F-35 won't be able to shoot its 25mm until 2019 and can't relay video to ground troops, how can it possibly take over the CAS role?

LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:48:04 -0500

Without a sniper pod or a functional 25mm (and even when the gun is FOC the USA version will only carry 180 rounds for a weapon with a cyclic rate of 3,300 rounds per minute) can this plane actually accomplish the mission it is was designed for? From a ground perspective I am extremely concerned that we are taking a step backward in AGI. What are the thoughts from the aviators and groundpounders on the CAS specifically (there are already documented issues with the dogfight capability but I would like to if possible stick to the CAS fight)?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-wont-fire-a-shot-until-2019-2014-12?IR=T

The F-35 Won't Be Able To Fire A Shot Until 2019 Due To The Latest Technical Problem

Billed as the world’s most advanced fighter jet, the cost per plane has nearly doubled and it will be six years late in entering full production.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Dec 31 at 2014 6:48 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:48:11 -0500

Just look at the F-22 issues after it was fielded and it has almost a decade in the operational field.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Dec 31 at 2014 6:53 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:53:13 -0500

It seems like every week there is a new nightmare story about the F-35. I haven't followed the program closely, but I can't think of any other military armament story being so plagued (and that says a lot!)

The F-35 was a centerpiece in the recent Atlantic article about the lack of oversight and connection between the military and the public:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

The Tragedy of the American Military

The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2014 7:57 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:57:12 -0500

Sir, it seems that our acquisition is broken. Like much else in our society. Oh well. It's why I'm glad to be enlisted, and use what tools I get given, and teach other soldiers to do the same.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2015 11:06 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 11:06:05 -0500

The story could be overblown. Not sure how you figure out it can't shoot until 2019. However, even if it cannot, Clausewitz said war is an extension of politics. That includes domestic politics - or domestic special interests. Air/Navy interests coincide with some powerful business interests and viola, you get a plane that can only do air tasks. Army lacks the organization and support to push back. Follow the money and the politics in these sorts of issues...

Response by Capt Byron Chen made Jan 1 at 2015 2:13 PM

Capt Byron Chen — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 14:13:22 -0500

How does the leadership in the military even back this with a straight face at this point? Does anyone have any experience with this sort of situation where it seems like you are so stuck with another person's/committee's/generation's decision that going against it seems to be unacceptable? We've had leaders who've disagreed with procurement issues before: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html. In this case, it was Gen Odierno telling congress the Army didn't need more tanks, but I think it could apply here. It just seems like no one will speak out against F-35 at this point -- it truly is too big to fail.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 12:31 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:31:17 -0500

All this hand ringing about the retirement of the A-10 and the problems with the F-35 makes me sick.
The most complex systems that have never been created before will have a lot of challenges or bugs. If we didn't want to keep our strategic technological advantage political, economically, and militarily then we would just keeping buying more F-16s and let our geopolitical advisories catch up to us and gain an advantage.

The A-10 is a sexy war machine but there are other platforms in the quiver that can do what it does just in a different way and sometimes better.

The F-35 will have more challenges but one day when we look back and ask ourselves how could we have survived with out it, just like the F-15 and F-16.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 12:37 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:37:49 -0500

As someone who's been a part of the F-35 program for the past 5 years (with a one year break) and is at a base where we actually have the jet, here is the gist: the jet is amazing, the support structure (logistics) for the jet isn't. This is what happens when you award a contract but Congress hasn't been 'sold' on the idea yet. So, when the program got the green light in 2010, all we had was a jet--and nothing else. Nonetheless, the jet is frankly amazing--really. Come to Nellis AFB and I will show you in person.

The the OP who asked about the A-G capability of the F-35, all variants, this one is easy--it far surpasses anything else. That faceted glass underneath the nose is more than the equivalent of the Sniper pod, and is slaved to where the pilot looks (or coords that the JTAC sends). In fact, everything on the jet slewed to where the pilot looks, making dropping a JDAM quicker and more accurate than anything else, day or night.

The only thing the A-10 has over the JSF is the 30mm gun vs. a 25mm gun (with not many rounds). However, the trade-off isn't bad when you consider that the JSF can provide CAS in places the Hog would not ever dare to go. I love the Hog--it was my first jet in the USAF many years ago. But, hanging onto an outdated platform that cannot survive against any near peer today is wasted money. It is only an amazing CAS platform when there is no credible ground to air threat.

To COL Gerber, unmanned systems have limits that will take decades to work out. Look at the losses of some high profile assets not long ago, against a foe that isn't too substantive. We drop UAVs all of the time for a reason, and they cannot yet survive in a medium threat level or higher. UAVs going to attack a double digit SAM threat, or providing CAS, is a long time away. I have no doubt that UAVs are the future, but we're only seeing the potential today--prime time is a long time away. We desperately need what the JSF brings NOW.

To the F-35 critics, when was the last time you watched 4th Gen assets fighting in a near-peer fight with today's (available) threats? Not a pretty sight. Why would we *ever* want to send Americans into war with anything less than what we can give them, be that a rifle, a tank, or a mulit-mission fighter?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 9:08 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 09:08:03 -0500

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-reading-list-on-the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/384065/

Mike, here is a great article, with many links to detailed information, on both air platforms. I tend to agree with you in that it is worrisome how we have phased out a reliable CAS platform before the substitute is even ready.

A Reading List on the Tragedy of the American Military

Additional reading on the subject of The Atlantic’s January/February 2015 cover story

Response by Col John "Coach" Allison made Jan 4 at 2015 12:48 PM

Col John "Coach" Allison — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:48:13 -0500

No responsible person thinks the A-10 will be effective forever or in all environments. But, until a suitable replacement is ready to take on the CAS mission, the A-10 should stay in service. This is like the college football coach who benches his starting quarterback because he found a prodigy who is in the sixth grade.

VDL is a nice to have, the gun is a need to have, but the IR pointer is a MUST have for CAS. No pointer, no go for CAS, in my opinion.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Jan 4 at 2015 1:04 PM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:04:53 -0500

The Air Force should use the A-10 until the F-35 is ready for CAS. Then they can sell them to the Marine Corp. I'm damn sure they know the value of CAS. If the F-35 does CAS it will not be for long. How many in Command, Congress or the White House will want something that expensive that close to enemy ground forces who might want to take a shot at it? Not many.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 4 at 2015 2:27 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:27:56 -0500

And they want to replace the A-10 with THIS....... >.<

Response by Capt Pat Thomason made Jan 4 at 2015 4:29 PM

Capt Pat Thomason — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:29:35 -0500

The F-35 is quickly becoming the Obamacare of the fighter world. The unit cost of the aircraft has more than doubled, and it will be more than 6 years late reaching initial operational capability, but STILL won't be fully mission capable. If and when the F-35 ever lives up to its promises, will the $400+ million dollar price tag for each airplane really bring $350 million more worth of capability than the $10 million A-10 and $27 million F-16 already have on the table?

Response by SMSgt Gary Calhoun made Jan 4 at 2015 7:37 PM

SMSgt Gary Calhoun — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:37:45 -0500

Sir, BLUF: The A-10 needs to stay until the JSF log train matures, and the platform can be tested to see if there is any hope that it can operate in the CAS role.

The A-10 is damn good at what it does because it was designed for just that. Trying to convert JSFs to move mud with an acceptable loiter time and the ability to communicate effectively with JTACs seems tricky at best.

Does SAF/AQ talk to AOs at DA's G3/5/7? They are a primary "customer" for CAS. The A-10 can loiter ~130 KIAS with good low-speed maneuverability. Soldiers, Marines and SOF all like the Hog because it works.