"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:50:55 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:



When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these
days
in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to
realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in
night/adverse
weather, and being able to use smart weapons.

I'm fairly reasonable and would not agree that upgraded "Close Air
Support" airframe could or even should be "upgraded" into the role of
an "Air Superiority" fighter. At best the A-10 can be used in a
limited air interdiction role. It is absolutely 100% the wrong tool
for the wrong job in the role of "Air Superiority". The A-10 operates
under the "Low & Slow" method of operation which makes it great for
the Close Air Support Mission fro which it was created, but the entire
design of the Airframe means it will never be a "Go-Fast" fighter.

Up until it actually provided its mission effectiveness (killing tanks
dead) during DS/DS the A-10 was headed out of the Active Duty fleet.

In DS1, the main tank killer was the Buff. Today, the F-16, F-18, F-15E and
soon, the F-35 are much more of an affective armor killer than the A-10.
They are less of a target since they are NOT low and slow. The A-10 is
going out because it's running out of airframe time. The reason it hasn't
already is that it's paid for. But the payment begins to come higher and
higher to keep it in service. When the payment to keep it in services is
exceeded by the cost to get rid of it then it's gone. It's getting very,
very close. Whereas, the B-52 costs less to keep in service than it costs
to replace it.


I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the
advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on
their
factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is
(criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the
A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't
persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big
Cannon).

I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the
Skyraider.
But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces
CAS
needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers.

It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There
will
always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired
CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any
number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't
see
something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in
enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll
they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The
problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me,
I'd
go with a Saab Gripen NG.

Exactly how long do you think a Fighter can not only be kept in
production, but in any type of viable readiness operational capacity.
There will come a point in time that more of the fleet is down for
repairs then operationally capable. The maintenance costs will also
skyrocket as it gets older & older.

To me the absolute most brilliant part of the F-35 is the number of
countries that will have them in operational use, and if they ever
work out the technology transfer issues -- production. This
could/would mean that a F-35 from Canada operating in a joint theater
could be maintained by & have its spares provided for by any other of
the other nations operating the aircraft and participating in the same
theater of operations. This could/should lead to just one set of
maintenance personnel needing to be in the field in a joint operation.
Hell even the pilots could be interchangeable.

To me everything about the F-35 screams lower production & operating
costs because of commonality across all of an allied Air Fleet. Even
the Carrier version is 80% compatible with the land based version. It
is about time that the members of NATO and other treaties got their
collective act together and started using equipment 100% in common.
While Canada may have the intellectual & production ability to design
& build its own native fighter, the costs would be huge, and the
simple question of "Why?" would have to be asked.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **