Reply With QuoteEnlighten me and don't come up with pursuit squadrons and air-lift.Originally Posted by C.Puffs
The F-35 wont be detected and hit as easily, the A-10 can take much more damage but thats only important with AA guns and MANPADS as everything lager will kill both with a single hit.
Enlighten me and don't come up with pursuit squadrons and air-lift.
Interdiction, CAP, air defense suppression, just off the top of my head.
Whatever happened to the new bomber discussion?. We seemed to be stuck at talking about current and past.
Well, there is really not much to discuss other than, "they're looking at something. . .maybe".
So you're saying theres a chance
I agree, but in a CAS scenario, you are more likely to encounter (mobile) AA gun systems and MANPADS. In a situation like this, I would like to be in a more survivable aircraft, which can take some abuse.
The more survivable aircraft in that situation may very well be the F-35. It can defeat radar-guided AAA & SAM and unlike the slow A-10, it can quickly get out of range of ground fire.
An interesting article about the F-35 and the CAS role :
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2519.html
Many misconceptions debunked.
At close range, radar stealth doesn't provide that much of an advantage, not to mention modern AAA systems have integrated electro-optical targeting systems as well. I imagine neither aircraft won't be flying serious CAS missions before SEAD units perform their task. This needs to be taken into consideration, it's not only plane vs. plane, how the planes are used also matters. F-35 does indeed have the speed advantage, though. But the main flaw of F-35, at least in my mind, still remains - it relies heavily on PGMs (which are expensive), with no real alternatives. A-10 has a large magazine for 30 mm shells, on the other hand.
There is also a proposal to remove the pilot from the cockpit - A-10PCAS. This development is even more interesting.
CAS is about supporting the grunt.
TAC is about controlling the air space.
Because making the situational awareness of the platform even worse is somehow good thing?!
Last edited by PMI; 05-11-2012 at 04:54 PM.
CAP is about controlling the airspace. TAC includes things like destroying bases, routes of resupply (bridges, roads, etc.), and blowing $hit up in general.
When you are talking about large aircraft capable of carrying upwards of ten tons of munitions and a massive amount of fuel, the extra weight required for a cockpit and the associated environmental and safety systems becomes relatively insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
About that solar powered theory, i dont know if it was brought up yet but NASA's Pathfinder proved it is not about unicorns and rainbows
Sure it wasnt loaded up with 20,000 lbs + of ordanance, but the technology is there
.... and local reconnaissance, local air defense for ground installations, and forward air controllers.
I think it would be wise to transfer the TAC mission (including CAS) to the Army, and get rid of the fixed-wing restriction. The Army would need a dedicated CAS/anti-armor aircraft to replace the A-10, a front-line fighter/bomber (F-35B?), and a light COIN aircraft (light prop attack aircraft). I would also transfer the C-130 gunships and Predator drones to the Army. In addition, I would like to see the Army get its own in-theater tactical airlift capabilities (C-27J or a shortened C-130?). Also, some dedicated battlefield recon assets would be good (a C-27J w/ SAR?). This would leave the USAF all the strategic tasks like air superiority, deep interdiction, long-range heavy bombing, long-range recon and heavy inter-theater airlift.
Of course, the Air Force will never allow it.
In order to generate enough energy, Pathfinder had to be constructed of very flimsily material. Pardon the pun, but that won't fly when it comes to military hardware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Pa...Specifications
Posting Permissions
