A Flock of F-15X Eagles

[Grand58742]

There's really nothing else like the F/A-18 E and F out there.

Other than the F-15E? While there isn't a dedicated version of the F-15 for SEAD, it's only because the USAF decided to go with the -16 platform for that mission in a multi-role configuration. Other than that, it can do everything the F/A-18E/F can do seamlessly. It's normal mission is long range interdiction, but it can still perform air superiority if needed.

I agree in principle you don't need a whole hoop of different single mission aircraft. However, sometimes you really need that one platform that does one job great instead of a platform that does a lot of things okay. The A-10 is a specific example of that. It truly is great at the job of CAS and unrivaled so much they just can't replace it with an existing or planned platform. The F-35 just will never match that capability no matter how hard they try. Like another poster said, the F-35 is like the old saying "an elephant is a mouse designed to government specifications." Or in this case, a bunch of different military agencies trying to shoehorn their specifications into the same platform without even considering maybe it was too much. The supposed total weapons capacity is 18,000 pounds, but that requires the addition of the wing pylons. Which in turn destroys the stealth value of the aircraft. So, they limit it to internal weapons only which severely limits its payload capacity. By as much as over 12,000 lbs. That's a lot of ordnance not being carried which, in turn, means you have to use more of these highly expensive aircraft that are also expensive to maintain. Anyway...

The problem with the military (USAF very specifically) is they miss out on the high tech/low tech approach to aerial warfare. You do need high tech to win control of the skies, but you need (relatively) lower (and cheaper) tech for the brushfire wars we've been fighting or after we've gained air supremacy. It's great a B-1B can now perform CAS for troops in contact, but danged if it isn't an expensive monster to operate. So, the military is leveraging trying to purchase just enough of the high tech platform by trying hard to justify it as the end all, be all of combat aircraft. All while retiring older, viable platforms to save money because the high tech platform went into the normal government situation of high cost overruns and lowered expectations of performance. In order to afford the minimum, they have to retire legacy systems that are still viable, but have to be retired in order to afford the "new hotness." This is also why you'll never see (in my opinion) the USAF get on board with the OA-X program even though that aircraft would be way cheaper and likely more effective than tossing out an F-35 on a CAS mission. Such a platform, in the right hands, would show the government, specifically Congress, yes, the job can be done cheaper and just as efficiently as the F-35. And by the way, we can purchase an entire squadron for less than the price of three F-35s at a way cheaper per hour operation cost.

[Hank6046]

Our big 4 are failing miserably at everything except squandering massive amounts of tax payer money.
The knee high Navy excluded.

Well once they figure out the uniform and camo situation I'm sure they'll turn it around...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-a...ery-expensive/

[sundance435]

The problem with the military (USAF very specifically) is they miss out on the high tech/low tech approach to aerial warfare. You do need high tech to win control of the skies, but you need (relatively) lower (and cheaper) tech for the brushfire wars we've been fighting or after we've gained air supremacy. It's great a B-1B can now perform CAS for troops in contact, but danged if it isn't an expensive monster to operate. So, the military is leveraging trying to purchase just enough of the high tech platform by trying hard to justify it as the end all, be all of combat aircraft. All while retiring older, viable platforms to save money because the high tech platform went into the normal government situation of high cost overruns and lowered expectations of performance. In order to afford the minimum, they have to retire legacy systems that are still viable, but have to be retired in order to afford the "new hotness." This is also why you'll never see (in my opinion) the USAF get on board with the OA-X program even though that aircraft would be way cheaper and likely more effective than tossing out an F-35 on a CAS mission. Such a platform, in the right hands, would show the government, specifically Congress, yes, the job can be done cheaper and just as efficiently as the F-35. And by the way, we can purchase an entire squadron for less than the price of three F-35s at a way cheaper per hour operation cost.

Totally agree with the hi-lo mix and also the OA-X program. There should be a USAF 3-star in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee being told to resign for what they're doing with OA-X. It's a perfect example of everything wrong with DoD and the unaccountability of the 3 service branches (excluding the poor Corps on this one) to a higher authority. In my eyes, the DoD is like a holding company that exerts no top-level control over the subsidiaries collectively.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

We will spend more getting that lost Japanese F35 off the bottom of the Pacific ocean before the Russians or Chinese get it than the whole OA-X project. What happens when a F35 goes down in Syria and all the goodies get spilled?

[sundance435]

We will spend more getting that lost Japanese F35 off the bottom of the Pacific ocean before the Russians or Chinese get it than the whole OA-X project. What happens when a F35 goes down in Syria and all the goodies get spilled?

My point with OA-X is that there's clearly a need for it if the AF continues to insist on killing the A-10. But, AF only likes fast and/or expensive stuff and OA-X is beneath them, even though CAS has everything to do with supporting other services. The only entity that can make them take OA-X seriously is the Pentagon and no on there seems to have done that yet. Army and Marines have next to no say in whether the AF actually procures them. Are there legit reasons for not giving CAS back to the army and/or Corps?

[Grand58742]

My point with OA-X is that there's clearly a need for it if the AF continues to insist on killing the A-10. But, AF only likes fast and/or expensive stuff and OA-X is beneath them, even though CAS has everything to do with supporting other services. The only entity that can make them take OA-X seriously is the Pentagon and no on there seems to have done that yet. Army and Marines have next to no say in whether the AF actually procures them. Are there legit reasons for not giving CAS back to the army and/or Corps?

I think the OA-X program will eventually get off the ground...eventually and when Congress finally gets involved. I think the members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees need to see what they are buying, see the price tag and then ask the pointed questions as to "why" it's not being procured.

I think the problem stems from it being a foreign designed aircraft and American exceptionalism taking over. Furthermore, it's likely not being built in a bunch of Congressional Districts/States so there is no block to push for it in Congress.

[Slater]

I think that people will inevitably compare the OA-X to the A-10, which is more expensive to operate (and a much older airframe) but has significantly greater firepower/payload, damage resistance, and loiter time.

[Grand58742]

I'm of the mind eventually the USAF will be mandated by Congress to replace the A-10 with a purpose designed aircraft to fulfill that role. Not a Jack of all trades like the F-35, but a specific platform designed around that monster GAU-8 with the same features.

No stealth, no afterburner, no crazy gizmos. Just straight badass plane that strikes fear into those that come across it.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I think that people will inevitably compare the OA-X to the A-10, which is more expensive to operate (and a much older airframe) but has significantly greater firepower/payload, damage resistance, and loiter time.

To me the OA-X isn't even close to a replacement for the A10. More like a plane for countries where it is cheaper to have pilots than drones. More armour, more gun - and it seems the A10 did fine with a single pilot. Ditch the second pilot and add an engine. Seems like you really need two engines to play that game. I don't know what gun you actually need. When anti-armour isn't your main mission- but that much thump is nice.

[vicious_cb]

The A-10 is only useful for beating on 3rd world armies and jihadi insurgents. Its pretty much useless against near peer forces, even if you gain air superiority you have to deal with things like this:



If its big guns and loiter time to beat on insurgents then invest into more Specter gunships. If you want Jdam dropping flying artillery then anything with a targeting pod will do. The A-10 isnt the end all be all CAS airframe.