Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

Author
Discussion

Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
PanzerCommander said:
Imho the problem is that even an upgraded one would have limited use on the modern battlefield. The A-10 was built for a time when SAM technology (low level) of our enemy was either piss poor (low heat signature of the A-10 foiled them) or simply AA guns which it was built to withstand (to a certain degree) which is why it was so effective in the Gulf and has been re-deployed against Daesh.

The problem on a modern battlefield is that modern shoulder launched SAMs would knock it out before it got within firing range of the rather impressive gun which would limit it to stand off action or mop up work for which there are far better equipped aircraft (incl drones) and helicopters; modern helicopter gun ships and drones are also just as good at CAS work.

I love the A-10, but I think its time on the front line is limited now, and sadly no amount of avionics upgrades and super efficient engine upgrade is going to save it in the long term.
How would the inclusion of stealth tech affect this? AFAIK the F117 and B2 also reduce their heat signature quite a bit, along with having a very small radar cross-section.

They'd need to put all the weapons in bays though..

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
The USAF has been battling with and against the A10 for at least two decades. Wasn't the Apache supposed to be its replacement?

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
If that's the case why are these better options not being used instead of the A-10......?

And if you say the MANPAD will knock out the A-10, then no helo gunship is going to be a better option than the faster A-10, and there's no drone in existence that can deliver the ordanance that a A-10 can.

Which is why, when it comes to wanting some help from the air, the PBI on the ground call for the A-10 or a Spooky if they are available.
Because you're not talking about the modern battlefield, you're talking about the recent operations that were against an asymmetric opposition with no AA capability.

A helicopter gunship can use terrain masking far better than an A10.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
PanzerCommander said:
Imho the problem is that even an upgraded one would have limited use on the modern battlefield. The A-10 was built for a time when SAM technology (low level) of our enemy was either piss poor (low heat signature of the A-10 foiled them) or simply AA guns which it was built to withstand (to a certain degree) which is why it was so effective in the Gulf and has been re-deployed against Daesh.
Even in the Gulf it fared pretty badly against AAA and ended up flying above 12k to avoid them - making the gun pretty useless.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
Sylvaforever said:
Google "pogo f18e". The same organisation was saying pretty much the same thing about the super hornet when that went through IOC 15 years ago...

PanzerCommander

5,026 posts

217 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
If that's the case why are these better options not being used instead of the A-10......?

And if you say the MANPAD will knock out the A-10, then no helo gunship is going to be a better option than the faster A-10, and there's no drone in existence that can deliver the ordanance that a A-10 can.

Which is why, when it comes to wanting some help from the air, the PBI on the ground call for the A-10 or a Spooky if they are available.
I assume its because they have the A-10's plus trained crews so it makes sense to use them other than that I have no real answer to that.

It is true that drones may not be able to carry as much ordinance as an A-10 but you can have many more drones for the same price as a direct replacement for the A-10, without the risk to crews (or the expense of training proper pilots). Look at how much the current generation jets actually cost to buy and operate compared to a predator drone.

Vitorio said:
How would the inclusion of stealth tech affect this? AFAIK the F117 and B2 also reduce their heat signature quite a bit, along with having a very small radar cross-section.

They'd need to put all the weapons in bays though..
It might work but it would still mean using them as stand off aircraft and AAA fire at low level aimed by the good ole mk1 eyeball is still going to cause problems for them.

PanzerCommander

5,026 posts

217 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
Mave said:
Even in the Gulf it fared pretty badly against AAA and ended up flying above 12k to avoid them - making the gun pretty useless.
I never knew that, seen far too many videos of tanks being cut up by them, fell for the A-10 propaganda hehe

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
PanzerCommander said:
Mave said:
Even in the Gulf it fared pretty badly against AAA and ended up flying above 12k to avoid them - making the gun pretty useless.
I never knew that, seen far too many videos of tanks being cut up by them, fell for the A-10 propaganda hehe
Take a look at the GAO report of how the different aircraft were actually used after the first few days of GW1... and what proportion of CAS missions the videos of A10a shooting tanks with guns really represent.

Talksteer

4,843 posts

232 months

Thursday 15th September 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
aeropilot said:
If that's the case why are these better options not being used instead of the A-10......?

And if you say the MANPAD will knock out the A-10, then no helo gunship is going to be a better option than the faster A-10, and there's no drone in existence that can deliver the ordanance that a A-10 can.

Which is why, when it comes to wanting some help from the air, the PBI on the ground call for the A-10 or a Spooky if they are available.
Because you're not talking about the modern battlefield, you're talking about the recent operations that were against an asymmetric opposition with no AA capability.

A helicopter gunship can use terrain masking far better than an A10.
In non asymmetric wars (should they ever happen again) Apache was supposed to be used like a tank destroyer in defence or like cavalry in an advance.

It wasn't meant to overfly ground held by the enemy troops, which means it can take cover in means not dissimilar to a ground vehicle, it can also hover and observe which an A10 can't do.

The idea that low level close support can terrain mask particularly well is a bit of a misnomer.

An F111 or Tornado in a cold war mission would be flying a pre planned low level route to a specific target.

For a close support mission an A10 would have to acquire targets, this can't be achieved by flying at 100ft, staffing with a cannon requires diving on the target, firing a maverick requires flying in a straight line in line of sight of the target.




Z06George

2,519 posts

188 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Whilst it's been proven that A-10s aren't untouchable, I'd like to see a F-35 take this level of damage and still get the pilot back to base.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001...



Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Z06George said:
Whilst it's been proven that A-10s aren't untouchable, I'd like to see a F-35 take this level of damage and still get the pilot back to base.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001...
There is that tale of an isreali F15 landing with half a wing missing..

But yeah, if im going to be airborne and shot at, ill pick an A-10 any day

maffski

1,866 posts

158 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
DMN said:
Helicopters can just go back down behind the brow of the hill. Missles can't fly through those yet.
You might not want to attack South Africa then...

Umkhonto (Spear in Zulu) - 360 degree VLS, distributed sensor mesh, lock after launch. Just throw it over the hill and let it see what it can find.





BTW - The pogo F35 article is promoted by this report from the Operation Test and Evaluation team at the US DOD.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
maffski said:
You might not want to attack South Africa then...

Umkhonto (Spear in Zulu) - 360 degree VLS, distributed sensor mesh, lock after launch. Just throw it over the hill and let it see what it can find.

.
You still have to acquire the target using radar before you launch, and keep it updated during flight. It's all on the website.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Mave said:
Sylvaforever said:
Google "pogo f18e". The same organisation was saying pretty much the same thing about the super hornet when that went through IOC 15 years ago...
So you are saying it will take F35 15 years to become combat ready then.so that's 13 years service, from 2016.

It also begs the question just how much it will cost to refurb those RAF lightnings up to full and current operational standard?

But you already know that don't you.

wink

maffski

1,866 posts

158 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
You still have to acquire the target using radar before you launch, and keep it updated during flight. It's all on the website.
Against a fast jet yes. Against a helicopter doing slow moving pop up attacks the target won't manoeuvre enough to be out of the missiles IR seeker range, so there's no need for mid course correction.

The UK's Land Ceptor should be able to do the same NLOS engagements. These networked weapons aren't tied to sensors; they're just given the co-ordinates to fly to and then rely on their onboard sensors.


Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Vitorio said:
There is that tale of an isreali F15 landing with half a wing missing..

But yeah, if im going to be airborne and shot at, ill pick an A-10 any day
full wing



aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Sylvaforever said:
It also begs the question just how much it will cost to refurb those RAF lightnings up to full and current operational standard?
That will be a task given most of them were scrapped 25+ years ago..... wink

Oh, I see what you mean..... laugh












I really, really, just wish they had not called it that though mad

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Sylvaforever said:
Mave said:
Sylvaforever said:
Google "pogo f18e". The same organisation was saying pretty much the same thing about the super hornet when that went through IOC 15 years ago...
So you are saying it will take F35 15 years to become combat ready then.so that's 13 years service, from 2016.
That only makes sense if you are suggesting that the Super Hornet has only become combat ready this year...when in reality it was performing combat missions in Iraq a year after IOC (and a year after POGO said it would never be combat ready...)

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Friday 16th September 2016
quotequote all
Mave said:
Sylvaforever said:
Mave said:
Sylvaforever said:
Google "pogo f18e". The same organisation was saying pretty much the same thing about the super hornet when that went through IOC 15 years ago...
So you are saying it will take F35 15 years to become combat ready then.so that's 13 years service, from 2016.
That only makes sense if you are suggesting that the Super Hornet has only become combat ready this year...when in reality it was performing combat missions in Iraq a year after IOC (and a year after POGO said it would never be combat ready...)
there's combat missions.








and there's COMBAT missions. wink