nose then it can quite easily achieve a higher BC than the longer M43 projectile at the same weight.

 

In other words I wouldn't be so quick to write off a .304 BC as a downright lie, it might very well be real under controlled test conditions, i.e. an indoor lab shooting range (which is supposedly where all modern BC figures come from)

 

How do we break out a thread, anyhow? Does the moderator need to do it?

 

I think it would be ideal if we could get a moderator to move all our OT posts to a seperate thread specifically on this subject.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Sierra99]

This change is well within budget and will not delay the program as this upgrade has been planned for to coincide with SDB II integration with the airframe and other changes to the bays that may be required. They opted to do it this way so that they'd only have to make this change once, rather than several times in piecemeal fashion.

 

So let me get this straight...Every time a new weapon is developed, you're gonna have to redesign the Bomb Bays?

 

That's efficient.

[OutOnTheOP]

So let me get this straight...Every time a new weapon is developed, you're gonna have to redesign the Bomb Bays?

 

That's efficient.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Tirak]

So let me get this straight...Every time a new weapon is developed, you're gonna have to redesign the Bomb Bays?

 

That's efficient.

 

[Sweep]

(video)

 

Dude! That channel is awesome!

 

Thx for the link. :thumbup:

[Sierra99]

That's cute...

 

Every time myself or others listed a reason why specific features of the A-10 made it better for CAS your standard fall back was "Yeah butt the F-35 has..." A feature that in YOUR opinion makes the A-10 obsolete. As such you succeded in running those who disagree with you off.

 

Fact majority of your assertions about what makes the F-35 capable of performing CAS run counter to the research of the people who originally designed the A-10 to perform the CAS mission so I'm gonna defer to THIER judgement.

 

The F-35 is an Albatross. The concept of "One size fits all" just doesn't work when designing Aircraft. You always have to sacrifice performance for in one area to gain performance in another. This is fact NOT hyperbole. If you strip a way everything that makes the F-35 useful, all of the nifty new and shiny...it's not optimized for anything. It flies...but so does an albatross.

 

The F-35 is a great replacement for the Harrier...but it was going to be far too expensive for 1 service to foot the bill. So the defense industry came up with the Joint Strike Fighter. They gave Congress 1 size fits all.

 

The simple fact is The A-10 was optimized for CAS, The F-15 was optimized for Air Superiority, The F-16 was optimized as a lightweight fighter.

 

You cannot say any of those things about the F-35 as an aircraft. You cannot say any of those things about the F-35 performing a specific mission unless you add the word "its sensors" to the sentence.

[Sweep]

The F-35 is a great replacement for the Harrier...but it was going to be far too expensive for 1 service to foot the bill. So the defense industry came up with the Joint Strike Fighter. They gave Congress 1 size fits all.

 

The simple fact is The A-10 was optimized for CAS, The F-15 was optimized for Air Superiority, The F-16 was optimized as a lightweight fighter.

 

You cannot say any of those things about the F-35 as an aircraft. You cannot say any of those things about the F-35 performing a specific mission unless you add the word "its sensors" to the sentence.

 

:doh:

 

So that one time, they looked at historical evidence of air wars, and made something optimized for its task...