Yeah right, that's why they are purchasing F-35s and they even increased their F-35s order

With all due respect, that's "yesterday's" thinking.
"Yesterday" we have several very different aircraft performing several different roles because the technology at that time was limited.
Hence why you had the A-6 and the F-14 in the Carrier Air Wing for example. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to forget that technology evolves and what wasn't possible yesterday it's now possible or will be possible in the future. For example while the Super Hornet may have an inferior range compared to the A-6, the Super Hornet is nonetheless better than the A-6 at the A-6 role and by the way better than the F-14 in the F-14 role.
Heck, "yesterday" the US Navy even had a "strategic bomber" in the form of the A-3 Skywarrior. Do you wish to find a "direct" replacement for this too? I'm sure you don't, afterall the US Navy managed to develop a much smaller and better plane in the form of the A-6 - You see a smaller, more multifunctional and overall better plane - Do you get the trend, now?

Regarding you questions, yes the F-35 is far better than the A-10 in CAS, yes the F-35 is far better than the F-16, yes the F-35 is better than the F-15, and yes the F-35 (in this case the -B) is FAAARRRRR BETER than the AV-8B.
Just like the Super Hornet is better than the A-6 and the F-14 and like any modern strike fighter aircraft is far better than for example most post-WWII era Strategic Bombers despite the later being much larger and a very different kind of plane.

So yes, as you can see technology changes and the F-35 is by far the first aircraft that trends to replace several different aircraft and successfully so, for example:
- The legacy Hornet did this (replaced the F-4 and A-7)
- Super Hornet did this (A-6 and F-14)
- Rafale is doing this (countless variants of the Mirage F-1, F-8 Crusader, Mirage IV and Mirage 2000)
- Gripen did this (JA-37 Viggen and AJ-37 Viggen)
And so on...

Finally and again for example, look how much different types of aircraft there was in WWII and how they've been diminishing.

There were plans to develop external fuel tanks for the F-35.
However it was found that the F-35 had similar and in most cases even better range compared with legacy fighter aircraft will full fuel load plus external tanks and therefore the external tanks for the F-35 were deemed unnecessary and at least for the time being the plans for the F-35's external fuel tanks are "cancelled".

Again, external fuel tanks are not cheap things and wasting them everytime there's a threat to the fighter aircraft is NOT efficient. And this was taken in consideration during the F-35 development.

If someone still has doubts about the F-35 range just look at the insane amount of fuel that the F-35 can carry internally and compared it to any legacy fighter aircraft. On top of this, add the fact that the F-35 is a single engine aircraft and that it's reported that the F-35 engine which is derived from the F-22 engine has even a better fuel consumption (compared to the F-22 engine), so this means that the F-35 range is for example better than the F-22 on internal fuel only, hence why the F-22 has external fuel tanks and the F-35 has not!

You wrote a lot of stuff in this thread now which is wrong, and there's one main problem underneath your argument that crystallizes in this statement above. The problem is that you seem to live in a world without monetary restrictions.

By your own logic, the F-22 is better than the F-35. So in theory the ultimate solution to every mission need in every war would be to have F-22s with an extended payload bay to fit larger bombs in and maybe add some of those F-35 additional sensors.

Then instead of firing twenty rounds of DU 30mm at an Afghan camel convoy, you can fire a 1000 pound JDAM. From an aircraft that costs twice as much to operate per hour than an A-10. And because of loitering times, payload amount etc. you might need double the amount of aircraft. So each dead camel costs a gazillion more dollars. But you get the job done beautifully, congrats.

Of course you can use a laser-sighted computer-controlled super-precise 20 pound sledgehammer with knife attachment to hang up a picture frame in your apartment. And to cut the vegetables for your stew. And to file your toe nails. It does everything, perfectly.

Yet in the real world military forces operate on a limited budget, and so sadly you won't have any gas money left to drive to the grocery store.

If you think that I'm wrong then point out where and why do you think that I'm wrong. Simply saying that "I'm wrong" is not an argumentation.

It feels like you don't have counter-arguments but at the same time you don't want to admit that you stand corrected.

And that's why I posted several rather long posts - I don't limit myself (or avoid to) saying that the other is wrong - I argue as opposed to you!

Regarding the "monetary restrictions" it's you that don't seem to understand the concept. You also don't seem to understand that technology evolves and what was the best technology yesterday it's likely obsolete today and will DEFINITLY become obsolete tomorrow.
I understand perfectly that we live in a world with "monetary restrictions". However contrary to what many F-35 critics which perpetuates and ventilates many BS or outdated news (some of them from 2010 or earlier) the fact is that the F-35 is by FAR the BEST solution when it comes to both "monetary restrictions" and (fast) "technology evolution":
- It's not by random chance that there are 3 variants of the baseline F-35, one for CTOL, another for STOVL and another for CATOBAR. If you're going to develop 3 completely different planes having in mind those 3 main roles (CTOL, STOVL and CATOBAR), that would be far more expensive!
- Currently a F-35A has a similar cost or even costs less than their competitors, like for example the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen NG. A LRIP-10 F-35A costs $94.6 million USD per each aircraft and notice the F-35 is still in low rate production (LRIP):
https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost
This already puts the cost of the F-35, namely the F-35A at a similar level or even lower than the competition. Full production F-35As will cost quite less with some projections indicating a value as low as $80 Million USD per each aircraft.
So you have an aircraft which is vastly superior (I explained before why!) and probably costs even less than older 4.5th gen fighter aircraft and you come here accusing me that I live in a "world without monetary restrictions"?? If I live in such world than you must live under a rock since you cannot acknowledge that things evolve, improve and get better and eventually replace older stuff!





First of all where did I say that the "F-22 is better than the F-35"??
Secondly you cannot simply extend the weapon bay in the F-22 without any major airframe redesign. Resuming it's not a simple "upgrade". You would be developing a completely diferent variant albeit based on existing variant. So this is not something feasible without extensive budget/money allocated to this - And remember it was YOU that mentioned "monetary restriction"!
A similar line of thought goes in line goes with adding the F-35 sensors to the F-22. While more feasible and technically "easier" than "extending the weapons bay" it still requires MONEY and lots of it!
You're also ignoring the fact that the F-22 is MORE EXPENSIVE in everything (acquisition, maintenance, etc...) than the F-35 and then you came here accusing my that I live in a world without monetary restrictions, really??




You forget that the F-35 also HAS A GUN, no? It has a 25mm gun.
Besides there are other weapons that the F-35 can employ in larger numbers and cheaper than a 1000lb JDAM against "lighter targets" such as and namely the Small Diameter Bomb.

But if you want to kill the camel with a gun, the F-35 can do it well!
The difference is, if there's someone close to the camel's position equipped with an advanced MANPADS SAM the F-35 will have a much bigger chance to survive since it's faster, more agile, lower IR signature (the spectrum often used by many MANPADS SAMs) and a far, far , far more advanced electronic and decoy defensive suite and Missile Warner Systems which give a precise location of the incoming missile. Moreover in this case the F-35's onboard systems will be able to instantly geo-locate and target that MANPADS SAM - So the hunter instantly becomes the prey something that you can dream of in the A-10!

Finally regarding your "in the real world military forces operate on a limited budget" argument, perhaps this is why several countries in the world jumped in the JSF/F-35 development, no?? The more countries that purchase the aircraft the cheaper it will become! So as you can see, not only I do live in a world WITH monetary restrictions but I understand it better than yourself!

Welcome to the future...

Since you seem to be unaware of the concept of "operational costs" I will quit this discussion with you. For your homework you might want to look at the totalized cost of that 25mm bullet being delivered on location, for many days in succession. Or why a F-35 isn't exactly better at being shot at from smaller caliber guns and manually guided AAA versus the A-10. Hint: If it gets a shell or two in it's engine area the pilot will have to walk.

Cheers.

where the hell are you getting this data from? As far as I know the F-35 hasn't even gone into a real battle yet.... Red Flags are the closest thing to it which they've done very well in, but I don't think they practice CAS missions there. And if the F-35 is "far better" than the A-10 why did the Air Force just extend the Warthog because they realized the F-35 doesn't stand up to it during CAS....

Love how you throw out your blanket statements with no proof, just tell Helmet to have data to tell you that your wrong...

I will have to partially disagree with ricunes on the F-35 / A-10.

It is true that in a contested environment vs a peer enemy with sophisticated air defense weapons / fighter aircraft opposition the F-35 would be superior to the A-10 in the CAS role.

But in a low intensity fight vs an enemy like the Taliban with not so much as reliable MANPAD air defenses the A-10 would be superior due to it's loiter time, loadout capacity, ruggedness, the big gun and maybe most importantly the low cost of operation.

Somewhere between those extremes the scales tip in favor of the F-35 as the combat environment becomes more deadly, with an area of overlap where both platforms could operate.

You're too emotionally invested in the F-35. The biggest mistake a lot of people, such as yourself, seem to make about military equipment is that the military must form the mission around the equipment. It is the other way around. The equipment must fit the mission. The F-35 does not have the range the USN desires. It has more range than the Super Hornet. Big deal. You seem obvious to the fact that the Super Hornet has a short range for the USN's goal, and so does the F-35. You seem to be content with shortcomings. The F-35 fits the same role as the Super Hornet. It is nice, but not what the USN wants or needs. They don't need an incrementally better strike fighter. Clearly they're looking for a larger class fighter, such as the F-22 and F-15. As for F-35 drop tanks, they're in development. Israel really wants them because the F-35's range for their mission is inadequate. It is naive to say that external drop tanks are ineffective. To be blunt, they extend range. Even the F-22 has drop tanks, because they extend the range.

And you still seem to be obvious to the difference between ordinance weight and size / compatibility. If you want to carry anti tank missiles or stand off cruise missiles, HARMs, or decent sized payload you're going to need external stores on the F-35. Negating the low RCS aspects, adding a lot of drag and weight. This greatly reduces the advantage the F-35 will have over a plane such as the Eurofighter. In the USN's case, essentially all missions flown with the F-35 will be relying on external stores. One of the major advances of the F-35 over older planes is the low RCS and clean profile - but if the majority of missions don't allow for this, then you're throwing most of that enhanced performance away. It isn't a hard concept. Eventually these issues may be minimized as more weapon types will be designed for internal weapon bays, but there isn't a lot of room in there for larger weapons such as the Storm Shadow. A shortcoming of the F-35.

Mixed flights of part low RCS and high drag are an excellent strategy, however, having all flights maintain a low profile with a larger internal weapons load and range is even better. There is also the range discrepancies between low and high drag flights, the time to the area, loiter time, and more. This has been done in the past with mixed air frames, but it will always be more efficient with a single air frame. Just because it was done in the past doesn't make it sound. A fighter with enough internal payload and range would be more ideal than different flights with mixed variables.

Also, I never mentioned anything about "extending" the F-22s internal weapons bay. I think your English is failing you here. I am also not claiming the F-35 is inferior to the legacy fighters, which you seem to imply. I'm merely telling you about the shortcomings of the platform and how it does not fit the USN's needs and future mission profile. You seem to be entirely obvious to the fact that the USN's requirements may be different from the USAF, the USMC, the RAF, Turkish Air Force, ect. The Abrams is a great tank, but it makes for a horrible infantry transport.

I'm absolutely not a fan of the way the F-35 looks (and I think it's too expensive and that LM is taking the USAF for a ride here)...

But... I did find an angle that makes the F-35 looks pretty darn good if you ask me!!!!






Hang some stuff on it and it starts to look mean! I wonder what it does to the RCS though?

Yes, I'm well aware of the operational costs concept. I just have a bigger picture than yourself.

A single A-10 may have a lower operational cost compared to a single F-35, sure.
However you forget that the A-10 CANNOT perform the all the F-35 roles, for example it can't perform any of the Air-to-Air roles that the F-35 performs, not to mention deep strike/interdiction, DEAD, etc.. As opposed the F-35 CAN perform all the roles of the A-10 (and plenty more).

So if you want to operate A-10s, you'll need F-16s or F-35s alongside. Now if you have F-35's you won't need the A-10s since again the F-35 can perform all the A-10 roles.
Or what I mean is that 1 (one) F-35 can perform the roles of a combination of 1 (one) F-16 and 1 (one) A-10 or 1 (one) F-35 and 1 (one) A-10 which by it's turn means that 1 (one) F-35 is cheaper to maintain than 1 (one) F-16 or 1 (one) F-35 AND 1 (one) A-10.

Or why do you think that the VAST majority of countries in the world don't operate aircraft like the A-10?? For example no other NATO or western country operates the A-10 or other similar aircraft.


Finally, in modern days if you expect to get hit you shouldn't expect to survive! If you want to survive you MUST EVADE ENEMY FIRE, you don't be able to resist to it.
Don't forget that the A-10s during Desert Storm suffered the highest losses by far from all CAS aircraft (including F-16s).

Moreover, don't be too hasty in your claim that the F-35 is "weak" against enemy fire. Recent tests indicated that the F-35 has actually a very good resistance against enemy fire due to redundant/backup systems and an engine well buried in the fuselage. Sure the A-10 is more resistant but the point is (and always as been) is to avoid getting hit not being a "bullet magnet".

Really?? So in order to prove that an aircraft is good it forcedly needs to enter in war, really??

So in the 1930's (before WWII) when for example the Brits developed the Spitfire this must have been inferior to the Camel since the Camel was combat proven by that time but the Spitfire wasn't!

Red Flag wasn't the only exercise that the F-35 participated on. For example they participated in Green Flag which is an exercise dedicated to CAS and once again the F-35 performance was excellent as you can read here:
https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/

How's this for proof??

I don't think we are in disagreement, I agree with everything your said including the last paragraph. However the role of the gun is too much overplayed and there are weapons which are much more effective (the gun isn't effective in terms of hit to kill ratio) with a "good" or acceptable price/cost such as Small Diameter Bombs, Guided Rockets (APKWS), etc...

For the role that you mention there's already an alternative being used today (and much more often than the A-10) which is the armed UAV!
The armed UAV is better (compared to the A-10) in everything you said in the last paragraph except for the gun.




Fully agree and that's exactly my point!

No I'm not "emotionally invested in the F-35". I'm "emotionally invested" in facts or in the truth and I'm a bit "sick and tired" of the same old arguments such as the one repeated by you - F-35 has short range - which has been more than proven to be FALSE but people still ventilate and insist in the same wrong arguments. With all due respect, that's almost like lying.




And what is the range that the USN requires that the F-35C cannot attain while your "magical plane" can accomplish that you're talking about?? This promises to be fun...

So the F-35C has a too short range for the USN but I point out that the Super Hornet with external fuel tanks has an even shorter range and you say "big deal", really?? The Super Hornet with its short range (even with external fuel tanks) is OK but the F-35C with its considerably longer range is NOT, LOL

Oh, and air-to-air refueling doesn't "ring you a bell", no?

With this argument of yours I can only remember of the following and since one says that an image is worth a thousand words, here it goes:




Oh and BTW, the USN does WANT the F-35C. It just wants to operate them alongside with the Super Hornets for the time being which is also a political move since if no more Super Hornets would be purchased (by the USN) the Boeing Super Hornet manufacturing line could SHUT DOWN this year (2017).



Really?? Ever hear about the JSM (Join Strike Missile), a dual role anti-ship/land-strike cruise missile which can be carried INTERNALLY in the F-35?
Ever heard about the GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II which the F-35 can carry 8 (eight) of them INTERNALLY? How about this for a very long range Anti-Tank and DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) weapon??
Seems to me that you must research more about the actual and true F-35 capabilities, me thinks...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/f-35-grounded-oxygen-problems/index.html

Germany better hold off with a purchase for a while, even though the jet's performance is literally "breathtaking".

Face it, this thing is still in "beta", or rather, "early access". No one here knows anything more than LM and the respective nations involved with the program want you to know.

They want your tax *insert relevant currency here*, so they want you to like the F-35. How it will perform in the end, we'll see eventually. Let it fly a couple of combat missions. Let the military work out the kinks. Quoting PR/marketing-approved performance data sheets as if they were Gospel is extremely silly.

I agree whole-heartedly that no one here knows as much as LM and the buying countries, so it is pointless to make determinations about how it will perform at our level.

However, the O2 problem is hardly unique to the F-35, so I don't know I'd say that is any indication of it being in "early access":

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/...ing-jets-after-instructors-refuse-to-fly

https://theaviationist.com/2017/03/...rivation-and-cabin-decompression-issues/

https://www.themarysue.com/raptor-o2-problem-found/

You're loosing the arguments and it shows, hence the all caps and angst in your typing. For some reason you have deemed the F-35 sufficient for the USN. Good thing the USN doesn't give a damn what people on internet forums say. They're already started a fighter program which will be a replacement for the Super Hornet. It will be an aircraft tailored to their mission profiles. You clearly have zero desire to realize that for everything great the F-35 brings, it isn't the right tool for every job.

The absurdness of your writings mount with each post. For example, you're still rambling on about the Super Hornet. Examples:

Problem:
The USN is looking for something with more range than the Super Hornet and F-35C.

ricnunes solution:
F*ck you USN, you can refuel mid air. Don't you know that?

Problem:
Israel is looking into drop tanks to extend the range of the F-35A.

ricnunes solution:
The F-35A has more range than the F-16. F*ck you IAF, learn how to refuel mid air.

Problem:
F-35's internal weapon bays are limited. Majority of missions by the USN will require external stores, negating the low RCS aspects.

ricnunes solution:
F*ck you USN. I literally have no counter point to that. But f*ck you anyways. Is that directed at ricnunes ? It seems to read that way.

Then you bring up the "Join Strike Missile". A program concept which is now on its 2nd (or was it 3rd?) iteration. We have no idea if this program will be the one to be completed, and we have no idea how many can fit inside the F-35's weapons bay. Tell me - how many can fit internally? 4? 6? 8? 10? Competing aircraft can carry 12+ anti tank missiles. Unless the F-35 can match that internally, to carry the same payload will result in a gain of RCS. Negating one of its most useful aspects, one of the major advantages over older designs. A point that seems to be going over your head with alarming frequency. That failure on your part to realize that many of the of the missions required of the F-35 requires external stores. All due to its shortcoming which is a small weapons bay. A shortcoming of the design.

Fact is, when talking about the USN, they want a full size fighter. Not another small size. They're eyeing a spiritual successor to the F-14 and F-15. They already received three light weight designs in a row. They're buying F-35Cs to hold them over as they retire the very old Hornets. They only ordered a small number of F-35Cs (less than 300 planned). They're running a program for a new fighter to replace the Super Hornet. Unless they loose political funding (which is very likely), they plan to buy more of those than F-35s. They know what they want and will design an air frame around their requirements. Make no mistake, they're looking for something with a larger internal payload capacity and a longer range than their current options (Super Hornet / F-35C).

Despite the F-35's shortcomings and inadequacy for certain services, it will still be an excellent aircraft. It will be a better plane than the F-16, F-18 and Harrier (not a hard feat). Just don't dissuade yourself into thinking:
- It is the best plane for every service and mission profile
- It does not have shortcomings

Take a step back and breathe to.

Flogger, you've said multiple times that the Navy is looking for a longer-ranged aircraft - can you let me know your source for that?

but this just proves why you should never put all your eggs in one basket like Riccunes wants to do. If they don't fix this O2 problem and have to ground them all again, then you have 3 services how have to ground their entire fleet...

That's not very sound planning.

I have thought of that, and have mentioned it too, Dave, and not only 3 services, but many allied countries as well.