Software Glitch Causes F-35 to Incorrectly Detect Targets in Formation

Military.com ^ | 03/24/15 | Kris Osborn

[tanknetter]

IIRC the projected cost savings for retiring the A-10 are something like $3 billion over 5 years.

Current DoD budget is in the neighborhood of $500 billion per year I think. So we’re talking $3 billion in savings against an overall expenditure of $2.5 Trillion.

The idea that the USAF can’t afford to both is ludicrous. They’re trying to get rid of the A-10 because it isn’t cool and does a single mission the USAF institutionally hates, and does that mission exceptionally well.

[Zhang Fei]

They have a ton of parts for the A-10 sitting in the desert at Davis-Monthan AFB. It will be some time until those run out. And yes, it some ways the F-35 is better...when it works...which isn’t often. The F-35 is the Brewster Buffalo version 2.0

The things on the F-35 that don't work are, in many cases, brand-new capabilities not seen on any other aircraft. With new tech, teething problems are a given. The reason the USAF wants as many F-35's as it can lay its hands on is because it has to deal with worst-case scenarios. Consider the possibility that a conventional war with China over Taiwan, South Korea or Japan has the Chinese unveiling a hitherto unsuspected parity in front-line fighter aircraft capabilities. F-22's have been knocked out by their Chinese equivalents, and the Chinese are making nuclear threats. Are we gonna send A-10's in to knock out Chinese missile silos or conduct combat air patrols to cover for the F-35's that have been sent into Missile Alley, 2nd Artillery Corps, China?

[Zhang Fei]

IIRC the projected cost savings for retiring the A-10 are something like $3 billion over 5 years. Current DoD budget is in the neighborhood of $500 billion per year I think. So we’re talking $3 billion in savings against an overall expenditure of $2.5 Trillion. The idea that the USAF can’t afford to both is ludicrous. They’re trying to get rid of the A-10 because it isn’t cool and does a single mission the USAF institutionally hates, and does that mission exceptionally well.

We are selling F-35's to the Israelis for about $100m apiece. $3b is 30 F-35's. That's a fighter wing.

[tanknetter]

It’s not an either/or situation. There’s no reason why the USAF can’t afford to do both.

[Garvin]

The F-35B is what the Marines are going to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 aircraft with. The F-35B has the ability to do Close Air Support (CAS), that is the main mission of the AV-8B and F/A-18 platforms. A Gunny from a stinger missile battery once told me the A-10 and the UH-1N were slow moving green targets.

[OneWingedShark]

Without air dominance, A-10's get shredded in turkey shoots.

Which is why I didn't say that they're the be-all/end-all of airframes. Please go back and reread my post until you understand what I said.

We had air dominance in Desert Storm and 4 A-10's were shot down, presumably doing front line fire support missions rather than the deep penetration strikes that got the front line fighters knocked down.

And? I didn't claim that they were invincible battle-warriors from the skies that are untouchable; in fact, if you look at the construction, they were designed to take a lot of damage because in their CAS role (which they were explicitly designed for) they're going to take small arms and man-portable rocket fire. Period.

Against a near-peer adversary like China, A-10's would be little more than targets.

You're failing to realize that I'm assuming there's some measure of air-dominance; the A-10 is not for that role though. (The F-22 is, though — and it seemed to be a much better platform for that than the [supposedly] jack-of-all-trades F-35… but that's another discussion entirely.)

[Svartalfiar]

Infantry support can be accomplished with rocket and tube artillery, armor, choppers and the F-35. None of these other weapon systems can hold off enemy fighters, stealth or otherwise. Cheap is good, but the other non-A-10 infantry support options are cheaper.

Artillery, armor, choppers all have certain roles and can only support in certain ways.
- Artillery requires an observer to pass coordinates back, wait for the rounds, and then guide the next round. On a moving target, this can be difficult. And when you have friendlies in the area, or are near a built-up civvie area, artillery isn't always a great choice.
- Armor is very situational too, and not great as an offensive measure against small fireteams. especially when the majority of the enemy nowadays is full of copper-shaped charges, rpgs, etc. Plus, when you look at the terrain in places like Afghanistan, tanks don't really work. And even Bradleys aren't well-suited there either.
- Choppers are pretty vulnerable to anti-air, take a decent bit of time to get to where they need to be (unless they're traveling with you the whole time, which is unlikely), and can't carry nearly the same payload as an A-10.
- The F-35 is a joke at CAS. Yea, precision-guide bombs are nice, but there's only so much they can do, and the 35 isn't gonna hang around all day for the next time you need him. A fast mover can't see the battlefield as well, they aren't going to fly nearly as low (35s need both wings to fly), and it doesn't have a big cannon built-in.

Obviously none of these other options can hold off enemy fighters, that's not their job. That's what you have F-22s for, or 14/15/16s. Or other ground-based AA. Trying to have an F-35 operate in a CAS role means that same F-35 isn't going to be able to fight off enemy planes either. Weapon loadout would be wrong, and the pilot needs to be focused on his mission, not trying to go TopGun cause it's cool.

The A-10 is able to hang around the area, and suppress the enemy, something none of your other support can do. The A-10 can take hits and damage and still sit around and fight. The A-10 can see the enemy and where they're shooting, and not have to depend on an FO to place rounds. The A-10 is the scariest damn thing you can fight. If you're Ivan or Muhammad down on the ground, you can fight a tank, you can get in close battle and then artillery's useless (if your unit is even allotted any guns, it depends on who else is in your zone, and what the priority of fires is), An F-35 is gonna drop a couple bombs then it's gone. Choppers can't take much small-arms fire, or are an easy rpg kill. But how do you fight an A-10? You run the hell away and fight tomorrow. That's it.

[OneWingedShark]

Excellently laid out.

[Svartalfiar]

Are we gonna send A-10's in to knock out Chinese missile silos or conduct combat air patrols to cover for the F-35's that have been sent into Missile Alley, 2nd Artillery Corps, China?

No one is suggesting the A-10 be used in a surgical strike role. You aren't gonna send an F-35 on that same mission after you just told him he's running CAS, and is outfitted for CAS.

The problem with all of your arguments is that you're taking the original debate, and adding all sorts of tangents that have nothing to do with the subject thereof. The point is that the A-10 is the only real option we have for the CAS role, and it does it extremely well and there's nothing to replace it with the same capabilities, at even close to the price. We aren't arguing about the A-10 replacing the F-35, the subject is the F-35 replacing the A-10.

[Svartalfiar]

(The F-22 is, though — and it seemed to be a much better platform for that than the [supposedly] jack-of-all-trades F-35… but that's another discussion entirely.)

Jack of all trades... Hence master of none.

[OneWingedShark]

Exactly; that’s what the F-35 proponents don’t seem to get — that and the fact the F-35 is the airframe equivalent of the M-16, where tons of R&D and individual maintenance have been poured in and it’s still inferior to many comparable small arms. (The M-16 also tends to be a bit finicky about unclean [read battlefield] environments; not exactly a good quality for your boots-on-the-ground troops.)

[Moonman62]

As long as the Crony Capitalists get richer, glitches aren’t a problem.

[minnesota_bound]

Given budget constraints.... The House just passed a $3 trillion dollar budget. I bet there is some waste in that!

There is plenty of money as long as the name is F-35 or some other pet project of congress.

[Zhang Fei]

But how do you fight an A-10? You run the hell away and fight tomorrow. That's it.

If you're a near-peer adversary's motorized infantry, you fire up your truck-mounted Stinger-equivalent, and send a few missiles after the A-10.

[Svartalfiar]

If you're a near-peer adversary's motorized infantry, you fire up your truck-mounted Stinger-equivalent, and send a few missiles after the A-10.

First off, most of our current conflicts don't involve anything close to a near-peer adversary. And in the event that we did, fighting by doctrine is way different than fighting Daesh.
Further, the A-10 is designed to take damage. If the missile hits, that doesn't even come near to a guaranteed kill.

- I was in a Army air defense unit. We had towed, 20mm Vulcans. We would set up in woods and go practice against Hogs, and them against us. They stayed really low, and hid. The thing was if there were two, you couldn’t tell were they were as the fan jet sound kind of sound like everywhere. After a bit they would pop up and roll over on you. I doubt it was more than a four count, often not enough time to swing the gun around.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2478394/posts#16

[Zhang Fei]

First off, most of our current conflicts don't involve anything close to a near-peer adversary. And in the event that we did, fighting by doctrine is way different than fighting Daesh. Further, the A-10 is designed to take damage. If the missile hits, that doesn't even come near to a guaranteed kill.

- I was in a Army air defense unit. We had towed, 20mm Vulcans. We would set up in woods and go practice against Hogs, and them against us. They stayed really low, and hid. The thing was if there were two, you couldn’t tell were they were as the fan jet sound kind of sound like everywhere. After a bit they would pop up and roll over on you. I doubt it was more than a four count, often not enough time to swing the gun around.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2478394/posts#16

We basically agree about the function of the A-10. You want to preserve a niche for counter-insurgency operations. I don't believe we have any room for error, given a Chinese military budget that, in practical terms, may already be the equal of ours, given that their wage rates are 1/6 of our number. You may have heard of the adage - for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost. In counter-insurgency warfare, not having the A-10 may mean we lose a few hundred more men. In the nuclear age, in a war against a near-peer, the lack of an F-35 wing for strike missions against nuke silos may mean we lose entire cities to enemy nukes. Because when you're fighting a near-peer, it will come down to who has more airframes to survive a grinding aerial war of attrition - the Battle of Britain redux with us in the role of the Luftwaffe, trying to take out targets deep (500 miles or more) inside the interior.

[Zhang Fei]

Re the Vulcans, from the author's bio, he left in 1978, before Stingers became available (in 1981). Pre-Stinger MANPAD's weren't very good - the British Blowpipe was a failure both in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and in the Falklands. Stingers and Stinger clones have taken out supersonic jet fighters. You don't need to shoot down an A-10 to render it harmless - a mission kill that inflicts sufficient damage to force it to limp back to base is sufficient. Gatling gun-type AA systems haven't had much success apart from close-in work - that's why the Sergeant York project was cancelled.

[Svartalfiar]

You don't need to shoot down an A-10 to render it harmless - a mission kill that inflicts sufficient damage to force it to limp back to base is sufficient.

That's not a kill. Yes, you may destroy an 'expensive' plane, but you left a pilot alive who is ridiculously expensive to train, both in time and money, and impossible to replace experience. You know what happened to Japan in WWII? One of the reason they turned to kamikaze tactics was because they ran out of experienced pilots and got stuck with a bunch on noobs fresh out of basic.

Also, it's hard to shoot down/harm the A10 in the first place. especially when there's a couple of them around, working with aerial cover and ground forces.