Bad News For The F-22?

[Deepcrush]

Here's the problem. You can't replace CAS with a missile from twenty miles out. You need an aircraft up close and personal with a shit ton of firepower. Thats what the A-10 is. One plane with ten missiles vs one plane with a BFG and two dozen missiles, two dozen rockets and half a dozen rockeye bombs. You'd need half a dozen F-22s or F-35s for that kind of firepower.

[Aaron]

The A-10 was also designed to loiter around the area at low speed, something most of the fancier aircraft can't do. That's one of the reason's some where converted to OA-10's.

[Reliant121]

I can see the case for both. The F-35 sounds more like a first strike weapon, it flies in high speed, blows shit up nice and quick before leaving again. The A-10 strikes me as the thing to blow shit up altogether. Hang around at low speed, and fire at whatever moves for quite some time.

[Aaron]

The cannon is nice and all, but these kinds of smart stand off precision weapons are proliferating and getting cheaper all the time. And infantry SAMS are getting better all the time, too.

They are but MANPADS are very, very limited in there effectiveness against jet aircraft. Unless there tied into an air defence network, the users have no effective warning of incoming aircraft and hits hard to hit and incoming jet because of the limited warning time. They work better against helicopters to be honest. Or if you sit near a runway.

Heck, I think I've only ever seen a Javelin get one kill against drones in a day's training.

[Graham Kennedy]

They are but MANPADS are very, very limited in there effectiveness against jet aircraft. Unless there tied into an air defence network, the users have no effective warning of incoming aircraft and hits hard to hit and incoming jet because of the limited warning time. They work better against helicopters to be honest. Or if you sit near a runway.

But they are getting better over time, aren't they? How good are they likely to be in 10 years, in 30 years?

[Tyyr]

The reason the A-10 is so effective isn't its ability to kill. It's the A-10's ability to just sit over the battlefield flying low and slow all day long and hammer the target when it's needed. The F-35's radar stealth abilities are largely wasted in the role. That's a lot of cost, maintenance, and operational envelope limitations for something that is pretty much unnecessary for its job. Why waste all that money on capabilities that are pretty much useless in the role. That's like blowing money on VTOL capability for a B-52. The last time they tried to replace the A-10 with the F-16 it was a total waste of time and money and they eventually dumped the F-16's in the CAS role and kept the A-10's. There's no pressing need to replace the A-10, certainly not with the F-35.

But they are getting better over time, aren't they? How good are they likely to be in 10 years, in 30 years?

Not really. You've still got the primary limitation of the system, the big M at the front. The man. Shoulder fired SAMs are still inherently limited by the operator. Until the guy spots the target he can't begin to engage it. By the time soldier can spot a jet aircraft attacking him or the area nearby the aircraft is already engaging him. Also, take the ranges listed for missiles with a grain of salt. Ranges in tail chase scenarios, the most typical kind of engagement with an shoulder fired SAM, are significantly shorter. Shoulder fired SAMS are of limited use against jet aircraft, they are most useful against helicopters.

[Aaron]

But they are getting better over time, aren't they? How good are they likely to be in 10 years, in 30 years?

Not particularly. The seekers get better but without any kind of warning system it's limited to the man's little sphere, that's why most armies mount their MANPADS on vehicles. Which can at least house a better sensor then a soldiers eyes and ears.

[Graham Kennedy]

I wouldn't like to bet my CAS ability on the idea that SAMs aren't getting any better anytime in the next few decades.

[Tyyr]

Well, the kind of integration of sensors necessary to give a shoulder mounted SAM a chance to knock down a jet is still in the testing stages in the US military and no one else is even seriously considering it as far as I'm aware of. Additionally, most shoulder fired SAMs are infra-red seekers due to cost, size, complexity, and the fact you're firing at targets in an ugly radar environment to begin with. The F-35's claim to fame is RADAR stealth, not IR, and A-10's are already poor IR targets due to their turbofan's cooler exhaust, widely spaced engines, and large horizontal stabilizer obscuring their exhaust from the angle most ground pounders will see it from.

[Aaron]

I wouldn't like to bet my CAS ability on the idea that SAMs aren't getting any better anytime in the next few decades.

*shrug* Fortunately we're in an environment where few nations we will fight in the near future will likely not have access to anything better then old Russian trash. Western MANPADS are a pretty tightly controlled item and so IIRC there hasn't been one NATO aircraft lost to one. You can already render most of them ineffective by flying above there ceiling, which is quite low. And that's not the big issue it is for us that it was for the Soviets in Afghanistan thanks to the wide use of laser and GPS guided weapons.

[Sonic Glitch]

And thus ends the question. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_ ... e_spending

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to halt production of the Air Force's missile-eluding F-22 Raptor fighter jets in a high-stakes, veto-laden showdown over President Barack Obama's efforts to shift defense spending to a next generation of smaller, single-engine F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The 58-40 vote reflected an all-out lobbying campaign by the Obama administration, which had to overcome resistance from lawmakers confronted with the losses of defense-related jobs if the F-22 program is terminated.

"The president really needed to win this vote," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. Levin said it was important not only on the merits but "in terms of changing the way we do business in Washington."

The top Republican on the committee, John McCain of Arizona, agreed that it was "a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems with cost overruns which outlive their requirements for defending this nation."

He said the margin of victory was "directly attributable" to Obama, his opponent in the last presidential election, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has pushed for the termination of the F-22 and other weapons systems he says have outlived their usefulness.

The vote removed $1.75 billion set aside in a $680 billion defense policy bill to build seven more F-22 Raptors, adding to the 187 stealth technology fighters already being built.

The Senate action also saved Obama from what could have been a political embarrassment. He had urged the Senate to strip out the money and threatened what would be the first veto of his presidency if the F-22 money remained in the defense bill.

Immediately after the vote, Obama told reporters at the White House the Senate's decision will "better protect our troops."

White House officials said Vice President Joe Biden and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel lobbied senators, as did Gates, who both publicly and in conversations with lawmakers stressed that the Pentagon has enough F-22s for its operational needs and can put the money to better uses.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that spending on the stealth fighter would "inhibit our ability to buy things we do need," including Gates' proposal to add 22,000 soldiers to the Army.

"The Senate has heard from the senior leadership of the Defense Department both civilian and military that we should end F-22 production. The recommendation is strong and clear, as strong and clear as I have ever heard," Levin said.

"I've never seen the White House lobby like they've lobbied on this issue," said Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, an F-22 supporter whose state would be hit hard by a production shutdown.

Supporters of the program cited both the importance of the F-22 to U.S. security interests - pointing out that China and Russia are developing planes that can compete with the F-22 - and the need to protect aerospace jobs in a bad economy.

Gates and other Pentagon officials have determined that production of the F-22, which is designed for combat in a war where the enemy has an air force and has not been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be stopped at 187 planes in order to focus on the F-35, a smaller next-generation plane that would also be available to the Navy and Marine Corps.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, countered that the F-35 is designed to supplement, not replace, the F-22, "the "NASCAR racer of this air dominance team." Supporters of the F-22 have put the number of F-22s needed at anywhere from 250 to 380.

The defense bill has funds to build 30 F-35s. The plane is currently being produced in small numbers for testing purposes. The single-engine plane will eventually replace the venerable F-16 and the Air force's aging fleet of A-10s. Its primary purposed is to attack targets on the ground.

The twin-engine F-22 Raptor is a jet the Air Force would use for air-to-air combat missions.

According to Lockheed Martin Corp., the main contractor for both planes, 25,000 people are directly employed in building the F-22, and another 70,000 have indirect links, particularly in Georgia, Texas and California.

Levin suggested that some workers might be shifted to F-35 production. "We have to find places for people who are losing their jobs," he said, adding that F-22 production needs to be cut off because "we have to do what's best for our nation."

The House last month approved its version of the defense bill with a $369 million down payment for 12 additional F-22 fighters. The House Appropriations Committee last week endorsed that spending in drawing up its Pentagon budget for next year. It also approved $534 million for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, another program that Obama, backed by the Pentagon, says is unwarranted and would subject the entire bill to a veto.

The defense bill authorizes $550 billion for defense programs and $130 billion for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other anti-terrorist operations.

[Deepcrush]

I just don't think you can replace the A-10 in CAS. There simply isn't a better aircraft anywhere in the world for the job. Her weapons give her the ability to engage anything that comes her way and her insane armor and ECM pod protect her from counter attack.

[Monroe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac6D7TWRVYY

I stopped following this thread so sorry if its been mentioned.

[Aaron]

I just don't think you can replace the A-10 in CAS. There simply isn't a better aircraft anywhere in the world for the job. Her weapons give her the ability to engage anything that comes her way and her insane armor and ECM pod protect her from counter attack.

I agree and I think it's a bad plan to try, unfortunately the US seems to be saddled with some programs that seem...optimistic at the moment. The last attempt to replace the A-10 with the F-16 was a disaster.

[Deepcrush]

F-16 was and is a dogfighter, and a good one if a bit short ranged. The fact that they tried to use that to match a born and bred CAS aircraft was a horrible joke. The only thing that matches between them is payload. F-16s carry a massive load out when they want too.