Debate: Is the F-35 worth its salt?

Never heard about the B-21, thanks for showing me it. And I get your point. I just think if we hadn’t of had the F-22, it might make more sense. But since the air superiority role is already filled, it’s really only replacing air to ground and it does a fair job at best in that role.

Was reffering to the movie avengers where the hulk literally jumps on one and shreds it to peices. But yh I was being sarcastic I’m not really a military kind of guy but the bigger the fighter jet the better (in looks)

Well the C and D model 35s lack a cannon. As stated earlier they can be outfitted with a powerful GAU-22/A gunpod. And if it’s in an environment where the A-10 can properly operate with no concern, then the same would be applied to the F-35, and as such the F-35 would carry a larger weapon load than the Hawg.

Also it would still be able to destroy a couple of modern tanks thanks to internally carried GBUs or JDAMs.

The F-35 cannot carry a large weapon load than the F-35. That’s the point. Even when not in stealth the F-35 cannot carry the amount of ordinances the A-10 can. There are countless generals (and I know some of them Personally and have talked to some) who will stress that the F-35 cannot and should not ever be used on a mission the A-10 can do. It’s the whole reason the A-10’s retirement got push back to the late 2020s. Because the AF looked at the F-35 and saw an aircraft incapable of filling in the place of the A-10. That’s why the AF is no looking for an aircraft with the sole purpose of replacing the A-10 and only doing A-10 required missions.

1 Like

Well you gotta look at it like this, right now everyone is giving this thing alot of flak for something out of its control…

The A-10 went through it with USAF top brass
The F/A-18 struggled against the F-16 (YF-17 and YF-16), and was originally going to be thrown away after losing to the YF-16 when the Navy came in and took it
The B-1 Lancer was too high cost to safely operate for a number of years, earning it the nickname "Hangar Queen"
The F-22 was originally going to be the F-23 (YF-23, still a bit salty about that decision, lol) until the USAF saw how agile it was compared to the Black Widow and Grey Ghost.

Many aircraft go through some serious and sometimes ‘killer’ labor pains until they properly show their colors. The F-35 is no different.

Uhhhh, 16000lbs vs 18000lbs. I think it can carry more ordinance. The USAF didn’t push back the retirement of the A-10 because of the F-35, they pushed it back because everyone loves the brrrrrt.

I get that the Hawg is a serious morale booster, but so was the Tomcat (Although the Super Tomcat 21/ASF-14 would have been soooooo j u i c y) and look at what happened to that.

That’s a huge difference considering that one GBU-53 (the largest bomb the F-35 can carry internally) wieghs only 205lbs. The A-10 could carry 8 more than the F-35. Plus any larger armament would be incapable of fitting inside the weapons bay. Meaning the larger ones would be limited to 4 at most outside. The A-10 would be able to carry 8. Nearly double. The only Air to Ground armament that would be able to be used to fight those tanks is the B61 which is a nuclear missile. The A-10 on the other hand can carry the AGM-65, probably the best Air to Ground Armament to use on heavy tanks like the newer one’s Russia has. The F-35 cannot carry that weapon. Finally, the A-10 can carry any of the Mark 80 GBUs which go all the way from 250 to 2000lbs. Way to large to be carried internally by the F-35. And all those Mark 80’s can be turned into JDAMs.

1 Like

I don’t know, from my point of view I think when the program reached 10 years without a manufactured jet it should have been stopped or cancelled. I mean the Boeing F-18 has basically the exact same capabilities besides the vertical landing and takeoff that the F-35 has. But Trump said that he will be having a competition into getting the signing of more aircraft between a more advanced F/A-18 Superhornet from Boeing and the F-35 from Lockheed Martin as to see who can lower their prices the most

You’re forgetting that the F-35 has increased target acquisition and engagement capabilities versus the A-10. Being able to properly see a target from 30k feet while moving at high speeds AND being undetected is a small price to pay for not being able to carry 8 big boi bombs internally. Give it a chance and you’ll find that it’s not as bad as media makes it out to be.

Considering that the Superbug will cost more than a production run F-35 that’s not a smart move. The F/A-18 lacks stealth, and in an obviously hostile environment cannot carry the large external payload of the F-35.

On another note, the 10 year r&d is because the F-35 will be utilizing technologies never seen before, so I think this is warranted.

Those doesnt matter in Air to Ground as in Air to Air. Air to Ground is much more limited and requires MIRV or infrared guidance systems. Both requiring that there is someone on the ground to guide the missile or Eyes on target from the Aircraft. Target acquisition is a completely different thing with Air to Ground compared to Air to Air. Air to Air you got radar, you don’t have that for air to ground armaments because of interference from objects on the ground. Air to Sea is a little different because generally the ocean is flat enough to distinguish objects on radar. That’s target acquisition for air to ground between the A-10 and the F-35 is not different whatsoever. The acquisition for AIr to Air between an F-35 and an F-15 now that’s different but not Air to Ground with an F-35 or A-10

Oh and 15,000lbs of that weapon capability comes from external pylons. only 3000lbs can be carried internally. 16,000 always available for the A-10 compared to 3000 always available for the F-35. The larger GBU’s like the Mark 832 and 84s can only be carried outside.

2 Likes

That’s legit what I said, if the situation is good enough for a Hawg to fly then the Lightning II can carry external stores…

Also, laser designation could also rely on other aircraft…another Lightning…at the same altitude…in formation with you…if that fails then yes, boots on ground will need to send the music for you, but the F-35 is being designed to work as well independently as with other units.

I really didn’t like the aircraft and thought it to wasn’t worth it. However, when I saw saw it displaying at RIAT and Farnborough, fell in love with it, it was brilliant, especially hovering.

1 Like

You dont need another aircraft for MIRV of Infrared but the range of the F-35’s system for land based targets will be no farther than the A-10s because MIRV or Infrared will still be used. The F-35’s advantage of target acquisition comes through radar, which cannot be used on the ground due to obstruction. It’s the reason radar signatures are not reliable below 500ft because there is too many things obstructing radar on the ground. When it comes to ground based missions the F-35 will not have any advantage over the A-10 with target acquisition.

1 Like

Video of a member of the A-10 design team explaining the design of the A-10. F-35 cannot replace the A-10 because the F-35 cannot provide close ground support.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.