GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 13, 12:15*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:



On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10

Not gonna happen. *Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.

or a new design.

Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
load. *Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?

One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. *Part of the whole
design concept behind it. *One Aircraft with 80% parts
interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.

One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. *I
know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.

Perhaps the *SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
for this role as the A-10 ages. *After all it projected that the SM-47
will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
100 Million+ F-35. *It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.

Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job
as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
medals and gets them in bar fights.

Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will
select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more
attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway,

I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every
flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president
should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always
better to have something under the control of somebody who actually
have the incentive to develop it.

On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
medals and gets them in bar fights.

And you know this how?

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a
"combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked
like a regularly scheduled event.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
medals and gets them in bar fights.

And you know this how?

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a
"combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked
like a regularly scheduled event.

Your mileage may vary, but I've got a couple of gongs for ground
support and none for air/air. CAS is one of the most fun missions you
can do in a tactical aircraft. The only bar fight I ever saw was
between folks fighting to be the first to buy an fighter pilot a beer
for CAS the grunts had appreciated.

The major difference today isn't that CAS is hated by the AF, but
simply that CAS looks a lot different than it did in the past. No more
"gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM
from the menopause brings more precise support without the grunt ever
seeing the airplane. It might just as well be organic artillery fire.
He never knows.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
wrote:

On Jun 13, 12:15*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:



On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10

Not gonna happen. *Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.

or a new design.

Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
load. *Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?

One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. *Part of the whole
design concept behind it. *One Aircraft with 80% parts
interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.

One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. *I
know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.

Perhaps the *SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
for this role as the A-10 ages. *After all it projected that the SM-47
will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
100 Million+ F-35. *It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.

Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job
as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
medals and gets them in bar fights.

Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will
select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more
attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway,

I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every
flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president
should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always
better to have something under the control of somebody who actually
have the incentive to develop it.

How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this
"hate"?

Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
it to the Army?

You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint
operations.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

eatfastnoodle wrote:
On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:

Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will
select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more
attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway,

I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every
flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president
should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always
better to have something under the control of somebody who actually
have the incentive to develop it.

Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to shoot
only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies
Again based on yesterdays news.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
medals and gets them in bar fights.

And you know this how?

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a
"combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked
like a regularly scheduled event.

Your mileage may vary, but I've got a couple of gongs for ground
support and none for air/air. CAS is one of the most fun missions you
can do in a tactical aircraft. The only bar fight I ever saw was
between folks fighting to be the first to buy an fighter pilot a beer
for CAS the grunts had appreciated.

The major difference today isn't that CAS is hated by the AF, but
simply that CAS looks a lot different than it did in the past. No more
"gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM
from the menopause brings more precise support without the grunt ever
seeing the airplane. It might just as well be organic artillery fire.
He never knows.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

No more Sandys dumping napalm on the treeline from knife-fight altitude - a
scene much used by Hollywood.
I wonder how the movies would portray LGBs arriving out of the blue?

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

No more Sandys dumping napalm on the treeline from knife-fight altitude -
a scene much used by Hollywood.
I wonder how the movies would portray LGBs arriving out of the blue?


Laser Guided Bombs? How old-fashioned...

Tex Houston

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:




On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10

Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.

or a new design.

Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?

One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole
design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts
interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.

One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I
know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.

Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47
will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.

Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
--


How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this
"hate"?

Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
it to the Army?

You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint
operations.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org


Aggreed!
The playing with the deck chairs of who drops bombs vs flys cover is a
waste. The basic point The F-22 fanclub seems to be missing is we are
not in 1940 England and there is no major air battle comming. The need
now & for the forseeable future is under 10,000 ft. Not Mig chasing. We
have the the force for that & a surplus. Yet the fan club wants more????
Rest of the force be damned? What good is a 500 plane F22 force if they
have no Tankers, Cargo planes, SAR or anything elese?

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:20:43 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:

we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after.

Preempting Sadam before he aquired WMDs? Yeah, we did that. And rather
spectacularly I might add.

Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?


which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.

"Tiger" wrote in message
...
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Tiger" wrote in message
...

Raymond O'Hara wrote:

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
. ..


"Tiger" wrote in message
...


Roger Conroy wrote:


"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message
et...



"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:




the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"

Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria
& Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not,"
called Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to
Iran (a oil have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall
street agreed, thus the price spike.




they are have nots? they are 3 of the worlds largest oil producers.
russia and venezuela are all set for water too.
and iran has plenty at the moment.


The paragraph "is" discussing Haves. Read again....



i replied to conroy you idiot.
look at his post and mine.
if you can't keep up don't play.