F35 vs. A10?

[Smitty-48]

What's to argue? F-35 is already in service, this is a done deal, there's nothing to argue about, I'm just pointing out for Dukenog who the "Aviation Media" Goysheviks are. /shrugs

[TheReal_ND]

Lockheed now getting fully involved in ground combat for the 21st C, with it's new all weather, do everything design, and a price tag American taxpayers can handle.

That's fucking cheap. Imagine how many we could sell to India
Perfect for taking the fight to to the pakis

You guys need to your head of marketing at Lockheed, get me on the payroll too.

This is progress. Get on board or get run over. The f-35 and AT-AT are the way of the future.

[Smitty-48]

Exactly, quit your cryin, Goysheviks, F-35 Texas Warhammer is here to stay, we gonna sell 5000 of these tight whips in the end, America First, fuck the Eurocanards

[brewster]

Good stuff regarding classified USAF drone bombers. Smitty and Speaker both are starting to sound a lot like battleship loving admirals on Dec 6th 1941. The next day the definition of "Capital Ship" changed.

The question remains: Why hide the existence of even a pocket force of operational UCAVs, considering that the world has watched the Navy’s X-47B not only fly, but operate from a carrier and even refuel autonomously? Additionally, the X-45s proved the UCAV concept for the entire world to see years prior. With the B-2, the USAF has the ability to strike with 2,000-pound and even heavier-hitting weapons deep into defended territory. so it's not like hiding a small force of stealthy UCAVs would make the enemy feel as if well defended targets were not already at risk of attack by US forces.

Then again, maybe the USAF wasn't primarily hiding the UCAVs from the enemy at all, but instead from the government and taxpayers who paid for them in the first place.

Classifying such a game-changing and relevant capability doesn't just distort the important and very expensive weapon system procurement choices being made by Congress, the White House and the Pentagon. It also skews America's defense strategy as a whole and all the long-term force planning that goes along with it.

It doesn't seem like an uncommon practice for the powers that be to classify programs in order to protect inferior non-classified programs from having direct competition. Some weapons programs are also hidden in the classified world to prevent special interests from trying to cancel them in favor of other non-classified programs—ones that are less capable but more lucrative. Either way, the losers in such practices are America’s ability to get the best force for its money, and the warfighter’s chances of success in a conflict. That is, if you think the primary goal of America’s armed forces is to fight and win wars, not create jobs or to support particular industries.

Clearly, if UCAVs were flying even in smaller numbers, and their networked hive mind could be proven on a larger and more advanced scale than what the X-45 proved over a decade ago, such a system would hugely threaten the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35’s primary missions include deep strike, surveillance and "destruction of enemy air defenses," or DEAD. These are the exact same as those of a UCAV. In many ways, the UCAV could execute these missions far more efficiently and ferociously than their costly manned counterparts.

[Speaker to Animals]

Smitty just makes an ass of himself talking nonsense. He doesn't know the first thing about military aviation.

[Smitty-48]

Fake Reform Commander Data Drone.

Another non existent alternative fallacy, only weak minded fools fall for such tricks.

[Speaker to Animals]

An F-35 certainly cannot perform "deep strike" missions. LOL at that term, though. A drone is better suited for it.

F-35 simply doesn't have the range to do anything like that. Your best case practical range is likely around 300 nm before this thing needs refuel.

My problem with the drones is that they are too technical and their networking represents a vulnerability that could cost us badly. A human pilot cannot be hacked.

As long as we stay ahead in cyberwarfare, we probably will fair okay, but if we ever lose that edge, God help us if we also depend upon autonomous vehicles and robots to fight wars.

Really, I would rather have stealth bombers for "deep strikes" (the marketing terms are getting silly, but okay, I will use it). Then stealth fighters for air superiority. The rest of our aircraft should be designed to fulfill specific needs. Stealth ain't on the menu for any of that stuff. If this aircraft is billed to replace an F-16, it definitely doesn't need stealth, and adding stealth means you lost core functionality that renders the thing fucking useless.

[Smitty-48]

Same price as an F-16 in constant dollars, stealth included.

[Speaker to Animals]

In particular, the Marines variants of the F-35 is fucking ridiculous. It's supposed to be exclusively for CAS (that's really all they give a shit about). But it can't do that currently, and when all the defects are fixed, it still will never do that well. Stealth means you have very limited munitions. It cannot linger on the battlefield. And why would you use stealth for a CAS role? That's just fucking dumb. Right out of the gate that is a retarded fucking idea.

[Smitty-48]

Not exclusively for CAS, Marine Corps pocket Raptor which STOVLs. For the price of an F/A-18 in constant dollars.