www.ditl.org

F-35 is a stealth design, which the ones it is replacing are not. The A variant is expected to match the F-16 in agility whilst having a better payload/range, better avionics, and an internal laser designator and infrared sensors.

The B variant should be a vast step up from the Harrier.

GrahamKennedy wrote:The B variant should be a vast step up from the Harrier.

Here's a good recap of both.

The big reason why the F-22 costs so much, $137.5 Million/Aircraft currently, is the constant slashing to the numbers purchased that Graham mentioned at the beginning of this thread. If they were to buy more aircraft the cost would go down since the total project costs would be divided over a greater number of Planes.

The cost per aircraft would go down, certainly, but the overall cost of the project would still go up.

And the figures I've seen say that if you divide total project cost by 181 airframes you get a unit cost of over $330 million.

Erg. The forum went down and my post was lost I guess.

Anyway short version

First hopefully we won't be in Iraq type situations so much in the future.

Secondly the A-10 is kinda losing it's niche

-faster craft are now quite successful at tank plinking, as opposed to when the A-10 was designed.
-The A-10 isn't a very good anti insurgency craft as they can loiter and spy the way Apache's, Spookies, and some drones can. And I doubt they're particularily good at shooting at small targets running around cover due to having to aim the whole craft and usually be in a dive to get the shot lined up.
-things have been developed with countering it in mind like the Tunguska-M1. Things have been developed to counter choppers and faster craft. But longbows can fire while hidden and F-35's are stealthy, fast, and manuverable.


But I'll grant we could be doing more to develop anti insurgency tech.



Actually those are probably too big what we need is something that can move around in tighter indoor areas.

The point being we could probably have something rather better than SWORDS if we pumped the cash into it. Though again something like that wouldn't help unless we want to do the "nation building" thing again.

There are breadbox-sized surveillance/manipulatice 'bots in R&D, if not already in the field.

sunnyside wrote:

What is that thing? A Wheelbarrow with machine guns?

It's a T-1 Terminator (Whereas Arnold was a T-800)

What we do have is SWORDS



However while some went over I guess there are still some software issues and I don't think they can handle stairs and the like well enough yet.

I don't know what Mikey was talking about.

sunnyside wrote:It's a T-1 Terminator (Whereas Arnold was a T-800)

Ah, right. What was it in? T3? SCC?

As for the problems with the real gadget, why the teething problems? Those things (or something very similar) have been in service for decades.

The big robot was in T3. Just looking at it will give you some idea of how poor the design is.

Captain Seafort wrote:

sunnyside wrote:It's a T-1 Terminator (Whereas Arnold was a T-800)

Ah, right. What was it in? T3? SCC?

As for the problems with the real gadget, why the teething problems? Those things (or something very similar) have been in service for decades.

I haven't heard a lot about it. But apperantly they're being extrememly paranoid with these things. That's somewhat understandable. There are charities and such out there opposing battlefield robots, especially once talk turns to making them autonomous.

I recall hearing at one point that a barrel moved when it wasn't supposed to. Not that it whirled around and fired or anything. But like I said they're playing it real paranoid.

Personally I wish they'd get the little buggers out there.

Rochey wrote:The big robot was in T3. Just looking at it will give you some idea of how poor the design is.

Weren't they just prototypes at that point though? You can't expect them to get everything right the first time around, especially if they have a limited budget

I don't care much for the autonomous armed battle robot concept (including UAVs); I'd prefer to keep a human in the loop.

Plus, our generation's gaming experience would actually be worth something.

sunnyside wrote:Erg. The forum went down and my post was lost I guess.

Anyway short version

First hopefully we won't be in Iraq type situations so much in the future.

Secondly the A-10 is kinda losing it's niche

-faster craft are now quite successful at tank plinking, as opposed to when the A-10 was designed.
-The A-10 isn't a very good anti insurgency craft as they can loiter and spy the way Apache's, Spookies, and some drones can. And I doubt they're particularily good at shooting at small targets running around cover due to having to aim the whole craft and usually be in a dive to get the shot lined up.
-things have been developed with countering it in mind like the Tunguska-M1. Things have been developed to counter choppers and faster craft. But longbows can fire while hidden and F-35's are stealthy, fast, and manuverable.

First, expect to be in more Iraqw type situations, along with the threat of Russia. The way things are going in the world right now there is alot of instability and well your War on Terror will take a few thousand years to win...

Onto the A-10, saying it should be phased out is short sighted. It can carry modern Air-Surface Missiles while its 30mm cannon is accurate and extremely cheap when compared to missiles. It can also operate from less than ideal airfields since it is built to take rough conditions and shorter take off distances. Its only disadvantages, speed, stealth and maneuverability mean it is still an ideal platform for this type of warfare where Allied forces have achieved 100% air superiority.

What makes you think that an F-22/F-35 would be able to hit those men running around on the ground any better than the A-10, sure they can use missiles and bombs but so can the A-10 and the A-10 has the added bonus of the 30 mm cannon which can be just as destructive with less cost.

F-22s/F-35s aren't so good against insurgents either. But as you may notice what I mentioned was Apaches, Spookies, and some drones.

I think the drones fire more expensive missiles (though each drone is much cheaper to make). But the Apaches and Spookies have their own cannons similar to the A-10s.

What I'm saying is that when the A-10 was developed it had a clear purpose. Existing jet planes weren't very good at hitting tanks. And I don't believe our AH-1 Cobras were even supposed to go after armor in any dedicated fashion. The A-10 was great. However things have changed in over 30 years.

Now I think if you have a job it can either be done by a strike fighter or an Apache better. At the least it's winding up in a very narrow niche. And fighters/Apaches have a wide range of missions they can accomplish.