The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1953

Gen. Welsh Makes Subtle Digs at A-10 Supporters, F-35 Critics

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh has heard one too many times that his service doesn't care about close-air support missions.

"Really? I'm kind of tired of hearing that," he said Sept. 15 at the Air Force Association conference.

The Air Force has averaged about 20,000 CAS sorties per year for the last seven years. "At what point do we get a little bit of acknowledgement for that?"

Quoting Ian33's post from the Next Gen Bomber thread here:

"During the early days of Afghanistan campaign, my friend (British Commando) was attached to a US unit.

There were twelve of them, and they were on a peak looking down. They called for an air support and asked how many precision JDAM were available. 40 weapons were dropped in one overhead pass. This prevented the Northern Alliance troops getting massacred in the valley below, and allowed my friends and the team to really have utmost confidence in the available fire power.

I'm adding this as even in a low intesnsity conflict, high numbers of weapons are some times needed in one fell swoop."

I'm wondering how a pair of A-10s would have handled hitting 40 CAS targets almost simultaneously. My guess is "abysmally". The whole notion that "the USAF hates CAS and wants ground troops to die" is retarded beyond description. And yes, I've actually seen idiots claim the USAF wants ground troops to die, as well as others claiming the USAF doesn't care if they die.

More to the above:


Ramping Up Kinetics in OIR

—Marc V. Schanz 9/17/2015


​Answering critics of the scale and disposition of OIR strikes on ISIS forces, Lt. Gen. John Hesterman told ASC15 attendees Sept. 16 that airmen are taking out enemy forces at an unprecedented rate, and that the last two months have been the “most kinetic on record” in the conflict thus far. He pointed out on Sept. 8 three B-1Bs emptied their entire weapons loads over Iraq and Syria on 80 targets in 20 minutes, and strike packages such as this are enabled by the intelligence community “coming together… and turning a lot of that exquisite intelligence capability into targetable data.” Targeting packages for a 24/7 air campaign are the real tough part of the operation, he noted. “We are getting better at that. But in my humble opinion … Our ability to do that had atrophied a little bit before we started this campaign,” he noted. Asked about how strike approval processes were affecting the campaign, Hesterman again stressed targeting. “The environment on the ground is not clear,” he said. Bad information in many instances would have led to friendlies killed. “The number of times the initial call on the enemy on the ground was incorrect was over 100 times by the time I left the theater,” Hesterman noted. ISIS forces were often dressed similarly to friendly Iraqi forces, for example, or pretending to be friendly forces. This meant sometimes letting Iraqis do some organization to make sure air planners “knew where they were,” Hesterman said. This may lead to some sorties going home without dropping weapons, but the next aircraft to show up often will get to hit the target. The coalition would be gone “in a week” if even some percentage of the time, air assets dropped bombs on Iraqi soldiers instead of ISIS, he stressed.

 

[sferrin]

What does Ferrari know about mining trucks?


Or, as Enzo probably regretted saying, what does a tractor manufacturer know about sports cars?

LOL! Yeah, that bit of history does make me chuckle. On the other hand, how many Formula 1s has Lamborghini won? That would be. . .none. Ferrari? 223. Hmmm.

 

[sferrin]

Scott, why didn't you start the conversation by saying you were clairvoyant?

I would ask the same of you. After all you're the one suggesting everything is 100% predictable. Oh look, the James Webb telescope is late and over budget. Clearly NASA is just a bunch of incompetent liars. I guess you think your company could build a better space telescope too? You know, because a space telescope leaves the ground and you guys have experience with things that go up. And I'd have kept the "conceptual designer" pedigree under wraps as that doesn't exactly help your case. More than once I've been presented with a half-assed, incomplete, "design" and asked to make estimates on it. "Well, how about you fill me in on this big blank space right here." That's when the hand wavy thing starts. Yeah. . .

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force Future Operating Concept 2035

http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/images/airpower/AFFOC.pdf

 

[AeroFranz]

Funny you should mention that. As luck would have it, we have also built one structural part on the James Webb telescope. ;D
...And payload systems and components currently on the ISS.


Dis i say "everything is 100% predictable"? please show where. I think i said quite the opposite. Because nothing is 100% predictable, you should have margins. The more complex and risky the task, the higher the margins. That's engineering management 101. What is 100% predictable is that you will never predict everything. insert Murphy's quotes here.




Scott, as per our previous conversation, i'm not entitled to have an educated opinion on programmatic matters on F-35 because i "have not designed, built, and flown a VTOL supersonic stealth aircraft". You realize that that definition applies to 98% of worldwide aerospace professionals (useless people from Dassault, SAAB, Sukhoi, Airbus, Embraer...all those who do not work for a company that rhymes with Schmokheed)? I have to give it to you, that's a pretty good, airtight way of insulating oneself from criticism.
I guess we have to wait for a Lockheed PM to criticize his own company to know if there are any problems with the F-35.

 

[AeroFranz]

One more thing - which might actually make your day better.
The next time a conceptual designer asks your opinion on something, thank the heavens, this is exactly what he/she should do. Of necessity conceptual designers are generalists. They do not have the depth in all the disciplines of aerodynamics, controls, structures, propulsion, software, manufacturing, that individual specialists (such as yourself i presume) have accumulated over years concentrating on one subject. If they did, then there'd be no need for you.
If such a person comes to you for input at the conceptual design stage, it's so right before PDR you do not end up being informed that the mass allocation for the item you are expected to deliver is 1/10th of what you actually think is necessary.

 

[sferrin]

Funny you should mention that. As luck would have it, we have also built one structural part on the James Webb telescope. ;D
...And payload systems and components currently on the ISS.


Dis i say "everything is 100% predictable"? please show where. I think i said quite the opposite. Because nothing is 100% predictable, you should have margins. The more complex and risky the task, the higher the margins. That's engineering management 101. What is 100% predictable is that you will never predict everything. insert Murphy's quotes here.

And aside from adding an infinite margin it's likely you might miss something. Or you make your margin too large, the other guy shaves it closer, and you lose the bid. Either way there is still a degree of SWAG involved.

Scott, as per our previous conversation, i'm not entitled to have an educated opinion on programmatic matters on F-35 because i "have not designed, built, and flown a VTOL supersonic stealth aircraft". You realize that that definition applies to 98% of worldwide aerospace professionals (useless people from Dassault, SAAB, Sukhoi, Airbus, Embraer...all those who do not work for a company that rhymes with Schmokheed)? I have to give it to you, that's a pretty good, airtight way of insulating oneself from criticism.
I guess we have to wait for a Lockheed PM to criticize his own company to know if there are any problems with the F-35.

Now that's just petty. (Especially given you really ought to know better, and probably do.) Everybody is entitled to an opinion. The value of said opinion is what's open to debate. Also, I noticed you didn't address the Webb Telescope being over budget and late. So is NASA crooked or incompetent? Which is it?

 

[sferrin]

One more thing - which might actually make your day better.
The next time a conceptual designer asks your opinion on something, thank the heavens, this is exactly what he/she should do. Of necessity conceptual designers are generalists. They do not have the depth in all the disciplines of aerodynamics, controls, structures, propulsion, software, manufacturing, that individual specialists (such as yourself i presume) have accumulated over years concentrating on one subject. If they did, then there'd be no need for you.
If such a person comes to you for input at the conceptual design stage, it's so right before PDR you do not end up being informed that the mass allocation for the item you are expected to deliver is 1/10th of what you actually think is necessary.

There is no such thing as a stupid question. (Unless it's the same one asked the 74th time. ). Having been on both ends of the process at various times I'm definitely of the opinion "more questions are better".

 

[LowObservable]

The only time a question is stupid is when you have not the slightest intention of listening to the answer.

 

[AeroFranz]

And aside from adding an infinite margin it's likely you might miss something. Or you make your margin too large, the other guy shaves it closer, and you lose the bid. Either way there is still a degree of SWAG involved.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Agreed, nobody said engineering was easy. That's why good engineers and project managers are worth their weight in gold, and experience counts.[/font]

Now that's just petty. (Especially given you really ought to know better, and probably do.) Everybody is entitled to an opinion. The value of said opinion is what's open to debate.

Fine, same question reformulated according to your wordage. Would you value to the opinion of someone from, say, Dassault, even though they haven't built a supersonic, stealthy, VTOL air vehicle? My beef is that you have restricted the field of qualified subject matter experts very narrowly to exclude anyone outside from a party with vested interest.

Also, I noticed you didn't address the Webb Telescope being over budget and late. So is NASA crooked or incompetent? Which is it?

You mean there are only two options? Like any organization, i suspect there are some crooked folks. Some others may be incompetent. Most likely the overwhelming majority are good, skilled people. But those are seldom the cause for delays. My experience is engineers rarely get a voice at the table on what a budget and schedule should look like. I certainly never have.

 

[sferrin]

Agreed, nobody said engineering was easy. That's why good engineers and project managers are worth their weight in gold, and experience counts.

And lack of it can kill ya. Very frustrating (for example) when a new suit comes in and thinks making cars and making airplanes are the same.

Fine, same question reformulated according to your wordage. Would you value to the opinion of someone from, say, Dassault, even though they haven't built a supersonic, stealthy, VTOL air vehicle?

It depends what they did for Dassault. If they were an applications engineer for CATIA I'd say, "probably not". If they were somebody on the team developing Neuron then they'd get more weight - for parts of it. But things get so deep/specific one can't really give a blanket answer. And people move around so much. For example we had one guy here who worked on the Williams International engine for RATTLRS. But we don't build engines. So just because he worked in this field doesn't mean HE didn't know about high tech engines. But that doesn't make this company engine experts. Does that make sense?

You mean there are only two options? Like any organization, i suspect there are some crooked folks. Some others may be incompetent. Most likely the overwhelming majority are good, skilled people.

Exactly.

But those are seldom the cause for delays. My experience is engineers rarely get a voice at the table on what a budget and schedule should look like. I certainly never have.

At the proposal stage engineers HAVE to be. Part of putting together a bid is calculating NRE, materials, assembly, etc., and the only people who are going to be able to weigh in on that will be the engineers. Sure, once the program is underway you'll have managers doing their thing but by then dollar values have already been agreed upon.

 

[Triton]

I have the initial quote from the USMC

Foxtrot Uniform ..i..

The Block 3F F-35B will still undergo formal Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). The memo does give us a glimpse into what would be required for an IOT&E operational test conducted by DOT&E.

 

[SpudmanWP]

That's the plan.


However, the DOT&E was wanting them to do a much more extensive set of tests than they did in OT-1 before they declared IOC, which is what the "Foxtrot Uniform" refers to.

 

[LowObservable]

Manly men don't need tests.

 

[sferrin]

Manly men don't need tests.

They already did them. Didn't you get your invitation?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Manly men don't need tests.

SLICCIC Gilmore is just having a fit that they did not do the tests "his" way.


God forbid that the people who actually use it and whose lives depend on it would actually have a say in how it's tested. :

 

[AeroFranz]

At the proposal stage engineers HAVE to be. Part of putting together a bid is calculating NRE, materials, assembly, etc., and the only people who are going to be able to weigh in on that will be the engineers. Sure, once the program is underway you'll have managers doing their thing but by then dollar values have already been agreed upon.

Amen to that. But the bidding process is such that there is pressure to shrink budget and time to gain a competitive advantage. It's a game of chicken with other offerors that can end up backfiring when the unexpected shows up.

 

[Triton]

However, the DOT&E was wanting them to do a much more extensive set of tests than they did in OT-1 before they declared IOC, which is what the "Foxtrot Uniform" refers to.

Probably because it is standard practice in defense acquisition to complete formal IOT&E testing before declaring IOC. For example, the F-22 program completed formal IOT&E testing before declaring IOC. Silly POGO for believing that Operational Test One (OT-1) was an operational test and not being aware that the IOC plans of the United States Marine Corps did not include IOT&E testing. Basement dwellers.

LowObservable wrote on the Key Aviation forum on 1st August 2015:

But seriously, I congratulate all involved. The feat of declaring IOC with an MMO=1.2, 5g-capable, 40kft ceiling fighter with a max [warload] of 2 AAMs and two 1 klb bombs is unparalleled in recent times. I don't think anyone's done that since the Dassault Etendard entered service.

Source:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134882-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-%282015%29-Take-two&p=2245071#post2245071

...I know of no fighter in recent years that has entered service with so many restrictions and without any public acknowledgment of its limitations. (The French, by contrast, were entirely open about the limited role of the Rafale F1.)

I believe this is also the first U.S. fighter in many years to enter service without a formal IOT&E or Opeval

Source:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134882-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-%282015%29-Take-two&p=2245251#post2245251

It does appear that the United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force, and the United States Navy lowered the bar by eliminating IOT&E testing from IOC to more easily meet their schedules. Congressional testimony from 2011 had completed IOT&E testing in the United States Air Force and United States Navy IOC plans. Completed IOT&E was removed from these plans in 2013.

The memo by Director Gilmore confirms that more work needs to be done and any claims that the F-35B is "combat ready" are puffery. Certainly the United States Marine Corps isn't immediately deploying the F-35Bs of VMFA-121 in combat after declaring IOC. The declaration of IOC was largely symbolic rather than substantive.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The DOT&E department as a whole is relatively new, so don't say IOT&E is required for IOC since the plan from the very beginning of the JSF program was to conduct IOT&E after IOC, even for the F-35A at Block 3 (now 3F).

 

[sferrin]

At the proposal stage engineers HAVE to be. Part of putting together a bid is calculating NRE, materials, assembly, etc., and the only people who are going to be able to weigh in on that will be the engineers. Sure, once the program is underway you'll have managers doing their thing but by then dollar values have already been agreed upon.

Amen to that. But the bidding process is such that there is pressure to shrink budget and time to gain a competitive advantage. It's a game of chicken with other offerors that can end up backfiring when the unexpected shows up.

Yep. Seen many "No bids" go by because the customer was short on detail with too much "TBD" for comfort, or they wait until the last minute thinking we'd just slap something together in a day.

 

[DrRansom]

Funny comment, cross posted from F-15 thread:

USAF is now trying to deploy IRSTs and develop a long range AAM. This sounds an awful lot like European air dominance efforts in the last decade.

 

[sferrin]

Funny comment, cross posted from F-15 thread:

USAF is now trying to deploy IRSTs and develop a long range AAM. This sounds an awful lot like European air dominance efforts in the last decade.

Considering it's a band-aid from the US perspective (didn't buy enough F-22s) I'm not sure I'd be laughing were I a Euro.

 

[Triton]

SLICCIC Gilmore is just having a fit that they did not do the tests "his" way.

You might very well think that. I believe that Director Gilmore referred to the deployment as an event and not an operational test.

God forbid that the people who actually use it and whose lives depend on it would actually have a say in how it's tested. :

One would presume that the Director of the Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate of the United States Department of Defense would know something about operational testing. God forbid that he might have an opinion of the events he witnessed or make recommendations to the JSF program for another deployment. The only document publicly available is the memo.

The DOT&E department as a whole is relatively new, so don't say IOT&E is required for IOC since the plan from the very beginning of the JSF program was to conduct IOT&E after IOC, even for the F-35A at Block 3 (now 3F).

I guess being established on September 24, 1983 makes the DOT&E relatively new considering that the Department of Defense was established on September 18, 1947.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Considering it's a band-aid from the US perspective (didn't buy enough F-22s) I'm not sure I'd be laughing were I a Euro.

BS.

Euro-canard countries may not have pursued aggressive RCS reduction platforms in the last 20 years but the AESA/Meteor/IRST/EW combinations they are pursuing overmatch anything their near rivals will deploy in the near (and likely) medium term.

IRST, as you well know, was an original F-22 requirement. There is nothing "band-aid" about a passive detection system like that and all credible air forces are pursuing detection right across the EM spectrum.

 

[SpudmanWP]

One would presume

I have no problem with SLICCIC Gilmore contributing to the the testing syllabus, but what he did try was to invalidate the testing that the USMC did do and to claim that they where not "really" combat capable, an aspect of life that he has no clue of.

 

[sferrin]

Considering it's a band-aid from the US perspective (didn't buy enough F-22s) I'm not sure I'd be laughing were I a Euro.

BS.

Euro-canard countries may not have pursued aggressive RCS reduction platforms in the last 20 years but the AESA/Meteor/IRST/EW combinations they are pursuing overmatch anything their near rivals will deploy in the near (and likely) medium term.

IRST, as you well know, was an original F-22 requirement. There is nothing "band-aid" about a passive detection system like that and all credible air forces are pursuing detection right across the EM spectrum.

How many Eurocanards are in service with AESAs and Meteor? And yes, stacking a bunch of missiles on the F-15 and relying on a yet-to-be-determined IRST is a band-aid to attempt to rectify not buying enough F-22s.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Come of it, the combination is imminent for service entry and it overmatch will last for years.

Detection and tracking across the EM spectrum is the future of sensor development, pretending that IRST is a "band-aid" is childish. Anyway, how does adding an IRST to an F-15 make up for not buying more F-22s?

 

[sferrin]

Come of it, the combination is imminent for service entry and it overmatch will last for years.

So none then? I am curious how you justify the assertion that it will "overmatch for years" against stealth aircraft (where it will be at a disadvantage from the day it hits the ramp.) Putting a long range missile on your airplane doesn't mean you get to use that range. You still have to find the target.

Detection and tracking across the EM spectrum is the future of sensor development, pretending that IRST is a "band-aid" is childish. Anyway, how does adding an IRST to an F-15 make up for not buying more F-22s?

Where did I say an IRST by itself was a band-aid? Adding an IRST and hanging more missiles on an F-15 makes it easier to use them as flying magazines for the F-22. i.e. it's a band-aid for not buying more F-22s. [/quote]

 

[JFC Fuller]

How many F-35s are flying combat missions? You are just as bad as Sweetman with your bias.

Eurocanards with AESA, high-end EW, Meteor and IRST are more than sufficient for anything on the horizon in their region.

IRST on F-15s is not a "band aid", its a sensible upgrade to a still very credible platform that can combine excellent kinematic performance with a large AESA array.

 

[Triton]

"DSEI: U.S. Marine F-35Bs Will Operate From British Queen Elizabeth Carriers"
by: Jon Rosamond
September 17, 2015 8:35 AM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/09/17/dsei-u-s-marine-f-35bs-will-operate-from-british-queen-elizabeth-carriers

LONDON — The U.S. Marine Corps will deploy its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II strike fighters on combat sorties from Britain’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, a senior U.K. Royal Navy officer has confirmed.

Rear Adm. Keith Blount, who is responsible for delivering the two 65,000 ton ships, said that using Marine aircraft and pilots to bolster the U.K.’s nascent carrier strike capability would be a natural extension of coalition doctrine.

“We are forever operating with allies and within coalitions. It’s the way wars are fought”, the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Aviation, Amphibious Capability and Carriers) and Rear Adm. Fleet Air Arm told an audience at the DSEI defence exhibition in London on Wednesday.

“In order to get the best out of [the U.K. carrier program] we have to be able to situate it in a coalition context. That could mean that we operate with an American ship as one of the protecting escorts”, Blount said.

“But … given the fact that the U.S. Marine Corps are buying and will operate the same type of aircraft as we are buying and operating, it would make no sense whatsoever if we were to close down the opportunity and potential of the U.S. Marine Corps working from this flight deck.
“So yes, I expect the U.S. Marine Corps to operate and work from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. We are going to get the most bang for the buck we can for the U.K. taxpayer, and that’s one of the ways in which we’ll achieve it.”

While Blount painted the co-operative arrangement in positive terms, it will disappoint critics who believe the U.K. government should provide the R.N. and Royal Air Force (RAF) with sufficient resources, in both aircraft and manpower, to regenerate the country’s carrier air wings independently.

Each of the 284 m-long carriers, fitted with a ‘ski jump’ bow ramp instead of the catapults and arrester wires once planned, will accommodate up to 40 aircraft: short takeoff/vertical landing F-35B strike fighters, helicopters, or a blend of fixed-wing and rotary tailored to the mission in hand.

Britain took delivery of its first Lightning II aircraft in 2012 and currently has three; the fourth is due to roll off Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth production line in January 2016.

“We have people in America now flying these jets”, said Blount, who disclosed that the RN had recently recruited its first ab initio F-35B pilots.
“The first frontline jet they will ever fly in will be the F-35 … that’s how close we are getting to this.
“When I was at Edwards Air Force Base quite recently I met 140 sailors and an equal number of RAF personnel that are in the testing and evaluation squadron to bring this aircraft online. This is genuinely exciting stuff, and this aircraft is a world beater for what it is designed to do – an exceptional platform.”

Britain’s F-35Bs are scheduled to arrive at Marham Air Base in eastern England in mid-2018, achieving initial operating capability by the end of that year. A deployable U.K. carrier strike capability should be ready by late 2020.

Blount said he was also “very excited” about the opportunities presented through Joint Helicopter Command to operate Apache, Chinook, Merlin and other helicopters from the Queen Elizabeth class.
“Getting rid of the cats and traps actually makes this a far simpler proposition, and one of the reasons why this capability is so versatile and useful to us,” he added.

 

[Triton]

Model of four Meteor on display at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition in Washington DC in 2010.

Artist's impressions and models of two Meteor and eight SPEAR 3 in the weapons bays on display at Farnborough International Air Show 2014.

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35-347416/

http://www.janes.com/article/34213/singapore-airshow-2014-mbda-expects-spear-to-be-in-service-by-2020

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2014-news/july-2014-navy-naval-forces-maritime-industry-technology-security-global-news/1911-mbda-spear-3-missile-would-bring-true-anti-ship-capabilities-to-raf-and-faa-f-35s.html

 

[LowObservable]

Spud - The DOT&E position, which reports directly to Congress, was created 30+ years ago in the aftermath of the DIVAD problems and other disclosures, where the Pentagon's own chain of command was seen to have approved inadequate, but "failure-proof" testing in order to declare IOC on time.


That is exactly what the DOT&E is documenting in the case of the F-35 ship trials.

 

[sferrin]

How many F-35s are flying combat missions? You are just as bad as Sweetman with your bias.

Show me where I claimed any were.

Eurocanards with AESA, high-end EW, Meteor and IRST are more than sufficient for anything on the horizon in their region.

So "as long as they don't have to face stealth aircraft we're okay". Well that's comforting.

IRST on F-15s is not a "band aid", its a sensible upgrade to a still very credible platform that can combine excellent kinematic performance with a large AESA array.

Do you have a reading disability? How many times do I need to say the IRST BY ITSELF IS NOT THE BAND-AID - THE WHOLE PACKAGE IS?

 

[LowObservable]

Well, stealth aircraft in A2A are an overmatching threat. As long as they're IR-stealthy and can detect, track and ID while staying LPI in the face of digital ESM, at sufficient range to not be detected, while delivering a high-Pk AAM.


And by the way, if we're playing the "how many" game - who has the most supercruise, supersonic-agile fighters today and into the 2020s, Europe or the US?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Spud - The DOT&E position, which reports directly to Congress Secretary of Defense and Congress, was created 30+ years ago in the aftermath of the DIVAD

I actually remember DIVAD..

 

[LowObservable]

Taking advantage of LO in A2A was always going to be a challenge for LPI. RCS reduction on the target, a vast improvement in ESM, and automated DRFM-based self-protect jamming all make LPI harder, and I don't know whether radar technology has kept pace. (I doubt it, because digital ESM and jamming that works are huge changes over the 1980s.)

 

[lastdingo]

LPI radar characteristics are questionable due to fundamental issues with the approach. I wrote about this back in 2009, quoting EW 101:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2009/08/stealth-fighters-and-lpi-radar.html

 

[sferrin]

Well, stealth aircraft in A2A are an overmatching threat. As long as they're IR-stealthy and can detect, track and ID while staying LPI in the face of digital ESM, at sufficient range to not be detected, while delivering a high-Pk AAM.

Much, much better than "pray you have a longer range missile than the other guy and that he doesn't have stealth aircraft".

And by the way, if we're playing the "how many" game - who has the most supercruise, supersonic-agile fighters today and into the 2020s, Europe or the US?

I notice you left out "stealth".

 

[Jeb]

I've argued against this mindset in locations too, and it's amazing the number of people who think, for instance, that F-16s can't fly "slow enough" for CAS.

The Air Force already tried using F-16s for CAS. They failed miserably.


Edit: However, once again, it becomes what type of CAS are you referring to? As Quellish has pointed out before, there are three distinct variations. I see the USAF and Welsh in particular as intentionally conflating them for his/The Air Forces own purposes.

Close Air Support = the use of airpower to defeat enemy ground threats operating in engagement with friendly ground forces. CAS is a mission, it's not a weapon.

• AH-64s or Whisky/Zulu Cobras don't have a GAU-8 either but I bet no one accuses them of being unable to complete the CAS mission.
• The Marines insist that their STOVL platforms are needed for CAS, but their Harriers never carried a 30mm cannon.
• B-1Bs have done very low high-speed passes over enemy positions to scare them to ground (without dropping any weapons) and allow friendlies to disengage...does this count as CAS?
• A-10s, when loaded out, will engage enemy surface targets with Mavericks first, then with any other guided ordnance, then anything gravity, THEN the gun. This is based on reading an A-10 squadron's post-Kosovo narrative. So even with the Hogs, they don't lead with the cannon if there are better options.

I took off my A-10 blinders a long time ago. The Warthog has done its mission well, but its mission parameters are very limiting.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Why do you keep saying "stealth" when you mean low RCS? I assume its because you know that low RCS won't help against passive sensors?