KEEFE!! Plan to scrap Warthog fleet hits resistance

[mr.MUskie]

Supporters fight to save ‘great old friend’ as Pentagon looks to make spending cuts

WASHINGTON — It’s often called the military’s ugliest aircraft, a snub-nosed tank of an airplane that’s nicknamed Warthog for its appearance and ferocity. The A-10 Thunderbolt has been the Air Force’s equivalent of an in-the-trenches grunt for almost 40 years: heavily armed and armored, designed to fly low and take out the enemy at close range.

But now, after a career that has spanned the Cold War to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has proposed shuttering the fleet as part of across-the-board cuts in defense spending.

Getting rid of the remaining 300 or so aircraft would save $3.7 billion over five years, Defense Department officials say, and allow the Air Force to bring in more sophisticated aircraft, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, to provide what is called “close air support.”

“While no one, especially me, is happy about recommending divestiture of this great old friend, it’s the right military decision,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. “And it’s representative of the extremely difficult choices that we’re being forced to make.”

Supporters of the A-10 have launched a campaign to save an aircraft they say is unparalleled in the history of American aviation: a slow-flying airplane designed to fly close enough to the ground so that pilots can distinguish friend from foe, often with their own eyes.

The A-10 has saved dozens of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it has performed in a way that modern planes flying high and fast never could, they say.

“The best close air support platform we have around is the A-10,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said at a news conference Thursday, where she was joined by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and several A-10 pilots.

In recent congressional hearings, the A-10 has gotten rave reviews.

“The A-10 is the ugliest most beautiful aircraft on the planet,” said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Air Force officials argue that with the defense cuts they have no choice but to get rid of the A-10 fleet.

“The budget picture we’re presenting to you today is hard choices, nothing but hard choices,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told the committee.

Welsh said the Air Force must be prepared for “a full-spectrum fight” that involves many missions in addition to close air support.

“We have a lot of other airplanes that do close air support that can do those other important things,” he said. “The A-10 isn’t used in that way. It doesn’t mean it’s not a great platform. ... The comment I’ve heard that somehow the Air Force is walking away from close air support I must admit frustrates me.”

One of those aircraft will be the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, officials have said. But the aircraft, which has been repeatedly delayed and has seen its cost skyrocket, is not expected to be ready until 2021. The Air Force is planning to get rid of the A-10s by 2019.

Ayotte, who inserted language in the defense spending bill that prevents the Air Force from retiring the A-10 before the end of 2014, called that a dangerous gap.

McCain was more blunt.

“We are going to do away with the finest close air support weapon in history?” he said. “And we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much and the cost is still growing with the F-35? That’s ridiculous.”

[keefe]

Supporters fight to save ‘great old friend’ as Pentagon looks to make spending cuts

WASHINGTON — It’s often called the military’s ugliest aircraft, a snub-nosed tank of an airplane that’s nicknamed Warthog for its appearance and ferocity. The A-10 Thunderbolt has been the Air Force’s equivalent of an in-the-trenches grunt for almost 40 years: heavily armed and armored, designed to fly low and take out the enemy at close range.

But now, after a career that has spanned the Cold War to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has proposed shuttering the fleet as part of across-the-board cuts in defense spending.

Getting rid of the remaining 300 or so aircraft would save $3.7 billion over five years, Defense Department officials say, and allow the Air Force to bring in more sophisticated aircraft, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, to provide what is called “close air support.”

“While no one, especially me, is happy about recommending divestiture of this great old friend, it’s the right military decision,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. “And it’s representative of the extremely difficult choices that we’re being forced to make.”

Supporters of the A-10 have launched a campaign to save an aircraft they say is unparalleled in the history of American aviation: a slow-flying airplane designed to fly close enough to the ground so that pilots can distinguish friend from foe, often with their own eyes.

The A-10 has saved dozens of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it has performed in a way that modern planes flying high and fast never could, they say.

“The best close air support platform we have around is the A-10,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said at a news conference Thursday, where she was joined by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and several A-10 pilots.

In recent congressional hearings, the A-10 has gotten rave reviews.

“The A-10 is the ugliest most beautiful aircraft on the planet,” said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Air Force officials argue that with the defense cuts they have no choice but to get rid of the A-10 fleet.

“The budget picture we’re presenting to you today is hard choices, nothing but hard choices,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told the committee.

Welsh said the Air Force must be prepared for “a full-spectrum fight” that involves many missions in addition to close air support.

“We have a lot of other airplanes that do close air support that can do those other important things,” he said. “The A-10 isn’t used in that way. It doesn’t mean it’s not a great platform. ... The comment I’ve heard that somehow the Air Force is walking away from close air support I must admit frustrates me.”

One of those aircraft will be the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, officials have said. But the aircraft, which has been repeatedly delayed and has seen its cost skyrocket, is not expected to be ready until 2021. The Air Force is planning to get rid of the A-10s by 2019.

Ayotte, who inserted language in the defense spending bill that prevents the Air Force from retiring the A-10 before the end of 2014, called that a dangerous gap.

McCain was more blunt.

“We are going to do away with the finest close air support weapon in history?” he said. “And we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much and the cost is still growing with the F-35? That’s ridiculous.”

The USAF leadership stills sees victory in the battlespace through the prism of shooting down the bad guys one jet at a time. Warfare has gone asymmetric and as Big Green and the Marines will tell you their CAS platform of choice 110% of the time is the Hawg.

Mother AF knew this would be a sh1t fight but in a time of diminishing budgets they are scrambling for ways to pay for Raptors and 35's. The reality is, and the USAF knows this, the A 10 has too many champions. They are banking on getting funding for multi-role platforms while also forcing Congress to pay for the Hawg. Bottom line is that the A 10 ain't going away anytime soon. There is no finer killing machine than the A 10.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Keefe,
I see some new articles on this subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/09/these-planes-could-someday-replace-the-a-10-if-the-pentagon-spends-the-cash/?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

These planes could someday replace the A-10 — if the Pentagon spends the cash

By Dan Lamothe March 9


The impending mothballing of the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack jet has prompted outrage among its advocates in the active-duty military, hand-wringing on Capitol Hill and questions from analysts about whether the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can be operated cheaply enough to support ground troops on a regular basis.

But it also has sparked a question: Which plane could the U.S. military adopt if it ultimately decides it needs a new, designated plane to provide close-air support?

The mission has been handled by a variety of aircraft in recent years, but it is the A-10, nicknamed the Warthog, that is beloved for its ability to loiter over a battlefield and target enemy fighters, tanks and vehicles. Even as its heads into retirement, it is carrying out about 11 percent of the combat sorties against the Islamic State militant group, Air Force Secretary Deborah James said in January.

Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of the Air Combat Command, left open the possibility on Friday that the service could eventually need another plane to fill the close-air support mission. He called it the “A-X,” with the “A” meaning its primary mission would be attacking enemy forces on the ground. (As opposed to fighter jets, which get the “F” prefix.)

But the Air Force isn’t planning to pay for that anytime soon. Rather, it plans to retire the A-10 and rely on other existing planes such as the F-15 Strike Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon to carry out close-air support. Defense officials want the F-35 to eventually take the mission over, but it isn’t clear how long that will take. Getting rid of the Air Force’s 283 A-10s will save $3.7 billion over five years, senior defense officials said.

Carlisle said that questions about “capacity” leave the door open to an “A-X” plane.” Each variant of the F-35 costs more than $30,000 per hour to fly, according to Pentagon estimates that some critics consider conservative. The cost to fly the A-10 is closer to $11,500, according to an analysis by The Atlantic.

The A-10 and possible successors wouldn’t fare well in dogfights with other advanced fighters. But against the variety of militant groups that have seized attention in the last year, they’d still be effective, and at a fraction of the price. Here are a few planes analysts discuss in the close-air support mission:

A-29 Super Tucano
 
Air Force Capt. Matthew Clayton, of the 81st Fighter Squadron, flies an A-29 Super Tucano on March 5, 2015, in the skies over Moody Air Force Base, Ga. The 81st FS is the only A-29 squadron in the Air Force. (Photo by Senior Airman Ryan Callaghan/ Air Force)

The U.S. military thought enough of this turboprop aircraft to purchase a number of them for the nascent Afghan air force, which the Pentagon is funding and training. The first 20 arrived at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in September, as the service prepares to train Afghan pilots there.

The Super Tucano, called the A-29 by the Air Force, is made by Brazilian aviation firm Embraer, and has been used by militaries across the world. It typically costs about $1,000 an hour to fly. It could be outfitted with a variety of bombs and machine guns, and has drawn interest from a variety of African militaries facing insurgencies. The Afghan version is made in the United States by Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corp.

Afghanistan won’t receive its first Super Tucanos until December, Gen. Joseph Campbell, the top U.S. commander there, testified last week. The fact that the plane will not be available for fighting season this year is considered a setback for the Afghan military.

The Scorpion
 
The Textron Scorpion is a small jet that has been pitched by the company as an option for close-air support. (Photo released by Textron)

The Scorpion jet has been developed by Textron, which includes Bell Helicopter, Cessna and other major aviation companies. It was first introduced in 2013, and recently reached 300 hours in flight testing, company officials said. It costs about $3,000 per flight hour, and has been pitched by the company as a cheap option to perform maritime security, close-air support and surveillance missions.

Carlisle left open the possibility that the Air Force might pursue the Scorpion when asked about it Friday. But he said other planes also are in play, without naming any.

“We have to keep thinking about those things because, frankly, we haven’t been very good at predicting the future and what it’s going to look like,” the general said.

The aircraft has drawn interest from militaries across the world, and was displayed at an international airshow in Abu Dhabi, the International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX), last month.

The AT-6
 
The Beechcraft AT-6 has competed with the Super Tucano for contracts in the past. (Photo released by Beechcraft)

Beechcraft’s AT-6 has been used by the Air Force as a trainer plane for years, and used by a variety of militaries abroad, including Iraq’s and Mexico’s. The single-prop plane can carry a variety of weapons on stations mounted on its wings, and has competed with the Super Tucano for contracts in the past.

The American version is sometimes known as the Texan II. Raytheon is integrating the 44-pound Griffin “mini-missile” onto it in the future, upping its firepower. The Griffin has been used on other U.S. aircraft, including the KC-130 gunship, which is equipped with a powerful Harvest Hawk weapons suite.


Dan Lamothe covers national security for The Washington Post and anchors its military blog, Checkpoint.

[keefe]

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/warthog.html

[keefe]

There is a Warthog Driver in Congress now. Col Martha "Wedge" McSally represents the district around DM AFB in Tucson. First woman to fly in combat. Sh1t Hot fighter pilot. She gave me a check ride at the RTU. Great American. Wedge has vowed to fly top cover for the Hawg in Congress, along with Sens McCain and Ayotte.

 http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/01/29/mcsally-a10-letter/22533095/

[Les Nessman]

Keefe, I've not read much that is positive about the F-35. It seems like every article I've read says it has a lot of incredible components, but when all put together don't compliment each other and lead to a plane that isn't excellent at anything and mediocre at most due to the lack of synergy between all it's systems and purposes. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.   

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Tommy,
I've read the same.  Basically, the F-35 was designed to "multi-task" operations rather than single purpose like all previous jet programs.  It does everything well just supposedly not as great as a jet specifically designed for a specific task.
I'm sure Keefe can enlighten further.

My company makes a few parts for the F-35 and what I can say is the test requirements are very strenuous and tough to pass (that's a good thing).  Any part that meets the test requirements on this jet will be very robust.

[keefe]

Keefe, I've not read much that is positive about the F-35. It seems like every article I've read says it has a lot of incredible components, but when all put together don't compliment each other and lead to a plane that isn't excellent at anything and mediocre at most due to the lack of synergy between all it's systems and purposes. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.   

Geez, where to begin. I would organize the issues with the JSX into two categories: Operational and Engineering.

Once you get past the fact that the aircraft is significantly over budget and that its IOC is now out to 2020 the sad fact is that it was intended to be all things to all people yet doesn't do anything particularly well. It isn't good in an air-air role for Combat Air Patrol (CAP) as it lacks the agility and load out of the Eagle. Both Eagles and Lawn Darts (F 16s)  consistently out turn and outrun 35's in Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT). When a 40 year old bird schwacks the latest technology every time out the gate one has to wonder what we are getting for $340M/airframe.

But the real question is this: What is the terminal air threat we are planning for? If the balloon went up today and we had to go toe-toe with either Ivan or the PRC our fleet of Eagles and Lawn Darts would own the skies in a matter of days. Not only are these platforms superior to the adversary but, more importantly, our tactical doctrine and operational planning is far superior.

USAF investment in integrated air campaign battle management infrastructure through our Air Operations Center (AOC) or the battle space management provided by E3A AWACs is the force multiplier game changing technology that will devastate any adversary terminal air threat. Simply put - the paradigm of relying solely on airframes launching into the wind and shooting down the enemy one aircraft at a time is outdated doctrine.

Air Combat Doctrine is now focused on deconflicting an enemy's Critical Nodes; gone are the days of fighting air wars of attrition. It is no longer necessary to destroy the preponderance of an adversary's air fleet. Rather, we deny his ability to employ those assets efficiently and effectively. Example: If we deny the enemy's command and control structure through elimination of select Critical Nodes then it is not necessary to shoot down all of his jets. This takes into account the fact that both Moscow and Beijing rely exclusively on strict Ground Control Intercept (GCI) doctrinal precepts. If you can eliminate their ability their Command, Control, and Communication (C3) nodes you eliminate his ability to effectively employ his air assets.  This new form of war fighting is far more effective, less costly, and relies heavily on our core strengths of technological advantage, superior precision throughout the entire kill chain, and integrated combat arms.   

And it is even worse than the Warthog as a Close Air Support (CAS) platform. The primary considerations in CAS are: precision, load out, loiter time, reaction time. In comparing an $11M Warthog to a $340M F 35 the Warthog has superior precision, combat load out, and loiter time. Only in reaction time is the 35 better but one can deploy 30 Warthogs for every 35 (not to mention cost to operate per flight hour - the 35 costs 28x more per hour to operate than the A 10!!)

I could go into the specifics of CAS employment but the reality is that no aircraft designed to do both Air-Air and Air-Mud has ever done either as well as dedicated platforms. Congress has chanted this mantra for decades and the reality is that it is a unicorn.

I could list out the litany of engineering problems with the F 35 but you could likely find those out through a Bing search. Suffice it to say, they have over complicated the F35 weapon system to where it is virtually unworkable. The taxpayers and, more importantly, the ground troops in contact with bad guys have gotten superior value from the cheap, reliable, and highly effective Warthog. Every Warthog driver who has been to the Sandbox has taken a lot of ground fire - the maintenance guys earn their pay patching the airframes back together - but not once has an A 10 been taken down. They are indestructible.   

Congress really needs to look at the war fighting we are engaged in now and in the future. The likelihood of WW III breaking out is pretty low. Joint  Doctrine categorizes conflict in three levels and the reality is that military engagements will be asymetrical. The need for CAS platforms is far greater than air superiority assets.

[keefe]

Keefe,
I see some new articles on this subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/09/these-planes-could-someday-replace-the-a-10-if-the-pentagon-spends-the-cash/?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

These planes could someday replace the A-10 — if the Pentagon spends the cash

By Dan Lamothe March 9


The impending mothballing of the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack jet has prompted outrage among its advocates in the active-duty military, hand-wringing on Capitol Hill and questions from analysts about whether the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can be operated cheaply enough to support ground troops on a regular basis.

But it also has sparked a question: Which plane could the U.S. military adopt if it ultimately decides it needs a new, designated plane to provide close-air support?

The mission has been handled by a variety of aircraft in recent years, but it is the A-10, nicknamed the Warthog, that is beloved for its ability to loiter over a battlefield and target enemy fighters, tanks and vehicles. Even as its heads into retirement, it is carrying out about 11 percent of the combat sorties against the Islamic State militant group, Air Force Secretary Deborah James said in January.

Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of the Air Combat Command, left open the possibility on Friday that the service could eventually need another plane to fill the close-air support mission. He called it the “A-X,” with the “A” meaning its primary mission would be attacking enemy forces on the ground. (As opposed to fighter jets, which get the “F” prefix.)

But the Air Force isn’t planning to pay for that anytime soon. Rather, it plans to retire the A-10 and rely on other existing planes such as the F-15 Strike Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon to carry out close-air support. Defense officials want the F-35 to eventually take the mission over, but it isn’t clear how long that will take. Getting rid of the Air Force’s 283 A-10s will save $3.7 billion over five years, senior defense officials said.

Carlisle said that questions about “capacity” leave the door open to an “A-X” plane.” Each variant of the F-35 costs more than $30,000 per hour to fly, according to Pentagon estimates that some critics consider conservative. The cost to fly the A-10 is closer to $11,500, according to an analysis by The Atlantic.

The A-10 and possible successors wouldn’t fare well in dogfights with other advanced fighters. But against the variety of militant groups that have seized attention in the last year, they’d still be effective, and at a fraction of the price. Here are a few planes analysts discuss in the close-air support mission:

A-29 Super Tucano
 
Air Force Capt. Matthew Clayton, of the 81st Fighter Squadron, flies an A-29 Super Tucano on March 5, 2015, in the skies over Moody Air Force Base, Ga. The 81st FS is the only A-29 squadron in the Air Force. (Photo by Senior Airman Ryan Callaghan/ Air Force)

The U.S. military thought enough of this turboprop aircraft to purchase a number of them for the nascent Afghan air force, which the Pentagon is funding and training. The first 20 arrived at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in September, as the service prepares to train Afghan pilots there.

The Super Tucano, called the A-29 by the Air Force, is made by Brazilian aviation firm Embraer, and has been used by militaries across the world. It typically costs about $1,000 an hour to fly. It could be outfitted with a variety of bombs and machine guns, and has drawn interest from a variety of African militaries facing insurgencies. The Afghan version is made in the United States by Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corp.

Afghanistan won’t receive its first Super Tucanos until December, Gen. Joseph Campbell, the top U.S. commander there, testified last week. The fact that the plane will not be available for fighting season this year is considered a setback for the Afghan military.

The Scorpion
 
The Textron Scorpion is a small jet that has been pitched by the company as an option for close-air support. (Photo released by Textron)

The Scorpion jet has been developed by Textron, which includes Bell Helicopter, Cessna and other major aviation companies. It was first introduced in 2013, and recently reached 300 hours in flight testing, company officials said. It costs about $3,000 per flight hour, and has been pitched by the company as a cheap option to perform maritime security, close-air support and surveillance missions.

Carlisle left open the possibility that the Air Force might pursue the Scorpion when asked about it Friday. But he said other planes also are in play, without naming any.

“We have to keep thinking about those things because, frankly, we haven’t been very good at predicting the future and what it’s going to look like,” the general said.

The aircraft has drawn interest from militaries across the world, and was displayed at an international airshow in Abu Dhabi, the International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX), last month.

The AT-6
 
The Beechcraft AT-6 has competed with the Super Tucano for contracts in the past. (Photo released by Beechcraft)

Beechcraft’s AT-6 has been used by the Air Force as a trainer plane for years, and used by a variety of militaries abroad, including Iraq’s and Mexico’s. The single-prop plane can carry a variety of weapons on stations mounted on its wings, and has competed with the Super Tucano for contracts in the past.

The American version is sometimes known as the Texan II. Raytheon is integrating the 44-pound Griffin “mini-missile” onto it in the future, upping its firepower. The Griffin has been used on other U.S. aircraft, including the KC-130 gunship, which is equipped with a powerful Harvest Hawk weapons suite.


Dan Lamothe covers national security for The Washington Post and anchors its military blog, Checkpoint.

Sorry, Nutmeg, but these are Yugos and Trabis compared with the Warthog!

[jsglow]

Geez, where to begin. I would organize the issues with the JSX into two categories: Operational and Engineering.

Once you get past the fact that the aircraft is significantly over budget and that its IOC is now out to 2020 the sad fact is that it was intended to be all things to all people yet doesn't do anything particularly well. It isn't good in an air-air role for Combat Air Patrol (CAP) as it lacks the agility and load out of the Eagle. Both Eagles and Lawn Darts (F 16s)  consistently out turn and outrun 35's in Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT). When a 40 year old bird schwacks the latest technology every time out the gate one has to wonder what we are getting for $340M/airframe.

But the real question is this: What is the terminal air threat we are planning for? If the balloon went up today and we had to go toe-toe with either Ivan or the PRC our fleet of Eagles and Lawn Darts would own the skies in a matter of days. Not only are these platforms superior to the adversary but, more importantly, our tactical doctrine and operational planning is far superior.

USAF investment in integrated air campaign battle management infrastructure through our Air Operations Center (AOC) or the battle space management provided by E3A AWACs is the force multiplier game changing technology that will devastate any adversary terminal air threat. Simply put - the paradigm of relying solely on airframes launching into the wind and shooting down the enemy one aircraft at a time is outdated doctrine.

Air Combat Doctrine is now focused on deconflicting an enemy's Critical Nodes; gone are the days of fighting air wars of attrition. It is no longer necessary to destroy the preponderance of an adversary's air fleet. Rather, we deny his ability to employ those assets efficiently and effectively. Example: If we deny the enemy's command and control structure through elimination of select Critical Nodes then it is not necessary to shoot down all of his jets. This takes into account the fact that both Moscow and Beijing rely exclusively on strict Ground Control Intercept (GCI) doctrinal precepts. If you can eliminate their ability their Command, Control, and Communication (C3) nodes you eliminate his ability to effectively employ his air assets.  This new form of war fighting is far more effective, less costly, and relies heavily on our core strengths of technological advantage, superior precision throughout the entire kill chain, and integrated combat arms.   

And it is even worse than the Warthog as a Close Air Support (CAS) platform. The primary considerations in CAS are: precision, load out, loiter time, reaction time. In comparing an $11M Warthog to a $340M F 35 the Warthog has superior precision, combat load out, and loiter time. Only in reaction time is the 35 better but one can deploy 30 Warthogs for every 35 (not to mention cost to operate per flight hour - the 35 costs 28x more per hour to operate than the A 10!!)

I could go into the specifics of CAS employment but the reality is that no aircraft designed to do both Air-Air and Air-Mud has ever done either as well as dedicated platforms. Congress has chanted this mantra for decades and the reality is that it is a unicorn.

I could list out the litany of engineering problems with the F 35 but you could likely find those out through a Bing search. Suffice it to say, they have over complicated the F35 weapon system to where it is virtually unworkable. The taxpayers and, more importantly, the ground troops in contact with bad guys have gotten superior value from the cheap, reliable, and highly effective Warthog. Every Warthog driver who has been to the Sandbox has taken a lot of ground fire - the maintenance guys earn their pay patching the airframes back together - but not once has an A 10 been taken down. They are indestructible.   

Congress really needs to look at the war fighting we are engaged in now and in the future. The likelihood of WW III breaking out is pretty low. Joint  Doctrine categorizes conflict in three levels and the reality is that military engagements will be asymetrical. The need for CAS platforms is far greater than air superiority assets.

Great stuff.  My recommendation.  Build more Warthogs and teach guys and gals to fly 'em.  It's like when they thought B-52s couldn't do the job anymore.  And then they realized they could put more tonnage on the target than any plane ever invented.  I think we're now exceeding 50 freakin' service years.  Don't get me wrong.  The high tech stuff is great.  But sometimes down and dirty does the exact job necessary even better.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Thanks Keefe!

[mu03eng]

Keefe didn't even touch on the bed crapping the JSF is doing in the B(carrier based) and C(VTOL) variants.  The B variant is intended to replace the Hornets and Super Hornets(Rhino) in the fleet and there are currently serious reservations about doing so.  Not that I'm all that connected but anyone I've talked to has indicated the Navy is trying to find a way out of the commitment.  The Rhino has longer legs, a reliable track record, a heavier load out limit and is already a standard platform on-board a carrier for everything but cargo delivery and AWACS (there is a Viking replacement in the works for the ASW role).  There is talk over wanting to take the Gen III Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) from the JSF, update the Rhino cockpit to conform and walk away from the JSF.  The HMD and "stealth" are the only advantages the JSF has over the Rhino and the Rhino right now has a significantly smaller radar cross section than any non-stealth aircraft.  Stealth in the current air environment isn't worth the trade-offs needed to accomplish it in my opinion.

The C variant (Harrier replacement) is intended as a CAS platform for Marines on the beach and is apparently a dismal failure to date.  The thing works, but the sortie rate is going to be so low that they are projecting having to deploy 2 JSF squadrons for every 1 Harrier squadron for equivalent force projection.  The whole platform concept was to reduce the logistics complications but the VTOL requirement makes the C variant a something like 70% unique airframe that negates the logistical argument.  Lastly, the survivability of the C variant in denied airspace is a significant issue right now.

Bottom line, you couldn't pay me enough money to ride an Iron Hand configured F-35B into denied airspace....I'd consider punching out before I even got feet dry.   

[keefe]

Keefe didn't even touch on the bed crapping the JSF is doing in the B(carrier based) and C(VTOL) variants.  The B variant is intended to replace the Hornets and Super Hornets(Rhino) in the fleet and there are currently serious reservations about doing so.  Not that I'm all that connected but anyone I've talked to has indicated the Navy is trying to find a way out of the commitment.  The Rhino has longer legs, a reliable track record, a heavier load out limit and is already a standard platform on-board a carrier for everything but cargo delivery and AWACS (there is a Viking replacement in the works for the ASW role).  There is talk over wanting to take the Gen III Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) from the JSF, update the Rhino cockpit to conform and walk away from the JSF.  The HMD and "stealth" are the only advantages the JSF has over the Rhino and the Rhino right now has a significantly smaller radar cross section than any non-stealth aircraft.  Stealth in the current air environment isn't worth the trade-offs needed to accomplish it in my opinion.

The C variant (Harrier replacement) is intended as a CAS platform for Marines on the beach and is apparently a dismal failure to date.  The thing works, but the sortie rate is going to be so low that they are projecting having to deploy 2 JSF squadrons for every 1 Harrier squadron for equivalent force projection.  The whole platform concept was to reduce the logistics complications but the VTOL requirement makes the C variant a something like 70% unique airframe that negates the logistical argument.  Lastly, the survivability of the C variant in denied airspace is a significant issue right now.

Bottom line, you couldn't pay me enough money to ride an Iron Hand configured F-35B into denied airspace....I'd consider punching out before I even got feet dry.   

Does the Navy have aircraft??

[mu03eng]

Does the Navy have aircraft??

If you haven't seen them.....

Check six....they're probably behind you, locking you up

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I saw this one in the same vein.  The Indians are not impressed and underwhelmed with Russia's answer to the F-22 & F-34.  Interestingly, a good chunk of Russia's military aircraft are made in the Ukraine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3004441/Russias-air-corps-powerful-fading-force.html

Russia's air corps is a powerful but fading force

By Reuters

Published: 11:02 EST, 20 March 2015  | Updated: 11:02 EST, 20 March 2015

By Robert Beckhusen

March 20 (Reuters) - On March 3, seven Russian attack planes took off from Novofederovka airbase in Crimea. They flew out over the Black Sea, right toward two North Atlantic Treaty Organization warships, the U.S. guided-missile cruiser Vicksburg and the Turkish frigate Tugutreis.

Russia's state-owned media described the mission as a reconnaissance exercise. The planes practiced tracking the ships from a distance while staying just outside the range from which the vessels could theoretically shoot back.

This sort of patrol has become ever more common since the war in Ukraine began. Russian aircraft approach NATO vessels or airspace and practice simulated combat maneuvers or engage in reconnaissance. The rate of Russian fighter and bomber patrols near NATO borders has tripled in a year, though it's still below the weekly flights common during the Cold War.

Worried? To be sure, the Russian air force is formidable. It's the world's second largest in terms of combat aircraft, with roughly 2,500 warplanes, of which more than 70 percent are serviceable. Unlike Russia's navy, which has been essentially reduced to a coastal defense force, its air force is still capable and deadly by global standards. It has the world's second-largest strategic-bomber force, capable of delivering nuclear weapons thousands of miles from home.

But Russia's air force has a lot of problems familiar to other branches of the Kremlin's military. With few exceptions, its aerial fleet dates to the Cold War and is getting older. Modern and capable fighter jets are entering service, but only in small numbers. Over the long term, Russia's air force is expected to dwindle further.

The roots of these problems date from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Factories producing aircraft and parts have shut down or became part of foreign, predominantly Ukrainian, territory. Engineers experienced in building jets have immigrated or retired. Moscow put a halt to buying new planes - it bought none until 2003 - and halted most training exercises.

Russia has a lot of catching up to do. The Kremlin now considers modernizing its air force a top priority. This isn't just acquiring new, modern warplanes but also upgrading existing ones. In 2014, Russia spent more than a billion dollars on newer avionics and electronic warfare systems, which can allow Russian jets to more effectively flood radars and enemy jets with electromagnetic energy.

Altogether, Russia plans to spend $130 billion on modernizing its air force through the rest of the decade, according to research scientist Dmitry Gorenberg's blog Russian Military Reform.

Russia's state armament program, which sets out military procurement policies through 2020, heavily emphasizes relying more on domestic manufacturing. "Such an approach is not without its own difficulties," noted OE Watch, the monthly newsletter of the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office, "which the Kremlin does not publically discuss."

Among these problems is that Russia's domestic industry has serious shortcomings when it comes to building microelectronics. These components are less glamorous than airframes and missiles, which Russia builds quite well, but crucial to modern fighters. The technology enables lethal advantages like night vision and thermal imaging systems.

Building up the domestic aviation industry isn't just a job-creation program. For Moscow, it's an absolute necessity. A huge amount of Russian military hardware came from Ukraine until the war between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian separatists put an end to that.

Ukraine's state-owned military company, Ukroboronprom, for example, produced many of Russia's helicopter engines until the firm cut ties last year. Russia cannot physically produce enough engines to modernize its helicopter fleet, according to the Royal United Services Institute, a British defense research group, so most of its engines were made in Ukraine.

Russia and Ukraine co-built the An-124 heavy transport plane, which relies on Ukrainian factories for more than half its parts. (Though Moscow's military transports have considerable lifespans.) One of the largest Ukrainian aviation factories that supplied parts to Russia is in Zaporizhia, close to pro-Russian separatist territory.

"Many of the auxiliary systems, from hydraulics to drogue parachutes, for the Russian Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 fighters, as well as for Russia's newest Su-34, are also produced in Ukraine," the research group noted.

These four planes are Russia's most modern operational fighters. They are actually all similar, with slight upgrades to their engines and electronics. Yet two different Russian companies, Irkut and KnAAPO, build the airframes. Which is pretty redundant and inefficient, but for a reason.

The Kremlin has had a hard time finding buyers on the international market for the jets. So having two companies produce them for the domestic market keeps their production lines open.

Russia's advanced, "fifth-generation" T-50 stealth fighter, which is still in development, is also having problems. The Kremlin doesn't disclose what is the matter with the jet, a potential rival to the stealthy American F-22 Raptor. But we can glean some information. Russia and India are co-developing a version for the Indian air force, so its generals have had an up-close look at the T-50. They don't like what they see.

India sunk more than $5 billion into the initial design, which is to be compatible with Indian-made missiles and navigation systems. New Delhi wants to eventually buy 200 of the fighters, and has few other options. In the T-50's class, the only competitors on the international market are the Chinese J-20 and the U.S. F-35.

But India wants stealth fighters to counter the Chinese jets, and an equivalent number of F-35s would be far too expensive. The Indian air force also has a great deal of experience flying Russian-made planes. If New Delhi wants to compete with China, this means it can either buy huge numbers of less-advanced fighters or stick with the T-50.

Even India's generals think the T-50 is still too expensive and has too many shoddy parts. The plane's "engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered," according to India's Business Standard, which acquired notes from a 2013 meeting of Indian air force officers.

The newspaper didn't elaborate, but the reference to stealth features could mean poorly constructed sections of the airframe. Russia has produced five T-50 prototypes, and slight differences in construction, such as mismatched angles on the fuselage, can expose its features to radar. The planes also have big, round engines, a no-no when it comes to staying stealthy.

But the T-50 is still a powerful, fast and long-range fighter, and the Kremlin wants to arm it with its modern, long-range Kh-58UShE radar-homing missiles. The U.S. F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, and their missiles, are comparatively slower, and the missiles have shorter ranges.

Air Power Australia, an aviation think tank, described the T-50 as being able to potentially win a dogfight against America's latest-generation fighters, such as the troubled F-35.

But even if this is true, Russia will only be able to build the T-50s in small numbers. Moscow wants 60 operational T-50s by 2020, which is optimistic. The first operational fighter was supposed to enter service last year. It didn't happen. Now the date is 2016, at the earliest.

Sixty deadly stealth fighters might sound like a lot. But the U.S. plans to build 2,400 F-35s during the next two decades, and has already started delivering them. That's on top of the U.S. Air Force's 187 operational F-22s already in service.

Which means Russia's most advanced planes will be heavily outnumbered.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Kremlin's fleet will just keep getting older. (Robert Beckhusen)

Share or comment on this article

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3004441/Russias-air-corps-powerful-fading-force.html#ixzz3VJaTO721
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[jsglow]

If you haven't seen them.....

Check six....they're probably behind you, locking you up

You drove back in the day 03?

[mu03eng]

I saw this one in the same vein.  The Indians are not impressed and underwhelmed with Russia's answer to the F-22 & F-34.  Interestingly, a good chunk of Russia's military aircraft are made in the Ukraine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3004441/Russias-air-corps-powerful-fading-force.html

Russia's air corps is a powerful but fading force

By Reuters

Published: 11:02 EST, 20 March 2015  | Updated: 11:02 EST, 20 March 2015

By Robert Beckhusen

March 20 (Reuters) - On March 3, seven Russian attack planes took off from Novofederovka airbase in Crimea. They flew out over the Black Sea, right toward two North Atlantic Treaty Organization warships, the U.S. guided-missile cruiser Vicksburg and the Turkish frigate Tugutreis.

Russia's state-owned media described the mission as a reconnaissance exercise. The planes practiced tracking the ships from a distance while staying just outside the range from which the vessels could theoretically shoot back.

This sort of patrol has become ever more common since the war in Ukraine began. Russian aircraft approach NATO vessels or airspace and practice simulated combat maneuvers or engage in reconnaissance. The rate of Russian fighter and bomber patrols near NATO borders has tripled in a year, though it's still below the weekly flights common during the Cold War.

Worried? To be sure, the Russian air force is formidable. It's the world's second largest in terms of combat aircraft, with roughly 2,500 warplanes, of which more than 70 percent are serviceable. Unlike Russia's navy, which has been essentially reduced to a coastal defense force, its air force is still capable and deadly by global standards. It has the world's second-largest strategic-bomber force, capable of delivering nuclear weapons thousands of miles from home.

But Russia's air force has a lot of problems familiar to other branches of the Kremlin's military. With few exceptions, its aerial fleet dates to the Cold War and is getting older. Modern and capable fighter jets are entering service, but only in small numbers. Over the long term, Russia's air force is expected to dwindle further.

The roots of these problems date from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Factories producing aircraft and parts have shut down or became part of foreign, predominantly Ukrainian, territory. Engineers experienced in building jets have immigrated or retired. Moscow put a halt to buying new planes - it bought none until 2003 - and halted most training exercises.

Russia has a lot of catching up to do. The Kremlin now considers modernizing its air force a top priority. This isn't just acquiring new, modern warplanes but also upgrading existing ones. In 2014, Russia spent more than a billion dollars on newer avionics and electronic warfare systems, which can allow Russian jets to more effectively flood radars and enemy jets with electromagnetic energy.

Altogether, Russia plans to spend $130 billion on modernizing its air force through the rest of the decade, according to research scientist Dmitry Gorenberg's blog Russian Military Reform.

Russia's state armament program, which sets out military procurement policies through 2020, heavily emphasizes relying more on domestic manufacturing. "Such an approach is not without its own difficulties," noted OE Watch, the monthly newsletter of the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office, "which the Kremlin does not publically discuss."

Among these problems is that Russia's domestic industry has serious shortcomings when it comes to building microelectronics. These components are less glamorous than airframes and missiles, which Russia builds quite well, but crucial to modern fighters. The technology enables lethal advantages like night vision and thermal imaging systems.

Building up the domestic aviation industry isn't just a job-creation program. For Moscow, it's an absolute necessity. A huge amount of Russian military hardware came from Ukraine until the war between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian separatists put an end to that.

Ukraine's state-owned military company, Ukroboronprom, for example, produced many of Russia's helicopter engines until the firm cut ties last year. Russia cannot physically produce enough engines to modernize its helicopter fleet, according to the Royal United Services Institute, a British defense research group, so most of its engines were made in Ukraine.

Russia and Ukraine co-built the An-124 heavy transport plane, which relies on Ukrainian factories for more than half its parts. (Though Moscow's military transports have considerable lifespans.) One of the largest Ukrainian aviation factories that supplied parts to Russia is in Zaporizhia, close to pro-Russian separatist territory.

"Many of the auxiliary systems, from hydraulics to drogue parachutes, for the Russian Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 fighters, as well as for Russia's newest Su-34, are also produced in Ukraine," the research group noted.

These four planes are Russia's most modern operational fighters. They are actually all similar, with slight upgrades to their engines and electronics. Yet two different Russian companies, Irkut and KnAAPO, build the airframes. Which is pretty redundant and inefficient, but for a reason.

The Kremlin has had a hard time finding buyers on the international market for the jets. So having two companies produce them for the domestic market keeps their production lines open.

Russia's advanced, "fifth-generation" T-50 stealth fighter, which is still in development, is also having problems. The Kremlin doesn't disclose what is the matter with the jet, a potential rival to the stealthy American F-22 Raptor. But we can glean some information. Russia and India are co-developing a version for the Indian air force, so its generals have had an up-close look at the T-50. They don't like what they see.

India sunk more than $5 billion into the initial design, which is to be compatible with Indian-made missiles and navigation systems. New Delhi wants to eventually buy 200 of the fighters, and has few other options. In the T-50's class, the only competitors on the international market are the Chinese J-20 and the U.S. F-35.

But India wants stealth fighters to counter the Chinese jets, and an equivalent number of F-35s would be far too expensive. The Indian air force also has a great deal of experience flying Russian-made planes. If New Delhi wants to compete with China, this means it can either buy huge numbers of less-advanced fighters or stick with the T-50.

Even India's generals think the T-50 is still too expensive and has too many shoddy parts. The plane's "engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered," according to India's Business Standard, which acquired notes from a 2013 meeting of Indian air force officers.

The newspaper didn't elaborate, but the reference to stealth features could mean poorly constructed sections of the airframe. Russia has produced five T-50 prototypes, and slight differences in construction, such as mismatched angles on the fuselage, can expose its features to radar. The planes also have big, round engines, a no-no when it comes to staying stealthy.

But the T-50 is still a powerful, fast and long-range fighter, and the Kremlin wants to arm it with its modern, long-range Kh-58UShE radar-homing missiles. The U.S. F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, and their missiles, are comparatively slower, and the missiles have shorter ranges.

Air Power Australia, an aviation think tank, described the T-50 as being able to potentially win a dogfight against America's latest-generation fighters, such as the troubled F-35.

But even if this is true, Russia will only be able to build the T-50s in small numbers. Moscow wants 60 operational T-50s by 2020, which is optimistic. The first operational fighter was supposed to enter service last year. It didn't happen. Now the date is 2016, at the earliest.

Sixty deadly stealth fighters might sound like a lot. But the U.S. plans to build 2,400 F-35s during the next two decades, and has already started delivering them. That's on top of the U.S. Air Force's 187 operational F-22s already in service.

Which means Russia's most advanced planes will be heavily outnumbered.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Kremlin's fleet will just keep getting older. (Robert Beckhusen)

Share or comment on this article

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3004441/Russias-air-corps-powerful-fading-force.html#ixzz3VJaTO721
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Interesting article, especially the part about the long range doctrine the Russians seem to be deploying.  That is a major change in doctrine for them as historically they've always wanted slow speed, close range fights....that's why they developed supermaneuverability airframes like the Su-27 and Mig-29.  US doctrine was to keep the energy up and keep them at arms length.

At the end of the day, as Keefe said the integrated battle space is a key component of US strategy so the thought of solo, head to head match-ups between a US fighter and a Russian fighter is highly unlikely.  Our fighters don't have to engage anyone without a lot of back office support so they don't have go toe to toe.

Besides, like Yeager always said "It's the man, not the machine."

[mu03eng]

You drove back in the day 03?

Not long enough to do anything fun....NAMI whammy got me.

[jsglow]

Not long enough to do anything fun....NAMI whammy got me.

For us mortals 03? NAMI whammy?  

By the way, I have a friend that drove F-14 Tomcats.  Of course when our son was young he used to regularly ask him which carrier cable he caught and how many guys he shot down.

[keefe]

For us mortals 03? NAMI whammy?  

By the way, I have a friend that drove F-14 Tomcats.  Of course when our son was young he used to regularly ask him which carrier cable he caught and how many guys he shot down.

The Navy Pecker Checkers downed 03. Those guys have more kills than anyone in the history of flight.

I did a Pilot Exchange Program (PEP) tour and ended up with 212 traps driving Prowlers on the Midway Maru. I managed to snag a few OK Three Wires but I was habitually a tick or two high on glide slope. Say what you will about them but Nav Air has got some brass ones. It's a helluva way to make a living. I'll take 8k' of concrete any day.

[mu03eng]

For us mortals 03? NAMI whammy?  

By the way, I have a friend that drove F-14 Tomcats.  Of course when our son was young he used to regularly ask him which carrier cable he caught and how many guys he shot down.

Imagine the most vile, disgusting, evil, loathing, crawling on its belly creature that has ever existed and add a stethoscope and terribly outdated glasses.

Now imagine a young hero, one of the scion's of this great country.  A hero so pure of heart and firm in resolve, capable of feats of airmanship that make air pukes quake in jealousy and marine truck drivers faint in fear.  A hero not see on this planet since Zeus himself trend the plains of Greece; a hero that women want to be and men want to be with.  A hero who is a physical specimen for all to see and admire with chiseled jaw and jam rod spine.

Now imagine these two locked in an eternal struggle know as the "flight physical" in a purgatory know as the "flight surgeon's office".  This struggle goes on routinely, with our hero rebuffing the villainous flight surgeon at every turn, turning away assault after assault.  Our hero fighting to stay in the air where he my valiantly vanquish his country's enemies.  Then one day, the vile creature finds our hero's one weakness, one so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye, one so insignificant that no other air service requires it.  A small squaring of our young, handsome aviator's eyes, the only imperfection that could possibly be found has sealed our hero's fate.

And with glee and joy not witnessed since the Visigoth's sacked Rome, the villain stamps our hero's flight records with "rejected" thus ending what would have been an otherwise glorious career.

In a nutshell, that's what a NAMI whammy is.b

[jsglow]

Pretty well written 03. Does all this pilot talk motivate Mrs. 03?

[keefe]

Russian stealth fighter in trouble.

This is what they get from industrial espionage: steal our over-designed plans with huge cost overruns and get your own over-designed aircraft with huge cost overruns.

 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0327/Grounded-Russia-s-answer-to-US-next-gen-fighter-hits-the-skids?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily&utm_campaign=20150327_Newsletter%3ADaily_Sailthru&cmpid=ema%3Anws%3ADaily%2520Newsletter%2520%2803-27-2015%29

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I saw that yesterday.  It's not the only Russian aerospace program way behind schedule either.  I know of at least one commercial program behind also.

[keefe]

The fruits of Chinese industrial espionage - the J31 Stealth Fighter. Like Russia, they spent years stealing the JSX plans and came up with their own lemon. Gotta love those Commie bastards!



F 35 US Navy variant




PRC's J31 Aircraft
 



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/10/01/chinese-junk-latest-fighter-plane-from-people-army-ticketed-for-export/

http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/chinas-selling-the-j-31-but-whos-buying/