F-35 news roundup

[nspreitler]

Two years!?

I'm glad you brought up Iraq. Did you know that US involvement in WWII only took 4 years (1941-1945) ? And Iraq has been going on for close to 25 years now... you would think we would have all the bugs worked out. (1991-present) Will this project every be done? we have thrown trillions into it.

No I don't have time for you to explain the differences, or context. Just noting the timelines.

You don't have time, but you have time to write all that out. I know the fact that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus occasionally in Yemen Libya, and Somalia you see as a diversion from the Russian and Chinese but it is reality. Even in a large scale war there aren't JTACs with every platoon, if you are lucky you get a JTAC team for a battalion.

Edited May 1, 2016 by nspreitler

[TaiidanTomcat]

You don't have time, but you have time to write all that out.

[/Quote]

Pointing out that you didn't bother to do your research before throwing out dates, that just lIke iraq don't really matter much when looked at beyond the superficial. we won WWII decisively in how many years?

I know the fact that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus occasionally in Yemen Libya, and Somalia you see as a diversion from the Russian and Chinese but it is reality. Even in a large scale war there aren't JTACs with every platoon, if you are lucky you get a JTAC team for a battalion.

I know for a fact the mighty A-10 had a fraction of the capabilities it has now when it entered service.

Will iraq ever be over? Whats it going to cost and will it ever actually work? This sure is taking a long time.

lets put it like this: one of these is an expensive boondoggle that is taking years with no end in sight. And the other is the F-35. :thumbsup:/> Betting the F-35 is smelling like roses in 3 years. Iraq? not so much.

Thank you for your service.

Edited May 1, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[nspreitler]

Pointing out that you didn't bother to do your research before throwing out dates, that just lIke iraq don't really matter much when looked at beyond the superficial.

I know for a fact the mighty A-10 had a fraction of the capabilities it has now when it entered service.

Will iraq ever be over? Whats it going to cost and will it ever actually work? This sure is taking a long time.

lets put it like this: one of these is an expensive boondoggle that is taking years with no end in sight. And the other is the F-35. :thumbsup:/> Betting the F-35 is smelling like roses in 3 years. Iraq? not so much.

Thank you for your service.

I said two years because we've been hitting targets there for two years without having even the possibility of JTACs on the ground. Before that we were in the ground fight.

I don't know Iraq will ever be over, that's outside the military's control. "we don't make policy here........ Elected officials, civilians, do that. We are the instruments of that policy."

[Tony Stark]

Whoa there nelly, nobody said anything was wrong...

But you implied that it was, and this was exactly my point earlier - there hasn't been a lot of reliable information about the EOTS to say if it's broken or not, but because we've been so conditioned to think that everything with the F-35 is a charlie-foxtrot, it's become fashionable to assume that everything with the F-35 is somehow fundamentally "wrong" because it either doesn't fit within how things were done 10-20-30 years ago, or we don't know the context of a situation. Therefore when something comes up in conversation, we just assume something's broken and use language such as the following:

I don't know if the F-35's biggest issue is the FLIR, but it either needs to be right or go.

Which is such an obvious statement that it's ultimately worthless.

Next thing: ground pointers aren't the preferred method for targeting. In current usage with the Marines, who are strong leaders in developing air-ground management, ground pointers initially aid in designating the general target, but the aviators redesignate with their onboard LITENING pods for weapons release. After handing off the target, the aviator disregards the ground pointer. We don't know how the F-35 will handle this but relying exclusively on the ground pointing devices shows that we are transferring more power to the grunt either because ground pointing devices/training are improved or we are taking a step back from current (2012) norms.

I'm probably better aware of the current procedures than you realize. But It's good that you bring them up because they highlight how much things have changed since Vietnam. Now, you say "we" don't know how the F-35 will handle this, but "we" already do. Just like development of aircraft hardware, tactics are ever evolving. Remember, USMC will be using the F-35B in this role too.

27 March 27 2015, DARPA and the USMC successfully tested Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) during TALON REACH exercise. PCAS includes two main components, PCAS-Air and PCAS-Ground. PCAS-Air consists of weapons management, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and communications systems located on a modular Smart Launcher Electronics (SLE) device designed to enable plug-and-play hosting of tactical software and mounting of equipment on almost any aircraft. PCAS-Air communicates with ground forces through PCAS-Ground, a suite of situational awareness and mapping software on commercial Android tablet computers. Two interoperable PCAS-Ground software applications have been developed with government partners: the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (NAWC-WD) and the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Rome Labs. (AFSOC's been pursuing Digital CAS too, but the Marines are slightly ahead with their systems, so AFSOC's been saying "hey, we want this" since last summer)

During the full-system demonstration, an IOC JTAC used a PCAS-Ground tablet to identify a target position near an unmanned truck and communicate its position to the PCAS-Air module inside an MV-22B via a digital link added to the Osprey as part of the PCAS modifications. PCAS enabled both the JTAC and the aircraft’s weapon systems officer, who also had a PCAS-Ground tablet, to share real-time information, enabling them to quickly confirm the shot and execute the order. The JTAC digitally passed the nine-line grid coordinate, and it went from his tablet when he hit send, straight to the missile.

The Osprey fired a non-explosive version of a specially mounted Griffin missile—a tube-launched precision-guided munition—from 4.5 miles (9 km) away to support a simulated downed friendly pilot in the Marine exercise. Guided by a targeting laser, the missile hit exactly where directed and, had it been explosive, would have destroyed the target. The length of time from initiation by the JTAC to missile impact on target was just over four minutes—even better than PCAS’ goal of six minutes, and more than seven times faster than the half hour or more it can take using current methods that rely on voice directions and paper maps.

So here's what'll happen. Ground forces call in a strike. They'll have a tablet that displays aircraft in the area along with their loadouts. They can contact an aircraft (maybe the guy on the ground wants a couple of 500 pounders from an F-35C dropped into a tree line, or maybe he needs to make the side of a ridge disappear with a line of 1000-pounders from a B-1B) and request a strike. The aircraft can accept or deny (the aircraft needs to have this option as it may already be tasked with another strike at that moment, or it may be out of gas and heading home/back to a tanker). The aircraft accepts, the guy on the ground uploads targeting data to the aircraft, the aircraft flies within launch parameters, then releases the weapon(s). The aircraft is an extension of the guys on the ground.

PCAS has other applications as well. Another part of the exercise showed the value of the PCAS-Ground system on its own. In a simulated night ground battle between Marines and adversaries, a group of Marines had KILSWITCH tablets but very limited situational awareness of the location of friendly forces and enemy locations. Another group of Marines, also equipped with KILSWITCH tablets, arrived simultaneously and launched a small unmanned air vehicle (UAV) into the air to provide ISR and network relay capabilities. Within seconds, all the KILSWITCH tablets synced up with the UAV through the Marines’ tactical radios and automatically populated the location of all friendly forces, greatly improving both groups’ ability to coordinate and accomplish their mission.

The PCAS test not only demonstrated new real-time communication capabilities, but also how quickly the system can adapt to different aircraft. Typically, adapting an aircraft to accept a new weapon, mounting rail and targeting system takes at least one year from initial request through live demonstration. DARPA moved from concept to test in less than four months. The speed was made possible by the PCAS’ SLE and all-digital architecture, which leverages commercial IT products and models such as open interfaces, service-oriented software, element modularity and mobile software applications. Doing this demonstration not on an isolated range, but as part of a major service air-ground training exercise, was made possible by the Marine partners’ aggressive drive to incorporate emerging technologies to enhance warfighting capability.

In addition to the MV-22 demonstration, DARPA is also working on transitioning the system to unmanned platforms with another service partner and performing upcoming flight demonstrations using a USAF aircraft.

So, to answer your question, technology is opening the doors to new tactics that would be unheard of 5-10 years ago. The goal isn't to do it the way it has been done, but to improve upon it. The aircraft itself is only part of the equation, it's not the end-all, be-all solution.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Tony Stark

[Tony Stark]

Iraq is a great reminder that a COIN cannot be won via airpower alone and that the over-reliance on air power alone on the part of civilian leadership has prolonged an already disastrous situation.

[nspreitler]

Iraq is a great reminder that a COIN cannot be won via airpower alone and that the over-reliance on air power alone on the part of civilian leadership has prolonged an already disastrous situation.

Iraq right now isn't the COIN fight we fought before, and it isn't being fought with just airpower. We aren't the ground force this time, but it is certainly a ground war.

Edited May 1, 2016 by nspreitler

[Tony Stark]

Iraq right now isn't the COIN fight we fought before, and it isn't being fought with just airpower.

Not from the American perspective.

[TaiidanTomcat]

More software problems. But a 16% MC rate isn't bad is it.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/f-35-fails-testing-air-force/

Isn't this one of how many tests and flights throughout the entire deployment to Mountain? You are taking one bad mission and using it define the entire endeavor? The whole purpose of these deployments is to Test. Take em out and see how they do. LEARN. make mistakes and fix them. Even if the F-35 was 100 percent mature, Its still being introduced and learned by the people assigned to them. I took my friend 6 months to pick up the Harriers quirks. The learning curve for the Osprey is even steeper.

Can you tell us how the other missions went? did this happen at the start or end of the deployment? How many missions were flown total? what the MC rate on other missions? or overall?

Edited May 2, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Exhausted]

But you implied that it was, and this was exactly my point earlier - there hasn't been a lot of reliable information about the EOTS to say if it's broken or not, but because we've been so conditioned to think that everything with the F-35 is a charlie-foxtrot, it's become fashionable to assume that everything with the F-35 is somehow fundamentally "wrong" because it either doesn't fit within how things were done 10-20-30 years ago, or we don't know the context of a situation. Therefore when something comes up in conversation, we just assume something's broken and use language such as the following:

Which is such an obvious statement that it's ultimately worthless.

It's actually not a worthless statement to say that the coming IR systems must work with the whole package because we developed past systems for legacy aircraft that made production, only for the IR system to be removed at a later date. So many systems come to mind here...

Now the PCAS stuff is pretty cool... reminds me of some of the tablets our people used last decade. But we must also be prepared for cyber attacks that disable such systems. If an advancement can be thought of, then a counter to it is right around the corner. In some ways it's nice to have less reliance on lasers because the developed militaries of the world can jam lasers quite effectively. But pointing devices still offer advantages in the scale of conflicts we are in right now. Being able to give an exact location, without the possible error of trying to designate through map, is still a sound practice.

They'll have a tablet that displays aircraft in the area along with their loadouts. They can contact an aircraft (maybe the guy on the ground wants a couple of 500 pounders from an F-35C dropped into a tree line, or maybe he needs to make the side of a ridge disappear with a line of 1000-pounders from a B-1B) and request a strike. The aircraft can accept or deny (the aircraft needs to have this option as it may already be tasked with another strike at that moment, or it may be out of gas and heading home/back to a tanker). The aircraft accepts, the guy on the ground uploads targeting data to the aircraft, the aircraft flies within launch parameters, then releases the weapon(s).

Ahhh yes, the Uber model...

Edited May 2, 2016 by Exhausted

[Exhausted]

it took the A-10 21 years to get FLIR, bro.

True, but the Pave Penny gave the Hawg some ability to act within the environment it was designed for: identification, tasking, etc. It's not the whole package like we'd expect today, but 1970s it's kind of remarkable

[TaiidanTomcat]

True, but the Pave Penny gave the Hawg some ability to act within the environment it was designed for: identification, tasking, etc. It's not the whole package like we'd expect today, but 1970s it's kind of remarkable

Seeing as the 1960s era A-7 had far capability than the Hog I would not say it was remarkable at all from an A-37/A-7/F-16 pilot:

The Sluf armament system used a very primitive computer and the inertial platform data and basic ballistics data for bombs to provide extremely accurate bombs. Oh yeah, a real HUD from Marconi. The Hog would only have had to used a simple range radar to enable a computer to provide the bomb impact dot on the HUD, but not requiring a cosmic radar like the Sluf had ( we had terrain following and terrain avoidance and two ground map modes and a beacon mode and bomb delivery mode that provided the computer with slant range).

It is no wonder why we Sluf folks laughed and laughed when we saw what USAF was selling to Congress just to get the plane funded and stop the Army Cheyenne. Of course, the plane was being developed to fight in 'nam, and that war was ending. The big cannon was about the only thing that we did not already have, plus the stupid weather requirements that only a helicopter could meet....

...Having been there and done that back in late 1974, I saw the rigged "flyoff" of the Warthog versus the Sluf. The guy across the desk from me was on the team that wrote up the "rules" ( I was asst Ops and he was sqd Ops O). He came back and told me the A-10 was the winner, even though no missions had been flown...

...Being one who was actually in the attack community at the time the A-X requirement was formalized, I feel qualified to opine.

- We A-37 and A-7D folks understood the new plane would basically be a jet-powered A-1, and would supplement the A-7D. We knew the A-37 would never see combat again after 'nam except for a COIN scenario. The emphasis was upon CAS and CSAR and such, with a bit of BAI thrown in.

Thinking and actual force build up at the time was the A-7D replacing the F-100 and supplementing the F-4 for interdiction. And the SLUF was very good at CAS. The only two planes with in-country FAC ratings of 15 meter CEP were the SLUF and Dragonfly. We have the 7th AF Corona Harvest documents to back up my assertion.

- Somewhere along the way the Cheyenne popped up and USAF was afraid of losing the CAS mission. Then there was the Fulda Gap. And if I was writing a book, I would call it "How a valley in Europe designed a (not so) modern warplane".

The gun came along after the initial RFI and maybe even RFP. And let's face it, the rounds were lots cheaper than Mavericks. Even so, the A-10 was a decent shooter once we got the IIR missile, as tgt acquisition was a bear with the EO version even with scene mag. The Pave Penny sensor also let the grunts designate the tanks, so acquisition was easier ( but nearly as good as slaving the seeker with fairly cheap avionics)

- We attack folks wanted both the A-X and the A-7D. The LWF program was just gaining traction, but we all thot it would mainly complement the Eagle and have a limited A2G capability to supplement the F-4, A-7 and A-X. F-100 wings would be replaced by A-X or A-7D. Maybe an F-4 wing would go, and all the Thud outfits were moving to Guard and Reserve.

Congress wanted as cheap an airplane as they could get, and USAF sold the A-X as not needing computers or high-tech stuff to do the job. My editorial back in 1974 made this clear and I was harshly reprimanded for saying so. Interestingly, my CO and wing DO saw the letter before I mailed it and had no qualms.

As a result, we had a significant period of reduced A2G capability in the late 70's and early 80's until the Viper came onboard in numbers, and we should all thank God the plane was such a great design.

- And then there was the significant drawdown after 'nam. We were equipping Guard units with the A-7D as early as 1973, and we stopped the A-7D fleet at three active duty wings. The stateside units and those in USAFE remained pretty much in place, so it was all those bases in 'nam and Thailand that bit the bullet. For example, the F-100 wing out of Tuy Hoa, I think, was moved to England AFB and then converted to the A-7D. Myrtle Beach was same. And Davis-Montham. Cannon absorbed 'vaarks...

...So we see what we needed for the Vietnam scenario and realize that the Hun, Thud and Double Ugly ain't gonna hack it for CAS and BAI. Talking about 1969 or 1970. The A-1 and the A-37 did super work in that environment from mid 60's to early 70's.

To get the A-10 we had to "dis" the A-7 and admit the Hun and 'vaark and Thud were not well-suited for CAS. We also had to move from piston motors to jets, so the A-1 was off the table. The A-37 was off the table because it was a superb COIN plane but could not meet the new requirements that included tank-busting and large payload.

The A-7D was so gold-plated that the Viper did not come close until the late 80's. It ( the Viper) had great A2A capability and a decent ground map radar and such. Sweet.

But USAF CAS mafia had sold Congress the AX, and contrary to some here it was not a single mission jet. It would replace the F-100, the F-111, the F-105, the A-1, the A-37 and the A-7D. So we Sluf folks asked, "what about interdiction"? Also asked about precision weapon system and a hundred knots extra speed. Oh yeah, what about a computed weapon delivery system and both an INS and a Doppler nav system and a ground map radar and an autopilot and a projected map display and.... No matter. They said the A-10 would be cheap, simple, and we could have many of them. i would have been horrified to see them in the Yom Kippur scenario, and been more horrified to have to fly a mission in the first 24 hours there or at Fulda Gap.

Even A-6s had TRAM by the late 1970s... But if you're impressed with a Pave Penny compared to the "whole packages" already available, I guess that's your decision

Same Man helped right this book^

The A-10 was utterly short changed for years of basic tech that was regularly found on other platforms, as has been said here countless times (and remember that was a Feature not a bug, ask Pierre Sprey). Theres "austere" and then there's " dirt poor" Remember the hog was sold as ruggedly simple to the point of stupidity. Which is what THIS:

tried to rectify.

Edited May 2, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

Ahhh yes, the Uber model...

You can always call uncle Joe-Bob on his low and slow but tough 40 year old Tractor. Sure he'll take an hour to get there, but he'll bring his big ol' gun. and he ain't got no need for no fancy app-lee-kay-shun on some city slick cell-you-lar phone neither.

[11bee]

True, but the Pave Penny gave the Hawg some ability to act within the environment it was designed for: identification, tasking, etc. It's not the whole package like we'd expect today, but 1970s it's kind of remarkable

Pave Penny was just a crude laser target seeker. Can't use it to designate targets, need someone else to do that. Also doesn't work in smoke, bad weather, etc. Had no ability to guide precision weapons.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Pave Penny was just a crude laser target seeker. Can't use it to designate targets, need someone else to do that. Also doesn't work in smoke, bad weather, etc. Had no ability to guide precision weapons.

I guess its remarkable given the context that the A-10 was a WWII throwback. That would be some pretty amazing stuff back in 1945, thus its incredible that it was given to the Hog at all.

Hey And whats the deal with avionics?

[boom175]

Pave Penny was just a crude laser target seeker. Can't use it to designate targets, need someone else to do that. Also doesn't work in smoke, bad weather, etc. Had no ability to guide precision weapons.

yes it did, as lond as the target was designated by another source. Also if the target was illuminated it would give the pilot a aiming point on his/her HUD.

[Exhausted]

yes it did, as lond as the target was designated by another source. Also if the target was illuminated it would give the pilot a aiming point on his/her HUD.

Exactly. This returns us to my point about being able to pick precision targets for pilots to aim at. Pave Penny obviously wasn't the best system, but it was light and plentiful. One of it's weaknesses is the Pave Penny didn't allow pilots to designate their own targets for guided weapons release. Pave Penny allowed pilots to find targets for GBUs to home onto or AGM-65s they could aim by themselves, but modern pilots use their own pods to redesignate targets picked up from ground designators. The tablet model is really cool, but it's not worth throwing all our resources behind a single high-tech system because we don't know the enemy's private information about their cyber warfare capability. It could be as bad as buying a bunch of cheap Enron stock in September 2001. If the F-35 doesn't have another system that allows the pilot to do what we can do now, our JTACs could find themselves without options. Most of our money goes into force multipliers like air power... we don't have enough grunts for an attrition fight.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Exhausted

[Exhausted]

You can always call uncle Joe-Bob on his low and slow but tough 40 year old Tractor. Sure he'll take an hour to get there, but he'll bring his big ol' gun. and he ain't got no need for no fancy app-lee-kay-shun on some city slick cell-you-lar phone neither.

Well if you're out in the middle of the country where a bunch of pickups are already on station looking for customers, then it still would be quicker to call Bubba than calling any sportster from the nearest city to come give you a ride.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Exactly. This returns us to my point about being able to pick precision targets for pilots to aim at. Pave Penny obviously wasn't the best system, but it was light and plentiful. One of it's weaknesses is the Pave Penny didn't allow pilots to designate their own targets for guided weapons release. Pave Penny allowed pilots to find targets for GBUs to home onto or AGM-65s they could aim by themselves, but modern pilots use their own pods to redesignate targets picked up from ground designators.

And it was still nothing compared to the A-7 and other older aircraft

The tablet model is really cool, but it's not worth throwing all our resources behind a single high-tech system because we don't know the enemy's private information about their cyber warfare capability. It could be as bad as buying a bunch of cheap Enron stock in September 2001. If the F-35 doesn't have another system that allows the pilot to do what we can do now, our JTACs could find themselves without options. Most of our money goes into force multipliers like air power... we don't have enough grunts for an attrition fight.

Ironically like the A-10 Enron was the big established giant, but lets not let that get in the way...

not "throwing all our resources" into it anymore that we are "throwing all our resources" into Comms systems that are also theoretically vulnerable to cyber attack or any other methods we use. The micro chip genie is not getting stuffed back into the bottle. you are only comparing it to Enron because its new and different, and we think its better to have people giving 9 lines with a PRC that works occasionally because thats the old method. The funny thing about warfare though is something that was solid and reliable for sometimes thousands of years, (Like horses) can one day fall pray to people who realized tanks weren't Enron stock, but the next big thing. and overnight the valuable stock plummets. Cyber Warfare is a real thing, you prepare for it like you do everything else. Just because someone invents a new RPG doesn't mean we stop using tanks. Electronic warfare, especially for coordination is bigger than ever.

As for force multipliers thats exactly what this is, along with netcentric warfare and "every platform a sensor" even artillery relies on computers, GPS, etc and is moving to netcentrics. So instead of having arty pieces 50 yards apart they might be spaced by miles in the future, and firing a pair of accurate guided shells before scooting to the next firing spot relying on constant updates along the way.

Its not just an F-35 thing. The F-35 is a reflection of the future of US combat strategy, people need to realize that. its not a coincidence that the B-21 has the same strategy behind it, and any talk of F-22s coming back is also mentioning the same sensor suits and comms. Its not just stealth. Stealth is the standard, its no longer cutting edge. its the Avionics, comms, EW, and sensors. That's the future. and just like 1990 theres a bunch of "but what ifs?" but there are always "what ifs?" and of course there are "what ifs?" for the old stuff too.

Edited May 2, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well if you're out in the middle of the country where a bunch of pickups are already on station looking for customers, then it still would be quicker to call Bubba than calling any sportster from the nearest city to come give you a ride.

I'm sure the A-10 will be based right with the grunts out there in the country

Edited May 2, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

yes it did, as lond as the target was designated by another source. Also if the target was illuminated it would give the pilot a aiming point on his/her HUD.

Actually, it didn't. I think we're talking the same thing but all it did was display someone else's laser mark in the pilot's HUD. It had no guidance capability.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Actually, it didn't. I think we're talking the same thing but all it did was display someone else's laser mark in the pilot's HUD. It had no guidance capability.

[/quot]

Yup.

From the first paragraph in wiki:

The Lockheed Martin AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny is a laser spot tracker carried by US Air Force attack aircraft and fighter-bombers to enable them to track a laser spot on the ground (it does not produce a laser beam itself, so the aircraft cannot launch and guide laser-guided bombs against ground targets without additional hardware). PAVE was later used as an acronym for Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment.

So the A-10 couldnt do what we are whining about the F-35 not being able to do and it took the A-10 21 years to get basic avionics other aircraft including those or replaced al ready had.

If only the internet were around in the 1970s to get slayed over this with A-10 people telling us if we just wait 21 years A-10 will be almost as capable as a SLUF

Edited May 3, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Tony Stark]

It's actually not a worthless statement to say that the coming IR systems must work with the whole package because we developed past systems for legacy aircraft that made production, only for the IR system to be removed at a later date. So many systems come to mind here...

Except that EOTS is, in fact, based on the Sniper pod, so it is compatible with other existing platforms. Yet you made a declaration about it without knowing enough about it one way or another. Your statement was an emotionally-based complaint that did nothing to further the conversation as it brought nothing new to the table. That was the point that I made previously about critics making statements about something they knew very little about.

Now the PCAS stuff is pretty cool... reminds me of some of the tablets our people used last decade. But we must also be prepared for cyber attacks that disable such systems. If an advancement can be thought of, then a counter to it is right around the corner. In some ways it's nice to have less reliance on lasers because the developed militaries of the world can jam lasers quite effectively. But pointing devices still offer advantages in the scale of conflicts we are in right now. Being able to give an exact location, without the possible error of trying to designate through map, is still a sound practice.

The jamming of communications signals between ground and air is a threat that already exists. It has for some time, too. Isn't stopping us from using radios.

Exactly. This returns us to my point about being able to pick precision targets for pilots to aim at. Pave Penny obviously wasn't the best system, but it was light and plentiful. One of it's weaknesses is the Pave Penny didn't allow pilots to designate their own targets for guided weapons release. Pave Penny allowed pilots to find targets for GBUs to home onto or AGM-65s they could aim by themselves, but modern pilots use their own pods to redesignate targets picked up from ground designators. The tablet model is really cool, but it's not worth throwing all our resources behind a single high-tech system because we don't know the enemy's private information about their cyber warfare capability. It could be as bad as buying a bunch of cheap Enron stock in September 2001. If the F-35 doesn't have another system that allows the pilot to do what we can do now, our JTACs could find themselves without options. Most of our money goes into force multipliers like air power... we don't have enough grunts for an attrition fight.

As has been mentioned at least once before, EOTS is similar to Sniper, so the F-35 has that capability built in. Sniper's a 15 year old system. Pave Penny is 40 years old. It could only recognize specific laser designation signals based on pre-determined four-digit codes encoded into the laser pulse, allowing it to seek out particular targets and ignore others (to avoid, for example, several aircraft hitting the same target). Strikes had to be pre-planned. And Pave Penny has no range-finding capability.

The problem with Pave Penny (and laser designation itself) is the aircraft can't tell the difference between the emitter and the reflection. If the aircraft is approaching the target from a direction that's opposite of both the target and the designator, the aircraft's sensors will only see the emitter, not the reflection. The pod doesn't know the difference, and this can ruin the emitter's day. The pilot and the guy on the ground calling in the strike both have to know where they are relative to one another and the target before weapons can be released. This means that it takes a lot of talk and coordination between the aircraft and the person calling in the strike.

Lasers don't paint targets for GPS guided bombs like how they did 20-30-40 years ago. GPS guided bombs are blind; they're going to a set of coordinates and it's up to the guy on the ground and the pilot to coordinate that targeting. The laser in PCAS isn't necessarily there to paint the target for an LGB, it's to provide the target's exact location information for the ground component of PCAS, which in turn, sends that information via a data burst to the aircraft.

We've been flying thousands of these missions annually for the past 15 years. There's not an O-3 or higher ranking F-18, F-16, F-15E, A-10 or Harrier pilot out there who hasn't been deployed. The nominee for the next CSAF flew missions in the Gulf War, Allied Force and Enduring Freedom. We've taken 30 years of experience in the F-16, A-10, F-18, Harrier and F-15E and we're putting those lessons into the F-35A/B/C.

Turning the clock back to 1970 isn't the answer. Planning to fight the last war, instead of the next one, is an age old mistake. We didn't "downgrade" our aircraft's capabilities 15 years ago to fight that war; in fact, we had to upgrade the A-10s to give it the same capabilities that the Harrier and F-16 have had for a number of years. We developed new technologies to permit a wider variety of aircraft to undertake missions that they were never envisioned for. No one in 1986 would have believed that the F-14 would make for a good CAS platform, and yet it did.

Well if you're out in the middle of the country where a bunch of pickups are already on station looking for customers, then it still would be quicker to call Bubba than calling any sportster from the nearest city to come give you a ride.

What if the sportster is 5 minutes away and the pickup is 45 minutes away? LOTS of TACPs/CCPs/JTACs pushed A-10's elsewhere because they weren't capable of being on station fast enough.

[Tony Stark]

EOTS. 43 miles away.

[MarkW]

Oh McSnap!! What's with the Mcs loving A-10s?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/02/a-10-air-force-f-35-replacement-mcsally-congress/83824780/

[Tony Stark]

McSallly is the representative from the 2nd district in Arizona.

She is a former CO of the 354 FS located at Davis-Monthan, AFB

Davis-Monthan AFB is in the 2nd district.

Rep McSally is making the same play as McCain; the state stands to lose federal dollars if/when the A-10s leave. Maybe F-16s replace the A-10s at D-M, maybe F-35s, maybe nothing. Additionally - and most importantly - she stands to lose votes during the next election cycle if the A-10s go away, and re-election to the 2nd District isn't a lock for her.

In the 2012 campaign for that seat from the 2nd District, it was one of the closest elections in the nation. She faced incumbent Democrat Ron Barber and Libertarian nominee Anthony Powell in the November 2012 election. She was endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, United States Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Wholesalers, of Commerce, National Association of Home Builders and Associated Builders and Contractors. McSally led on election night by a few hundred votes, but the race was deemed too close to call due to a large number of provisional ballots. Barber eventually overtook McSally as more ballots were counted. By November 16, most of the outstanding ballots were in heavily Democratic precincts near Tucson. The Arizona Republic determined that as a result, McSally would not be able to pick up enough votes to overcome Barber's lead. By November 17, Barber's lead over McSally had grown to 1,400 votes. That day, the Associated Press determined that there weren't enough ballots outstanding for McSally to regain the lead, and called the race for Barber. She conceded the race later that morning.

McSally declared her intention of running again for the 2nd district seat in 2014. She won the June 3 primary against 2 other Republican opponents, taking nearly 70% of the vote. In the November 4 general election, the race was too close to call by the end of election night, and eventually went on to be the final federal election of the 2014 cycle to be decided. With 100% of the votes counted, McSally had a 161-vote lead and declared victory on November 12, 2014, but due to the fact that the margin of victory was less than 1%, an automatic recount was called on December 1. On December 17, the official recount declared McSally the winner by 167 votes. She is only the second Republican ever to represent a southern Arizona-based district in the U.S. House of Representatives; the first was Jim Kolbe, who represented what is now the 2nd district, from 1985 to 2007.

Due to his position on the Senate Armed Services committee, Sen. McCain has been in the best position to advocate keeping the A-10, which is why we've heard relatively little from Rep McSally. However, Sen. McCain is already facing a tough re-election, and the recent arrest of his campaign fundraiser on numerous drug and counterfeit charges isn't going to help matters for him. Expect to hear more from Rep. McSally.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Tony Stark