F16 to F22

[nekshot]

Merry Christmas! A friend and I were talking of the advancement in fighter planes and I got to wondering what was the most practical advancement of the 22 over the F16? My wandering mind got me on this path after our conversation on the later fighter planes over their predecessor. Keep it simple for me to comprehend!

[BrassMagnet]

Stealth Fighter over conventional fighter.
Harder for the enemy to detect and shoot at, either from the air or ground.

My military specialty was fighter radar and I worked F-14A Tomcat radar for my career. The Tomcat could lockup and shoot down aircraft that could only detect it with threat detectors similar to the "Fuzzbuster" radar detector.
A stealth fighter will have a similar edge over the basic Mig.

The Soviet tactic was to overwhelm us with superior numbers. That will still work against stealth fighters. If our fighter kills ten of theirs before they kill one of ours and they have a numerical advantage of 12:1 then it comes down to simple math and we all passed math!

[GabbyM]

Comparing the F16 to the F22 is off a notch. The F-15 single seat dedicated air to air is the bird the F22 was made to replace. Either the 15 or 22 would blow a 16 out of the air fifty miles before the 16 new they were there. Simple mismatch there. The FA-18 Super Hornet with a nice big Destroyer handy to provide radar energy to the air. Would take out any of them. But then adding in a ship is cheating isn't it. As of last weeks budget. None of the afore mentioned aircraft are in production for 2016.

For an F16 comparison. Rank it against the F105 and A7 Corsair it replaced.

[BrassMagnet]

Comparing the F16 to the F22 is off a notch. The F-15 single seat dedicated air to air is the bird the F22 was made to replace. Either the 15 or 22 would blow a 16 out of the air fifty miles before the 16 new they were there. Simple mismatch there. The FA-18 Super Hornet with a nice big Destroyer handy to provide radar energy to the air. Would take out any of them. But then adding in a ship is cheating isn't it. As of last weeks budget. None of the afore mentioned aircraft are in production for 2016.

For an F16 comparison. Rank it against the F105 and A7 Corsair it replaced.

Not a shipboard radar, AWACS or E-2C Hawkeye.

[oldred]

No mention of the new F35? But then some consider the F35 to be little more than an expensive boondoggle, I'm not saying one way or the other because I simply don't know but for sure it's already getting it's share of bad press!

[BrassMagnet]

No mention of the new F35? But then some consider the F35 to be little more than an expensive boondoggle, I'm not saying one way or the other because I simply don't know but for sure it's already getting it's share of bad press!

Reds and Watermelons (Green outside/Red inside) and Anti-War Activists/Supporters (Our Enemies' Fifth Column/Useful Idiots) always deride, denigrate, and delay any potentially useful weapon.

[dtknowles]

The F-22 can super cruise. Fly supersonic without afterburners.

Tim

[Littlewolf]

a10's and UFO's get my vote haha. im glad i don't have to cast the ammo for the A10

[mtnman31]

No mention of the new F35? But then some consider the F35 to be little more than an expensive boondoggle, I'm not saying one way or the other because I simply don't know but for sure it's already getting it's share of bad press!

The new war birds are very impressive in their capabilities. I watch the F-35 almost daily.

My issue is their cost. It is unbelievable how much their development is costing the tax payers. The numbers are simply staggering. For the most part, these government defense contractors are profit mongering, crooks. Having worked very closely with multiple big-name contractors over the years, I am sickened by the way the government interacts and deals with big defense industry.

In a nutshell, industry promises to build the "next best thing". A couple years later and a couple billion dollars later there isn't much to show for it. Contractor comes back and says we need more money. It's hard to say no when you are already a couple billion committed. Then you end up with projects that drag on for 10+ years. For a comical but truly accurate depiction of how the system works, watch the movie "Pentagon Wars".

Yes, I am a bit jaded, but I see/experience first hand how it works.

Having said that, "kudos" to the few companies that are out there doing good work and keeping a good balance between what the warfighter needs and what the taxpayers should be paying.

For reference, the U-2 was developed and delivered in under two years and under budget. The F-35, by comparison, has been in development for 15 years, is about 3 years behind schedule and has a development price tag of 60 billion$. Total cost is currently sitting at over one trillion dollars! Honestly, I feel like defense companies used to do their work out of a sense of patriotism and profit was not the first concern. Nowadays, it's all about making money, period.

[dtknowles]

There used to be 6 or more big aerospace companies now there are 3. Completion is what used to help control costs. The contractors now have NASA and DOD over a barrel.

Tim

[woodbutcher]

:bigsmyl2:The P51 went from a sketch on a diner napkin to a flying prototype in appx 90 days.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[dtknowles]

:bigsmyl2:The P51 went from a sketch on a diner napkin to a flying prototype in appx 90 days.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

And the relevant point is????????

Tim

[Artful]

There used to be 6 or more big aerospace companies now there are 3. Completion is what used to help control costs. The contractors now have NASA and DOD over a barrel
Tim

That's only because we don't buy outside the country.

Some other Aircraft Companies produce some good planes.

http://www.militarypower.com.br/avi-Tornado-01.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01860/raf_1860811c.jpg

Eurofighter Typhoon
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oYgMSNriRFg/U6GlfGX36HI/AAAAAAAADdY/aBex_s3zvH8/s1600/Eurofighter-Typhoon_-an-agile-platform_credit-Jamie-Hunter.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--hDhlBPeelw/U6G94hEQJrI/AAAAAAAADeE/DCSE2OoDS6M/s1600/rafaleposter.jpg

And you don't need the newest most expensive wiz bang when you are fighting in some of the places we are currently fighting.

And the mechanical is the easy to build part generally (P51) the electronic's is what's really complicated these days.

[Artful]

Not a shipboard radar, AWACS or E-2C Hawkeye.

I thought that the AN/SPY-3 dual-band radar system could do the function of the AWACS within it's operating radius.


The Dual Band Radar (DBR) is the first radar system in the U.S. Navy fleet capable of simultaneously operating over two frequency ranges (S-band and X-band), coordinated by a single resource manager.

It combines the functionality of the X-band AN/SPY-3 Multifunction Radar and the S-band Volume Surveillance Radar (VSR) to provide an unprecedented level of performance and capability to detect and track hostile targets.

AN/SPY-3, operating at X-band with high-accuracy, narrow beam width and wide frequency bandwidth, provides superior coverage and effective discrimination of low-altitude targets.

It also provides target illumination and uplink/downlink capabilities for SM-2 and Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles. Using S-band, VSR delivers effective, all-weather search capabilities via its high-power aperture, and narrow beam width, enabling it to accurately resolve and track targets.

FREQUENCY DIVERSITY AND RESOURCE SHARING

Many search and track functions, such as cued acquisition and precision track (providing high update rate, fire control quality data) can be allocated to either or both frequencies, automatically or through command and control direction.

Environmental phenomena diversely affect the SPY-3 and VSR radars, and the DBR's ability to utilize a multitude of frequencies in the two different operating bands dramatically mitigates these effects. The separate band radar arrays provide extensive search, track and multiple missile illumination capacity, which is essential in support of multi-target raid engagements.

[BrassMagnet]

I thought that the AN/SPY-3 dual-band radar system could do the function of the AWACS within it's operating radius.

You completely miss the point.
This radar protects the ship or task group against incoming aircraft and cruise missiles.

The AWACS and E-2C aircraft work with the fighters.
Targets detected and tracked by the E-2C/AWACS are displayed on the fighter's radar display. Even the targets behind and beside them, regardless of range.
This is a game changer compared to the old paradigm of see only one and be oblivious to all of the rest.

[MtGun44]

Stealthy, supersonic cruise capability without afterburner, meaning that you can actually
do it for more than 3-5 minutes per fuel tank.

Far superior radar, integrated sensors systems. The system exchanges data with AWACS/
JSTARS external battle management systems, giving the pilot huge advantages of sensor
knowledge without lighting up your radar, which eliminates the advantage of stealth,
like turning on a flashlight in a dark room.

Higher maintenance hours per flight hour, not a good thing, although they are getting this down.

Thrust vectoring means it can do maneuvers that are impossible to non-vector thrust fighters
like the F16. Can point the nose at a target at low airspeed, low energy state, not possible with
conventional aircraft. Integrated sensor systems means that the pilot is dramatically more
capable of fighting effectively in a complex, multi-opponent environment.

Bill

[BrassMagnet]

Stealthy, supersonic cruise capability without afterburner, meaning that you can actually
do it for more than 3-5 minutes per fuel tank.

Far superior radar, integrated sensors systems. The system exchanges data with AWACS/
JSTARS external battle management systems, giving the pilot huge advantages of sensor
knowledge without lighting up your radar, which eliminates the advantage of stealth,
like turning on a flashlight in a dark room.

Higher maintenance hours per flight hour, not a good thing, although they are getting this down.

Thrust vectoring means it can do maneuvers that are impossible to non-vector thrust fighters
like the F16. Can point the nose at a target at low airspeed, low energy state, not possible with
conventional aircraft. Integrated sensor systems means that the pilot is dramatically more
capable of fighting effectively in a complex, multi-opponent environment.

Bill

Well stated on all points!

[woodbutcher]

:bigsmyl2: The point was the mention of the 2 years gestation for the U2.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[MaryB]

F35 is a pile of flying junk that has killed pilots!


No mention of the new F35? But then some consider the F35 to be little more than an expensive boondoggle, I'm not saying one way or the other because I simply don't know but for sure it's already getting it's share of bad press!

[BrassMagnet]

All new aircraft kill pilots until we learn their idiosincracies,

[Bigslug]

No mention of the new F35? But then some consider the F35 to be little more than an expensive boondoggle, I'm not saying one way or the other because I simply don't know but for sure it's already getting it's share of bad press!

The frustrating thing. . .the F-35 was advertised as the "cheap" option to the F-22.

Thing is, they got the F-22 through the expensive part of R&D, testing, and up to the point of pretty much being able to cookie-cutter them, ultimately lowering the per-unit cost. But rather, congress spazzed out at prototype and setup expenses and halted production, choosing to go through the whole thing over again for what I understand to be a significantly less capable airplane.

[oldred]

The F35 seems to be having an extraordinarily long development time and a long list of problems, however so did the Raptor and look at what finally emerged! No matter how sophisticated or successful it is it will make little difference if corporate greed makes them so expensive only a few can get into the air!


I sure hope the F35 works out but the one criticism that really stands out is that it made so many compromises in so many ways in the effort to be everything for every branch of the service that it does nothing really well, IOW there can't really be a successful "one size fits all" fighter aircraft but at this point all we can do is wait and see.

I know one thing, every time I plant my butt in the seat of that little Cessna I imagine what it must be like to close that canopy and shove those throttles forward to the roar of those big jet engines! It give me chills just thinking about it!

[nekshot]

WOW, sure love reading your interaction as I am clueless to most of this but I still like to learn. With so few involved in the production of a plane, why can not the govt controll the cost ?? It seems like our govt is committed to turning their heads over the big issues and busting the few who PAY for ALL of this!! However it is a warm fuzzy feeling know these planes(our planes) are setting the trend rather than us looking down some tyrants gun barrel.

[oldred]

why can not the govt control the cost ??


Well they do, it's called taking care of your buddies!

Think about it, how many lawmakers have even indirect ties to these companies? How many lawmakers owe a debt for support from the same companies? How many lawmakers stand to profit politically by having high paying aerospace jobs in their states?

It has all come down to a big game of fleecing the tax payers and the very people who are supposed to be protecting us from this sort of thing are people who stand to profit big time both financially and politically!

[MtGun44]

The F35 has been massively underfunded. It takes so long to develop anything that
the technology changes while it is still in development.

[MtGun44]

If killing a pilot was a reason to dislike an aircraft we would have NO aircraft.

Controlling costs is nearly impossible when you are literally inventing new technology
as you go. When I worked in serious, major weapons systems R&D one of our
standard "jokes" (remember: it ain't funny if it ain't true) was "If you know what
you are doing, it isn't research." A lot of really promising work eventually turned out
to be a dead end, or took far longer than we thought.

Also, when the Democrats get in charge they cut the funding every single time. OK, now
the project will have half or a quarter of the research people and equipment that they
need. This can cause failures, or at minimum, extend development by huge factors,
easily doubling or tripling development times. Then the military is forced to buy fewer
aircraft. If you originally were going to divide the $50 billion dollars development
and production over 3,500 aircraft, you will see a cost of about $14 million per
aircraft. If the Democrats cut that to 187 aircraft, like they did for the F22, then the same
development cost gets divided by 187 instead of 3500. OK, that runs the price up to
$267 million per aircraft......without one red cent of increased development cost.

What do you think an F150 pickup would cost if they built a total of 187 of them, ever?

[GabbyM]

In 1941 we were six months behind in deployment of new technology. In 1945 we were twenty years ahead of anyone else. As soon as we get greedy and fall behind. We will be slaughtered like sheep. It's not about how much it cost to make the weapon system. It's all about how much it cost not to make it. I'll bring your memory to the fleet in Pearl sitting in port in order to save fuel. The fleet submarine torpedoes that did not work because they did scarce testing to save money. We lost 60% of our fleet submarines on there first mission after pearl. We almost lost Australia because of it and we did loose the Philippines and over 100 thousand American GI's. We don't even want to think about what the Philippine people went through. They took Indochina too. How did that work out?

I'm not really a fan of the F-35. However as I stated in an earlier post. We are not told the actual facts of these projects. I recall the F-14 that came in service while I was in college. Huge stink. Along with the B1 bomber. Carter canceled them all as he murdered twelve million people. Starting the war we are in now. Liberals of Carters clan used to falsely quote Navy F-4 aviators as joking. Better to have a sister in a ***** house than a brother in an F-14.

What it comes down to is simple. There is no such thing as a "peace dividend". We are in a constant state of war. We either pay with labor and taxes or our lives and way of life. People who play down the threat are just trying to set us up for the next killing war as opposed to the "cold wars". Then you need to ask yourself who they want to win.

A person must be very confused to think our military industrial complex does not want to win the next war. You can go over on the Boing web site to sign a petition to keep the FA-18 in production. Since the budget last week has no funds for 2016 production. You will see that sixty thousand workers are involved at some level in it's production. Most probably also make parts for the F-35.

What I know is the Air Force agreed to shut down the F-15 line to funnel all the money into the F-22. Then when BO got in he shut down the line in a week. Scrapping more air frames off the line than had been completed. I think we ended up with 80 planes. USAF has had no fighter plane in production since BO took office. The only aircraft that have remained in production were ones with a no cancel clause in the contract. This type of politics has gone on since the 1950's at least. In the end it comes down to the idiots who go to the pools on election day. Voting for a pretty face.

[Artful]

The F35 has been massively underfunded. It takes so long to develop anything that the technology changes while it is still in development.

Say What - 200 Billion OVER ORGINAL BUDGET at this point


Program cost
US$ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US$)1.3 trillion (Overall including inflation), US$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-breakingdefense.com1-11)


Unit cost
F-35A: $98M (low rate initial production (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_rate_initial_production) and not including the engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35costs-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35engcosts-13)
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35costs-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35engcosts-13)
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)


Initial estimated costs of $391.1 billion for a planned fleet of 2,443 planes

[GabbyM]

Say What - 200 Billion OVER ORGINAL BUDGET at this point


Program cost
US$ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US$)1.3 trillion (Overall including inflation), US$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-breakingdefense.com1-11)


Unit cost
F-35A: $98M (low rate initial production (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_rate_initial_production) and not including the engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35costs-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35engcosts-13)
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35costs-12)[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-f35engcosts-13)
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)


Initial estimated costs of $391.1 billion for a planned fleet of 2,443 planes


OK

How much do you think it should cost to keep ahead of the rest of the world. Most of which have a strong desire to destroy us.

Your options are 2.

We al love one another so let's join in a group hug.

We can spend less money and effort then still come out on top.

Just think about that for a while.
As in why do we have the best planes?
Why did we go through Iraq like **** through a goose in 1991.
Why could Turkey right now this day run up through Russia the same way?
I'd just as soon cut them off but that's another argument.

Artful: You have heard all this before. IIRC you are my age. Every new plane that has come along since 1960. Always is what we have now is good enough. . Problem is our enemies have learned how to build those. Or shoot them down. It is a 20 year cycle. We have to build planes to be dominant in 2035 right now. AKA the Sopwith Camel was a ruder kicker in WWI. Not much in WWII.
Time span there was twenty years. You and I already bought the old planes. Now are children get to pony up for the next round.

Only option would be to go out to destroy all our enemies now. The war to end all wars. Oh that seams familiar doesn't it.

When you come up with a plan to end war within the human experience. I for one would be very interested.

Until then we should IMHO plan to win. My opponents say war is only caused by our plans to fight. AKA if we surrender there will be no war. Well I am not playing that game.

[Artful]

Well Gabby - I understand what your saying but I also remember
the Packard Commission.

Remember the Pentagon spending $435 for a hammer, $600 for a Toilet seat, and $7,000 for a coffee pot!

I don't like to see the Military Industrial Complex taking the taxpayer for a ride. Especially when I see us spending all kinds of money for a plane that won't do the job as well as the plane it's replacing (A-10).

God Help us with the people in charge (for the last 7 years!) making decisions like killing F22 and killing F/A 18 and A-10's in favor of the F 35 which can't even do what the F 16's are doing.

[Echo]

In 1941 we were six months behind in deployment of new technology. In 1945 we were twenty years ahead of anyone else. As soon as we get greedy and fall behind. We will be slaughtered like sheep. It's not about how much it cost to make the weapon system. It's all about how much it cost not to make it. I'll bring your memory to the fleet in Pearl sitting in port in order to save fuel. The fleet submarine torpedoes that did not work because they did scarce testing to save money. We lost 60% of our fleet submarines on there first mission after pearl. We almost lost Australia because of it and we did loose the Philippines and over 100 thousand American GI's. We don't even want to think about what the Philippine people went through. They took Indochina too. How did that work out?

I'm not really a fan of the F-35. However as I stated in an earlier post. We are not told the actual facts of these projects. I recall the F-14 that came in service while I was in college. Huge stink. Along with the B1 bomber. Carter canceled them all as he murdered twelve million people. Starting the war we are in now. Liberals of Carters clan used to falsely quote Navy F-4 aviators as joking. Better to have a sister in a ***** house than a brother in an F-14.

What it comes down to is simple. There is no such thing as a "peace dividend". We are in a constant state of war. We either pay with labor and taxes or our lives and way of life. People who play down the threat are just trying to set us up for the next killing war as opposed to the "cold wars". Then you need to ask yourself who they want to win.

A person must be very confused to think our military industrial complex does not want to win the next war. You can go over on the Boing web site to sign a petition to keep the FA-18 in production. Since the budget last week has no funds for 2016 production. You will see that sixty thousand workers are involved at some level in it's production. Most probably also make parts for the F-35.

What I know is the Air Force agreed to shut down the F-15 line to funnel all the money into the F-22. Then when BO got in he shut down the line in a week. Scrapping more air frames off the line than had been completed. I think we ended up with 80 planes. USAF has had no fighter plane in production since BO took office. The only aircraft that have remained in production were ones with a no cancel clause in the contract. This type of politics has gone on since the 1950's at least. In the end it comes down to the idiots who go to the pools on election day. Voting for a pretty face.
A Big Plus ONE!

[BrassMagnet]

WOW, sure love reading your interaction as I am clueless to most of this but I still like to learn. With so few involved in the production of a plane, why can not the govt controll the cost ?? It seems like our govt is committed to turning their heads over the big issues and busting the few who PAY for ALL of this!! However it is a warm fuzzy feeling know these planes(our planes) are setting the trend rather than us looking down some tyrants gun barrel.

When our gov't went into cost control on the F-14A Tomcat their actions were unbelievably stupid. Things like, "Since these cost so much to build 12 of them we will only buy 9 this year." It cost the same amount to keep the production line open to build 12 as it did to build 9, so we paid the same price for the 9 we would have paid for the 12 and we only got 3/4 of a squadron. Two squadrons are required for a Carrier Air Group!

If the Iranians hadn't bought 80 of them (and received 79 of the 80) we would never have had them. Without them we might have had to fight Russia.

[BrassMagnet]

In 1941 we were six months behind in deployment of new technology. In 1945 we were twenty years ahead of anyone else. As soon as we get greedy and fall behind. We will be slaughtered like sheep. It's not about how much it cost to make the weapon system. It's all about how much it cost not to make it. I'll bring your memory to the fleet in Pearl sitting in port in order to save fuel. The fleet submarine torpedoes that did not work because they did scarce testing to save money. We lost 60% of our fleet submarines on there first mission after pearl. We almost lost Australia because of it and we did loose the Philippines and over 100 thousand American GI's. We don't even want to think about what the Philippine people went through. They took Indochina too. How did that work out?

I'm not really a fan of the F-35. However as I stated in an earlier post. We are not told the actual facts of these projects. I recall the F-14 that came in service while I was in college. Huge stink. Along with the B1 bomber. Carter canceled them all as he murdered twelve million people. Starting the war we are in now. Liberals of Carters clan used to falsely quote Navy F-4 aviators as joking. Better to have a sister in a ***** house than a brother in an F-14.

What it comes down to is simple. There is no such thing as a "peace dividend". We are in a constant state of war. We either pay with labor and taxes or our lives and way of life. People who play down the threat are just trying to set us up for the next killing war as opposed to the "cold wars". Then you need to ask yourself who they want to win.

A person must be very confused to think our military industrial complex does not want to win the next war. You can go over on the Boing web site to sign a petition to keep the FA-18 in production. Since the budget last week has no funds for 2016 production. You will see that sixty thousand workers are involved at some level in it's production. Most probably also make parts for the F-35.

What I know is the Air Force agreed to shut down the F-15 line to funnel all the money into the F-22. Then when BO got in he shut down the line in a week. Scrapping more air frames off the line than had been completed. I think we ended up with 80 planes. USAF has had no fighter plane in production since BO took office. The only aircraft that have remained in production were ones with a no cancel clause in the contract. This type of politics has gone on since the 1950's at least. In the end it comes down to the idiots who go to the pools on election day. Voting for a pretty face.

Carter also cancelled our shipbuilding contracts. Our contract said we paid for them anyhow. I remember the CNO being asked about it and he said, "But, But, we have cancellation clauses. We still have to pay for them!" Carter then bragged, "We saved the cost of crewing them!"
A mothballed destroyer which has completed sea trials can be crewed and sent to war. A contract to build one can extend beyond your nation's surrender or destruction.
Carter has been an enemy of this nation forever. Same for BO.

[oldred]

In the end it comes down to the idiots who go to the pools on election day. Voting for a pretty face.

Pretty face?

Then just HOW, prey tell did OBAMA get elected????????? :veryconfu

[popper]

Remember the guy who was told by congress to renovate the big mo? After they just told him to mothball it? We do elect a lot of idiots. Mil. R&D takes 10 years from concept to production, for a NEW product and yes, lots of changes before production. Shrike went to Harm is 2 yrs IIRC, but it wasn't exactly new. With the joint S.S., we have taught the Russians how to do stuff for their military base on the moon. Clinton sent our small jet capability to China. The Arabs are getting trained by us to fight, make electronic stuff, I.T., use our equipment, etc. Tornado wasn't supposed to be a good idea, now we want one. When will we learn? Seems like never.

[nekshot]

When will we ever learn?? Maybe a new party with trump at the head is an answer! I sure am getting tired of 2 parties acting and looking like one! Sorry, thread drift..

[Artful]

Mil. R&D takes 10 years from concept to production, for a NEW product and yes, lots of changes before production.

Let's look at that and go back to 1983!
The United States Navy began the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program in 1983

The A-12
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/06/78/430678ae04bd64122dca3b09a79333c5.jpg
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/navy-mcdonnell-douglas-general-dynamics-a12-avenger-ii-stealth-attack-picture-id10173933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II
oops we killed that after spending $2 billion and just getting to mockup stage...

Enter the AX project
In January 1991, with the cancellation of the ATA and the NATF, the Secretary of the Navy directed that planning commence for a new A-6 replacement program. This new program became the known as the A-X, an advanced, "high-end," carrier-based multi-mission aircraft with day/night/all-weather capability, low observables, long range, two engines, two-crew, and advanced, integrated avionics and countermeasures. The Air Force participated in this new program from its initiation, still seeking a replacement for the F-111 and, in the longer term, the F-15E and F-117A.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=17678&sid=5dbf4d5929f5ff1dee813b4fe3fc217a&mode=view

Enter the AFX project
http://pre10.deviantart.net/ef91/th/pre/f/2013/333/e/c/lockheed_boeing_a_fx_proposal_afx_653_by_fighterma n35-d5pjory.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9a/16/d3/9a16d3abf457574b58e3fdcb0fa71ee9.jpg

AFX project originating in 1991 after the cancellation of the ATA McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12, AX and NATF Projects.

The A-X was intended to be fast, highly maneuverable, and able to conduct a wide variety of autonomous missions. It was to be able to employ air-to-air missiles, antiradiation missiles, precision guided munitions, and unguided or dumb bombs. It was to have the latest survivability upgrades.

The A/F-X was designed as a multi-role attack/fighter aircraft for the Navy and a deep interdiction aircraft for the Air Force in response to a joint operational requirements document.

The A/F-X is expected to have a new airframe configuration that incorporates advanced low-observable and associated materials technologies. The engine was to be from a new generation of engines exemplified by significant improvements in thrust-to-weight ratio and operation at high levels of turbine inlet temperature. The aircraft's avionics suite is expected to draw heavily on the integrated avionics from the F-22 program.

Projected AFX aircraft joint development of USN/USAF needs canceled when Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993...

JAST inherited much of the defunct A/F-X project, and has been partially combined with DARPA's X-32 project and is now called
JSF, Joint Strike Fighter.
The F-35 is the end product of JSF project and

http://havokjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/j31-f35-compare.jpg

The F-35 took its first flight on 15 December 2006. It's still in testing, and training use by the US, UK, Norway and Netherlands - NO OPERATIONAL F-35 IN FIGHTER/BOMBER ROLE.
Let's see the China J-31 First flight October 2012...
T-50 - First flight: January 29, 2010
Japan's ShinShin has prototype built and First flight scheduled 2016

https://markosun.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/china1.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/51/9f/1f/519f1fa579b2dddbd2cb9aaefdafa9ea.jpg

So our fighter first requested in 1983 and flew in 2006 about 23 years later. Yeah, we do it in 10 years.



In the mean time our factory people have come out with
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PVfHwipzoAA/Uil-_b22bdI/AAAAAAAAB2s/iKoB7W7RCvQ/s1600/BLock+III+ppt.jpg
F/A-18 stealth mod's

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/okAGzGbcSe4/hqdefault.jpg
F-15 Stealth mod's

less expensive solutions to updating our existing airframes.

And yes I know that these mod's to existing aircraft won't give all that the F-35's promised to Deliver, but it would allow us to use our existing proven tech base and add a little something to longevity of our aircrew.

[salty dog]

Getting back to the F-22 vs the F-15, the 22 has vectored thrust and can do this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kq43OaTeOY

[Artful]

Yep vectored thrust is a game changer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK1GChMOnrQ

[cainttype]

Remember the Pentagon spending $435 for a hammer, $600 for a Toilet seat, and $7,000 for a coffee pot!


Thread drift warning...
I remember the Air Force suddenly allowing a documentary crew (from the "Wings" series, I believe) to do a full report on the plane that "didn't exist" officially... The B-2 Stealth Bomber.
It was early in the Clinton years, IIRC, and was an attempt to show the public the type of programs that were being threatened by govt closures, and the potential usefulness they provided. After explaining the plane's capabilities, including a flight demo and target-range bombing run, the interviewer sat down with the base commander for a chat.
When asked how such a program could exist in secret?... How can it exist without funding (because it isn't an item in any budget)?... The AF officer smiled, and replied something similar too, "You don't really believe that we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on hammers and toilet seats, do you???"

[35remington]

I have heard that same closing punch line attributed to a zillion different sources, including a line by Judd Hirsch in Independence Day. Given that pedigree it's likely apocryphal.

[cainttype]

That assumption is completely wrong, and couldn't be further from the truth.
I SAW that interview and the documentary that contained it, I didn't hear about it from any second-hand source. It was some 20-odd years ago, and if the reply was already a punch-line, or has been ever since, it is irrelevant... It happened.

Another point made in that interview was the cost... IIRC, each B-2 was estimated to cost $2,000,000,000, and was said to be roughly the cost of building an aircraft carrier.
The program stressed the long-term advantage of accurately striking anywhere in the world within 24 hrs without ever needing more than one refueling, and returning to the US homeland...unseen and unexpected... Pretty impressive stuff, even all these years later.

It isn't news that bean-counters and self-proclaimed government watchdogs comb through every budget item that ever sees daylight. It also isn't surprising that extremely expensive black programs are funded by some obviously imaginative bookkeeping.
How else do you dump tens of billions of dollars on R&D, actually build a bomber squadron, and have it stationed and battle-ready, all while being hidden from the public?
Get real... this type of thing is nothing new.

[Artful]

B-2 black project - couldn't find "Wings"

Battle Stations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2bihncjy0U
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsMrgu_7HQc

Modern Marvels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdhLJBKGFMI

Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=godifMGvf6c

B-2 test pilot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xax4q4Ctdh0

[MtGun44]

The $600 "toilet seat" story is so far distorted that it is getting pretty close to a lie,
but there is a basis for it.

If you want to know what really happened, I can tell you. Very different, and you
would have had the same cost (they charged $600 and probably lost a bunch of money
on every one) if you had been in charge.

Bill

[cainttype]

If you want to know what really happened, I can tell you...

Bill

I'd like to hear it, Bill.
There's no substitute for hearing from someone with first-hand knowledge.

[AnthonyB]

I don't believe the F-22 has yet flown a single combat mission. How many A-10s could we have purchased with that development money?

[Blackwater]

Lots of good points all around, and it's very good to have folks with experience on all sides of the issue to keep us straight. Mostly, I'm with MtGun44 and Gabby, but there's no question about there being graft in ANY and ALL governmental run operations of ALL kinds. Heck! We've even got it rampant in the VA Admin!!! If anyone ever finds a way to eliminate corruption in gov't, especially when it comes to spending, please let us know. As of yet, there doesn't seem to be any way to affect it much except when someone gets caught, and punished appropriately. Maybe what we need to do is ceate a watchdog group? Then, I'm afraid, the watchdog group would get corrupted. There's really not much that CAN be done, in the end, about corruption. If accepting a tolerable amount of it is what it takes to keep us THE super power we've been for a long time now, since WWII, I can accept that, but wouldn't like having to endure the corruption very much. It offends my delicate sensibilities, but survival of freedom and liberty is a LOT more important than my delicate sensibilities!

And if they're doing their job well, they COULD be releasing "bad" info so the enemy will not pursue their own weapons systems quite so diligently, maybe, so .... we never really know if the info we get is real or intended for enemy consumption. This is one of the reasons I just relax and trust those in charge in the military to be the biggest stabilizing factor in chooseing and having our weapons systems developed. These guys USE the stuff that science creates, and their lives often depend on them, so their vested interest is pretty powerful, and really, is probably our best assurance that we're doing what's necessary to maintain our safety and security in the long and short runs. They have a big and awesome job, and no nation's does a better job than we do. I think history reflects that.

What DOES worry me is the way other nations are improving their education systems while we continue to devolve ours. Our whiz kids that develop these new super weapons systems have to come from SOMEWHERE, and this is something we DARE not think we can buy from other nations!!!! We're not growing our garden that produces these grand systems, and the dems are corrupting all the systems of gov't so thoroughly it'd take two terms of the next president just to FIND them all!

And I really think our education system is the biggest concern we have now, maybe even more crucial than the national debt, etc. When we get to a point where we can't create these things any more, we're doomed. And that trumps everything.

[GabbyM]

Just something to think about.
What do you suppose the survivability of an A-10 would be flying attack runs over the North Korean Peninsula? Then ask yourself. As much fun as it would be to fly an A-10/ Would you rather be sitting in the A-10 cockpit or at a OP station in a P-8 flying fifty miles off the coast controlling a flock of Drones. Which BTW would fly autonomously back to a base for reload. Returning back over your assigned area in a steady stream.

When you look into some of this stuff it truly does look like a future filled with nightmares right out of scifi movies. But why wouldn't it? Personally I am sure modern technology will NOT make war less horrible. Back in the 1920's through early 1930's some fools thought humans would not fight another world war because of the emerging horror of aircraft bombers. Peaceful hearted people just don't seam to understand that our enemies want to kill people. AKA they like and enjoy the blood. So in my opinion. There is no amount of power we can hold or project that will stop the next big war. What power does is get other nations on your side. Like the way you see small nations rubbing elbows with Vladimir Putin after he shows power. Even when that power is abused as he did in the Ukraine.

We not only need to replace the A-10 we desperately need to replace the B-52. Both were new planes when I was a kid. I can recall the B-36. I was out of high school in 1973 when the A-10, F-15 and F-14 were coming out. But now I'm sixty and those old birds are forty. F-14 is long gone. In 1973 if you were talking about a forty year old design. Just think of what we flew in 1933. Plus just think of the massive military Saddam Hussein had in 1991 and how we went through it like it was something from the Roman Empire days. A-10 worked very well. It was the last hurrah of the F-4. It was also a quarter of a century ago. I am sitting here thinking of how the US fleet sailed into Havana Cuba to meet the Spanish fleet sailing out to fight. Spanish had wooden ships we had iron battle ships. Our fleet never had to maneuver. Just blew them out of the water to start the Spanish American War. Been a long time since anyone could win a war with twenty year old technology.

[GabbyM]

For some scary look into our future. Do a search engine on DARPA, The USA department created back in the 1950's to bring forth new military tech.
http://www.popsci.com/darpa-wants-more-navy-ships-to-carry-drones


Very important thing to consider is we don't have any patent on the human brain.
Last big war we fought all our AXIS enemies thought they had tech advantage on us. Back then we humanly out numbered them in vast proportion. NAZI Stuka dive bomber worked great against soft targets. JAP had the same plane. Worked for them at Pearl Harbor. My family has always considered our stance pre war as a bait and switch trick.
After all the war did start at just the right time for us to win. Of course our enemies are stupid, right. Not smart like we are.

[dtknowles]

I don't believe the F-22 has yet flown a single combat mission. How many A-10s could we have purchased with that development money?

I would not want to put up an A-10 against a Mig-29 or even an F-16

Tim

[cainttype]

I would fly A-10s against MIG-29s and F-16s anytime, even both at a time... in an Xbox-360 called HAWX.... Absolutely no connection to reality, but a fun game.
Oddly enough, I've actually met a few combat pilots playing that old game... although the vast majority of players are aggressive, blood-thirsty adolescents. lol

[GabbyM]

Well the Navy A-6 had almost zero air to air ability. It was a bomber. So that is not the point. A-6 could carry two atomic bombs from a carrier in the Med to anywhere in Russia one way. Three times the range of our cruise missiles that did not exist when they were deployed. In theory pilots would turn North after run then land on ice to meet up with C-130's to refuel. Which would be load two more 48's then take fuel in the air for another run in. There is a reason we never fought WWIII with USSR. A-6 was a great plane. So was the P-47. Model A Ford was also a ground breaker for automobiles. Things change and move on.

[mcdaniel.mac]

I don't believe the F-22 has yet flown a single combat mission. How many A-10s could we have purchased with that development money?
F22's have, yea. F35s, I don't believe so.

The answer is 0 A-10s. We don't have the manufacturing capability and someone would have to spend a few million reworking all the blueprints to work with modern machinery and probably several billions tooling up a new plant, not to mention sourcing and training the talent.

And then what are you left with? Effectively no air to air capability in a slow easy target that rattles itself apart every time it fires. If we were still planning on flying in to strafe Russian tank columns after quickly taking out enemy air and just relying on the apartment to stop antiaircraft cannons, the A10 would be viable. As is, that's not a mission we're going to fly because mass warfare isn't a thing, and nobody uses AA cannons because modern bombers and fighter/bombers can scream in and drop ordnance faster than a cannon can engage. Everyone has moved to AA missiles, which the A10 can't dodge and is too big and too slow to rely on avionics and electronic warfare to stave them off, so instead of heroically flying through a cloud of flak they'd be shot down quickly.

The A10 is not a CAS aircraft, and trying to make it one qould be as big a waste as the F35. I would caution that the F35 is a problem of constantly changing the requirements, and needing it to be The Best for the next forty years. There's the COTS issue as well. Frankly the F35 is either going to turn around and be fine, or a whole bunch of people are going to get fired.

We need to be replacing the A10 though, and with are mind toward operating more like the USMC MEU model, a battalion landing force than can be on the ground in 24 hours and self-sustaining until the rest of the support shows up. Smaller, lighter, better trained, faster, cheaper, and less dependent on the supply chain. Halliburton and Co don't want that because big wars with a big footprint are more efficient but the reality is that surgical is likely the way forward.

I suggest the Boeing OV10X. Gimballed GAU on the gut with a top of the line EO/IR/ELINT/EW package, long range and hangtime, and standard an docket mounts on the wings. The idea of an docket couple flying squids or Marine aviators in one of those acting as a mini-Spectre while I go hunt for Terry makes me want to stand at attention.

Fixed-wing fast-movers will never go away, and I had to have a friend explain why. I grew up playing first-person shooters, and the thing that can ruin the game is latency, having a slower connection than the other guys. Well, a pilot in the aircraft has 0 latency, he's right there aircraft can respond as fast as his unconscious brain is capable of reacting. A pilot on a ship piloting a drone always has at least some latency, whatever the time it takes for the sensors to zap the signal to the ship and for that signal to be decrypted and read and then that same time lag again for the signal to be beamed back out. Even at the speed of light, that's a hard delay caused by physics, to the tune of a few hundred miliseconds. To put that in perspective, when playing online a ping lag of 200m/s is so jarring that the game is nearly unplayable. You'd get steamrolled in air to air combat.

What I expect to see is more female fighter pilots. They seem to have very good G-resistance, and on average a woman in peak shape has less body mass than a man and is shorter. Weight and size are big factors for aircraft, and someone found that recruiting more women may be more efficient for space exploration as well.

I expect to see more UAVs in support roles, and better communications between the ground element directly to the pilots. Unmanned ground vehicles may become a thing too, like the BigDog but as a transport or evac instead.

I expect to see smaller overall numbers in the military and more focus on the SOF and rapid deployment of small, agile forces, possibly using more light support aircraft to replace native mortars and artillery.

[Artful]

I would not want to put up an A-10 against a Mig-29 or even an F-16

Tim

Not a first choice, but the A-10's are capable of firing two Aim-9 Sidewinders and are more maneuverable than most other aircraft
down in the dirt where they operate
- and don't get in front of that cannon if you want to survive in whatever your driving.
The A-10 has heat-shielded engines
(and sundry other countermeasures)
too keep any heat seeker anti-aircraft missiles from having a easy time of sneaking up it's backside.

A-10s sank enemy warships during the 2011 international intervention in Libya

Warthogs even shot down two Iraqi helicopters with their 30-millimeter cannons.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-08/news/mn-937_1_air-combat

Aerial combat game record
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10-attack-jets-rack-up-air-to-air-kills-in-louisiana-war-game-a2299445b2a4#.a1gox7xfd

[mcdaniel.mac]

Air to air kills against helicopters and a really old Mig don't say much for capability. F15s can do all that and far more, and Boeing can whip a bunch of those up for a fraction of the cost of making new A10s.

I don't know what warships the A10 sank, but unless they were impervious to a Harpoon missile or a quick volley of Hydra rockets that's not real high praise either.

I mean, Carlos Hathcock put a scope on an M2 and used it as an antimaterial rifle, but that doesn't make the M2 a precision rifle, just means someone with limited resources got creative. Or put another way, putting a scope and a new barrel on an M16 doesn't mean it can replace an M40 even if someone makes a few kills at 600m with it.

[Rick Hodges]

...in the meantime the A-10 is performing the ground attack job admirably....and they wish to cancel it and replace it with NOTHING. The F-35, if it is ever operational, can't do what an A-10 does right now in the battle fields we fight in right now. A 25mm cannon with 475 rounds, less underwing ordinance capability (including the weapons bay). More vulnerability to ground fire if it goes low so it can find the targets it needs to hit.
It seems we have spent the last 65 yrs or so fighting "small wars" against third or fourth rate militaries, with weapon systems that were never designed for the purpose. We design weapons for wars that never happen and saddle our troops with systems that just plain suck. I.E. we sent pilots into VietNam with F-105 Thuds loaded with iron bombs to be cannon fodder for Korean war era Migs. A mission they were not designed for and they sucked at it. Even the F-4, as great a plane as it was went to war with one arm behind its back....no gun and missiles that didn't work. It only managed a one to one kill ratio til we put guns in them and went to 2 1/2 to one.....we did better in WWII with the Wildcat vs the Zero.
The reason the A-10 lives on is there is nothing in our inventory that can do the job that needs to be done half as well. It is fine to plan for future battle fields that we might have to face, but not at the expense of the ones we know we face right now.

[Artful]

Air to air kills against helicopters and a really old Mig don't say much for capability. F15s can do all that and far more, and Boeing can whip a bunch of those up for a fraction of the cost of making new A10s.

Does the AIM-9 work differently when launched from F15
than from A10's?

F-15 don't do low level CAS that I know of
- do you have other information?

I wasn't aware of plans to build NEW A10's,
just upgrading existing A10's with new wings
(due to high G force stress cracks in the old ones
after many years use)
and upgraded instrumentation for Night Missions
to give 24 hour CAS support for our troops.

[GabbyM]

Actually the Douglas F-15 line has been shut down for a few years now. They were going to build a few F-18's this year but the budget left out funds.

[mcdaniel.mac]

Does the AIM-9 work differently when launched from F15
than from A10's?

F-15 don't do low level CAS that I know of
- do you have other information?

I wasn't aware of plans to build NEW A10's,
just upgrading existing A10's with new wings
(due to high G force stress cracks in the old ones
after many years use)
and upgraded instrumentation for Night Missions
to give 24 hour CAS support for our troops.
The F15 can get in faster. Nobody us going to authorize an over-the-horizon shot with anything, so the A10's speed is a severe disadvantage. It's not agile enough to attempt real air-to-air and isn't equipped to do the EW/ECM to handle catching return fire.

A10's don't really do low-level CAS well. That gun is massive overkill, and it's okay for what we're doing with it but every hour we put on it is one we don't get back. I mentioned the F15 specifically because the war game against helicopters is exactly what you'd want a multirole fighter for. That was the definition of an air superiority mission, not CAS.

As far as making new ones, others in this thread suggested it. We can make new wings, but the airframes are going down too, and replacing those means building a new plane, which means building a whole new avionics package.

Boeing is still making and refitting F15s for several countries, but that was just an example. Any fast-mover would do. We can keep using the A10's for now, but they're not going to last much longer and if we don't have a replacement we'll be trying to either rope in another bird to cover the gap, or caught with our pants down

[Artful]

The F15 can get in faster.
Than an A10 loitering in the area? Big advantage is time on station vs having to dash in from some further area with F15, F18, F16, F35.

Nobody us going to authorize an over-the-horizon shot with anything, so the A10's speed is a severe disadvantage. It's not agile enough to attempt real air-to-air and isn't equipped to do the EW/ECM to handle catching return fire.
Is the F35 good enough for air-to-air - test against F16 didn't seem to show it, the F35 which is the replacement for the A10 - NOT the F15.

A10's don't really do low-level CAS well.
Gee, according to the guys on the ground it does just fine.

That gun is massive overkill, and it's okay for what we're doing with it but every hour we put on it is one we don't get back. I mentioned the F15 specifically because the war game against helicopters is exactly what you'd want a multirole fighter for. That was the definition of an air superiority mission, not CAS.
The Helio shoot down was target of opportunity for A10 not primary mission but just shows that it can do that if need be to protect troops under it's care.

As far as making new ones, others in this thread suggested it. We can make new wings, but the airframes are going down too, and replacing those means building a new plane, which means building a whole new avionics package.

Last I checked they were already upgrading the avionic's in the A10, have been since 1978.
Pave Penny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pave_Penny) laser receiver pod was adopted, which receives reflected laser radiation from laser designators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_designator) for faster and more accurate target identification
Low-Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement (LASTE) upgrade provided computerized weapon-aiming equipment, an autopilot, and a ground-collision warning system.
Global Positioning System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System)navigation systems and a multi-function display.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#cite_note-24) The LASTE system was upgraded with Integrated Flight & Fire Control Computers (IFFCC)
In 2005, the entire A-10 fleet began receiving the Precision Engagement upgrades that include an improved fire control system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_control_system) (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), and smart bomb targeting. Aircraft which received this upgrade are redesignated A-10C
Boeing was awarded a contract to build as many as 242 A-10 wing sets in June 2007
Re-winging improves mission readiness, decreases maintenance costs, and allows the A-10 to be operated up to 2035.
In February 2014,Secretary of the Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Air_Force) Deborah Lee James (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Lee_James) ordered that development of Suite 8 software upgrade continue, in response to Congressional pressure. Software upgrades were originally to be ceased due to plans to retire the A-10. Suite 8 software includes IFF Mode 5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_transponder_interrogation_modes), which modernizes the ability of friendly units to identify the A-10 as a friendly aircraft.
Boeing is still making and refitting F15s for several countries, but that was just an example.
The F-15 production line is set to end in 2019, 47 years after the type's first flight.

Any fast-mover would do.

We can keep using the A10's for now, but they're not going to last much longer and if we don't have a replacement we'll be trying to either rope in another bird to cover the gap, or caught with our pants down

Gee, you sound like the USAF General's cheering section for dumping the A10's
- were you /are you USAF fighter material? I see the need for speed in your post. :wink:

I see that Boeing is trying to sell the F-15 as Supplement / replacement for F-22 role being the F-22 line was shut down
and it's too expensive to start back up.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/afa/2015/09/15/boeing-positions-f-15-as-f-22-supplement/72316414/

The high cost of the F-22 aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile and comparatively lower cost F-35 led to the end of F-22 production.

A final procurement tally of 187 operational production F-22 aircraft was established in 2009 and the last F-22 was delivered to the USAF in 2012.

Guess the old F-15 can do it with the Silent Eagle upgrade to make it stealthier.

[mcdaniel.mac]

Gee, you sound like the USAF General's cheering section for dumping the A10's - were you /are you USAF fighter material?
Marine Infantry. The 30mm is overkill for CAS. We got the same effect by having an F18 come in hot with the afterburners up as with the A10, or doing a 20mm gun run. The beaten zone is huge on those things. If we need to smash a target, a missile as more accurate and artillery covers a large area very effectively. We don't use them because they're good, we use them because we have them.

The A10 does have hangtime, so if we want to replace that CAS ability something like the OV10x or maybe the AT802u, which is a light utility plane with light ground armor and a good CAS loadout. Alternatively, we keep using Reapers, which also have good hangtime. Any of those is as CAS capable as an A10.

The JSF can dodge missiles better than the A10, likely better than the Hornets as well. Everything is electronics and manuverability. Someone will doubtless link the "JSF can't dogfight" so i'll look for the debunking on that one.

If I sound like the cheering section for dumping the A10, it's because there's no option for keeping them. There are no more 1980s missile batteries that we need to fly A10's through to hammer enemy armor columns, and the A10's are reaching the end of their service lifes. As the airframes fail, we have to scrap them. There is no option to keep repairing them, because we would be completely rebuilding the aircraft. If we're making all new aircraft with brand new avionics, airframes, new factories, and new pilot training programs then it's time to take a good hard look at that particular aircraft and as why we aren't replacing it with something that will answer the needs of the next 40 years instead of the last 40.

The greatest fault of the American military has been our tendency to prepare for the last war instead of the next one.

[Artful]

Well, the next war seems to be 3d world fighting Islam warriors supplied by our "allies".

The reaper is probably the most cost effective CAS when the A-10's finally wear out or 2035 comes around - which ever is first.

I'll have to look up the OV10x and AT802u

I know the SU-25 Ruskie CAS is pretty good, maybe Vlad can sell those to us after the F-35 turns out to be too expensive to use down low and dirty.

[mcdaniel.mac]

Remember the F35 was also supposed to share duty with the F18 and replace the Harrier to some extent as well.

Hence it's death by 1000 revisions.

[GabbyM]

Here are Boings production numbers from 2015.

http://www.waff.com/story/30909315/boeing-reports-fourth-quarter-deliveries

Tow columns are fourth quarter of 2015 then annual total for 2015.



Defense, Space & Security Programs







AEW&C
1


1



AH-64 Apache (New)
5


23



AH-64 Apache (Remanufactured)
5


38



C-17 Globemaster III



5



C-40A



1



CH-47 Chinook (New)
6


41



CH-47 Chinook (Renewed)
10


16



F-15 Models
4


12



F/A-18 Models
7


35



P-8 Models
4


14



Commercial and Civil Satellites
2


3



Military Satellites



1

[AnthonyB]

Many of you guys miss my point. When was the last time the US faced a credible air-to-air threat? The last time a Soldier or Marine needed a dedicated air-to-ground support airframe was two minutes ago.

[AnthonyB]

"The greatest fault of the American military has been our tendency to prepare for the last war instead of the next one."

True for every military in history. But the truth also remains that wars are won on the ground, and an F-22 doesn't offer the grunt anything he can't get from less expensive alternatives.
Tony

[Artful]

The A10 does have hangtime, so if we want to replace that CAS ability something like the OV10x or maybe the AT802u, which is a light utility plane with light ground armor and a good CAS loadout. Alternatively, we keep using Reapers, which also have good hangtime. Any of those is as CAS capable as an A10.


OV-10 Bronco or Super Bronco - it's a dead plane -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco




Introduction
October 1969


Retired
US (1995)


Status
In limited service


Primary users
United States Marine Corps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps) (historical)
United States Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force)(historical)
United States Navy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy)(historical)
Royal Thai Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Thai_Air_Force)(historical)


Produced
1965–86


Number built
360




AT802u was tried but passed over for better alternatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802


In response to the United States Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force)'s LAAR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance)program and the growing requirement for light counter-insurgency aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency_aircraft),[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-FGparis1-5) Air Tractor developed an armed model, the AT-802U, in 2008, with engine and cockpit armor, a bulletproof windscreen, self-sealing fuel tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sealing_fuel_tank), and structural reinforcements for the carriage of 9,000 pounds (4,100 kg) of payload. A reinforced wing spar was certified for 12,000 hours of flight time,[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-6) and the AT-802U was displayed in 2009 at the Paris Air Show.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-7)
The AT-802 has also been used in counter-drug operations in the USSOUTHCOM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSOUTHCOM) AOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_responsibility) by the U.S. Department of State as a delivery vehicle for herbicides and defoliants over narcotics production facilities.
Ten AT-802U were converted by Iomax into an armed configuration with Roketsan Cirit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roketsan_Cirit)2.75" rockets and guided bombs [8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-AirForces_Monthly_Dec_2015_p.29-8) for the UAE Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE_Air_Force). The UAE operated them until November 2015[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-AirForces_Monthly_Dec_2015_p.29-8) when they were replaced by the first three of 24 Archangels on order from Iomax.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-AirForces_Monthly_Dec_2015_p.28-9) The Archangel is based on a similar cropduster airframe, that of the Thrush Model 660 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayres_Thrush),[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-10) however to create the Archangel the basic Model 660 undergoes a much more extensive rebuild in the course of its militarization. Six of the UAE AT-802Us were transferred to the Jordanian Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_Air_Force).[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802#cite_note-11) with a further three being transferred to theYemeni Government Forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Yemen) where they have been used in the 2015 Yemeni Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015)).


Which after testing and political infighting choose the A-29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano




EMB 314 / A-29 Super Tucano


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Aeronaves_%C3%81gata_7_%288780131013%29.jpg/300px-Aeronaves_%C3%81gata_7_%288780131013%29.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aeronaves_%C3%81gata_7_(8780131013).jpg)


A-29 Super Tucano Brazilian Air Force


Role
Attack aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_aircraft) andCounter insurgency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_insurgency)


National origin
Brazil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil)


Manufacturer
Embraer Defense and Security (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer)


First flight
2 June 1999


Introduction
2003


Status
In production


Primary users
Brazilian Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Air_Force)
Colombian Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_Air_Force)
Ecuadorian Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuadorian_Air_Force)
Chilean Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_Air_Force)


Produced
2003–present


Number built
+190


Unit cost
$9–14 million[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano#cite_note-1)

$430–500/hour (operational cost)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano#cite_note-Embraer_Close_Contract-3)


Developed from
Embraer EMB 312 Tucano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_312_Tucano)




Which we are providing to Afghan Air Force along with F16's.

[mcdaniel.mac]

OV-10 Bronco or Super Bronco - it's a dead plane -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco


AT802u was tried but passed over for better alternatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802


Which after testing and political infighting choose the A-29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
The OV10X was an updated concept Boeing put out recently, completely updated.

The 802u is still viable in an area where you have little or no SAM or air to air threat for local air support. The 802 shines because you can ship everything you need in connex boxes and anyone who can fly a Cessna can pilot one. Unlike traditional fighter planes, a team of mechanics can do a complete rebuild of everything out of parts boxes.

Both are viable replacements for what we're using A10s for now and far cheaper than trying to build new A10s.

But again, a Reaper UAV can do most of that, too.

[Rick Hodges]

Oh come on, replace an obsolete 1974 era A-10 with a less capable 1964 era plane that has less firepower and poorer performance than current helicopters? Four 7.62's blazing? Ineffective at high elevations? At least the proposed A6 can carry more firepower than an infantry weapons squad. Is it too much to expect that they have a least the performance envelope and firepower of a WWII Corsair or P-47?
I agree the 35mm in the A-10 is overkill. All you need for antipersonnel and light truck/vehicle destruction is 50cal or 20mm and use the weight saving for carrying more ammo. If you opt for small slow planes that can't operate at altitude you might just as well buy more choppers. The fixed wing has to bring more to the fight.

[Artful]

Let's for giggles and grins compare
A-10C
30mm cannon - 3,900 rpm
The cannon takes about half a second to come up to speed, so 50 rounds are fired during the first second, 65 or 70 rounds per second thereafter. The gun is accurate enough to place 80 percent of its shots within a 40-foot (12.4 m) diameter circle from 4,000 feet (1,220 m) while in flight.
The A-10 is equipped to carry laser-guided bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb). A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 ECM pod (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure) under one wing and two AIM-9 Sidewinder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder) air-to-air missiles under the other wing for self-defense.
Max. takeoff weight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_takeoff_weight): 50,000 lb
Performance


Never exceed speed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vne): 450 knots (518 mph,[159] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#cite_note-Jenkins_p54-160) 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb)[160] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#cite_note-161)
Maximum speed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Regulatory_V-speeds): 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean[159] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#cite_note-Jenkins_p54-160)
Cruise speed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
Stall speed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(fluid_mechanics)#Stall_speed): 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h) [161] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#cite_note-162)
Combat radius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_radius):

CAS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support) mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
Anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nmi (45 mi, 75 km)) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat

Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets:
4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× / 7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively)
4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets)
6× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm (5.0 in) Zuni rockets)
Missiles:
2× AIM-9 Sidewinders air-to-air missiles for self-defense
6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
Bombs:
Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs or
Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL-755[162] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C)[163] or
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C)
Other:
SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods (A-10C) or
2× 600 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.


A-29 Super Tucano
Payload: 1,500 kg (3,307 lb)
Unit cost
$9–14 million[1]
$430–500/hour (operational cost)

Performance
Maximum speed: 590 km/h (319 knots, 367 mph)
Cruise speed: 520 km/h (281 knots, 323 mph)
Stall speed: 148 km/h (80 knots, 92 mph)
g-limit: +7/-3.5 g)
Range: 720 nmi (827 mi, 1,330 km)
Combat radius: 550 km (300 nmi, 342 mi) (hi-lo-hi profile, 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) of external stores)[174]
Ferry range: 1,541 nmi (1,774 mi, 2,855 km) [175]
Endurance: 8hrs 24mins[175]
Service ceiling: 10,668 m (35,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 24 m/s (1600 fpm)
Armament
Guns: [6]
Internal: (2×) 12.7 mm (0.50 in) 950 rounds per minute FN Herstal M3P machine guns, one in each wing.
pod: 1 20 mm (0.79 in) 650 rounds per minute GIAT M20A1 cannon below the fuselage.
pod: 1 12.7 mm (0.50 in) FN Herstal HMP for M3P machine gun under each wing
pod: up to 4 7.62 mm (0.30 in) 3,000 rounds per minute Dillon Aero M134 Minigun (under development) under wings.[176]
Hardpoints: 5 (two under each wing and one under fuselage centreline) with a capacity of 1,550 kg (3,300 lb)
Rockets:
(4x) pods 70 mm (2.75 in) LM-70/19[178](SBAT-70[185][186])
(4x) pods 70 mm (2.75 in) LAU-68A/G[187]
Missiles:
Air-to-air:
AIM-9L Sidewinder
MAA-1A Piranha
MAA-1B Piranha (under development) [177]
Python 3
Python 4
Air-to-ground:
AGM-65 Maverick[178]
General-purpose bombs:
(10x) Mk 81[6]
(5x) Mk 82[6]
M-117[179]
Incendiary bombs:
BINC-300[180]
Cluster bombs:
BLG-252
Precision-guided bombs:
FPG-82 (under development)[181] Friuli Aeroespacial INS/GPS guidance kit for Mk 82.
SMKB-82[182] – INS/GPS guidance kit for Mk 82.
GBU-54 (under development)[183]
GBU-38 (under development)[183]
GBU-39 (under development)[183]
Paveway II[184]
Lizard – Elbit laser guidance kit.
Griffin – IAI laser guidance kit.
Others:
Chaff & Flare (countermeasures)
FLIR AN/AAQ-22 Star SAFIRE II (Electro-Optical/Infrared Sensors)

Chance Vought F4U Corsair

Empty weight: 8,982 lb (4,073 kg)
Loaded weight: 11,432 lb (5,185 kg)
Performance
Maximum speed: 446 mph (717 km/h) at 26.200 ft (using emergency power)
Stall speed: 89 mph (143 km/h) clean
Range: 1005 mi (1617 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 285 nmi (328 mi, 527 km) with one external 150gal tank
Service ceiling: 41,500ft (12,649 m)
Rate of climb: 4,360ft/min (22.1 m/s) at sea-level (using emergency power)
Armament
Guns:
6 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) AN/M2 Browning machine guns, 400 rounds per gun or
4 × 0.79 in (20 mm) M2 cannon
Rockets: 8 × 5 in (12.7 cm) high velocity aircraft rockets and/or
Bombs: 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg)

P-47 Thunderbolt
Unit cost US$83,000 in 1945
Value: $1,102,897.47 today Annual Inflation: 3.71% Total Inflation: 1228.79%
Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
Loaded weight: 12,731 lb (5,774.48 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Performance
Maximum speed: 443 mph at 29,000 ft (713 km/h at 8,839 m)
Range: 800 mi combat, 1,800 mi ferry (1,290 km / 2,900 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,180 ft/min (16.15 m/s)
Wing loading: 42.43 lb/ft2 ()
Power/mass: 0.204 hp/lb (335 W/kg)
Armament
8 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3400 rounds)
Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs
10 × 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

Douglas A-1 Skyraider aka AD
Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)
Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)
Performance
Maximum speed: 322 mph (280 kn, 518 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
Cruise speed: 198 mph (172 kn, 319 km/h)
Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km)
Service ceiling: 28,500 ft (8,685 m)
Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 45 lb/ft² (220 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (250 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M2 cannon
Other: Up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance on 15 external hardpoints including bombs, torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pods.

[woodbutcher]

:D The FG1 Corsair,built by Goodyear was the first AC to excede 400 mph in level flight in 1940.The Japs referred to it as the"Whistling Death".IIRC.at economy cruise at 1800 rpm and 30 in of boost,it would sip fuel and do 200 mph to boot.In vehicle terms about 20mpg.Not too shabby for 2000 hp.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[dtknowles]

:D The FG1 Corsair,built by Goodyear was the first AC to excede 400 mph in level flight in 1940.The Japs referred to it as the"Whistling Death".IIRC.at economy cruise at 1800 rpm and 30 in of boost,it would sip fuel and do 200 mph to boot.In vehicle terms about 20mpg.Not too shabby for 2000 hp.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

I don't think you have the speed record part right. In 1931 Flying the Supermarine S.6B Flt Lt. George Stainforth in S.6B serial S1596 broke the world air speed record reaching 407.5 mph (655.67 km/h).

Tim

[mtnman31]

I love the A-10 and think it does a wonderful job in its role. As much as I hate to see it go, it is old and it does need to go. The A-10 is a purpose built aircraft that does so well because it is doing what it was designed to do. It was not modified from another platform. If the A-10 is going to be replaced, it needs to be replaced with another purpose built aircraft. Currently, NO plane in our inventory was purpose built for the CAS/ground attack role that the A-10 does. Replacing the A-10 with an F-35 is like replacing a meat cleaver with a Swiss army knife. If we aren't going to replace the A-10 with a purpose built aircraft, then I'd suggest filling the role with a combination of other systems we already have until we have a purpose built aircraft to replace it with; i.e. UAVs, helos, Spectre gunships, etc. Stop trying the make the F-35 our all-in-one solution.

[Artful]

New Player in the game...
http://news.yahoo.com/japan-unveils-first-stealth-fighter-jet-004353609.html



Japan on Thursday unveiled its first stealth fighter jet, officials said, with the maiden test flight planned for next month.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/lGLpYsdIKrHMiiiTM.WQOw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NjM4O2lsPXBsYW 5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-HKG-Hkg10250222-1-1-0.jpg
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/69_7e3rRFhSISuHU6YOXJA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW 5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTEzOTM-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2016-01-28T112353Z_1859301662_GF10000287686_RTRMADP_3_JAPA N-MILITARY.JPG

The defence ministry's acquisition agency showed off the domestically developed, radar-dodging X-2 fighter at a regional airport near the central city of Komaki.

Its first flight is scheduled in mid-February before delivery to the defence ministry by the end of March next year, the acquisition agency said.

The X-2, developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, measures 14.2 metres (47 feet) long and 9.1 metres wide and was built as a successor to the F-2 fighter jets developed jointly with the United States.

Presently, only the United States, Russia and China have been internationally recognised as having successfully developed and flown manned stealth jets, the agency said.

Japan has reportedly spent about 39.4 billion yen ($332 million) to develop the aircraft.

In November Japan's first domestically produced passenger jet, also developed by Mitsubishi Heavy, made its maiden test flight, a landmark development for the country after being barred from developing aircraft following its defeat in World War II.

[woodbutcher]

;-) @dtknowles.I was referring to production AC.Not purpose built hopped up race/competition AC.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo