Re:What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint St...
by Accipitriform on Monday July 09, 2018 @05:42PM
(#17493672)
To be fair, each service has its own variant. That's increased cost, but each service should have aircraft that'll work well for the individual service's requirements.
The F-15, F-16, and F-18 are all multi-role aircraft, and are fairly unarguably the world's best in their categories. There's no reason to think the F-35 won't be in the same class.
As to the A-10, I believe the F-35's primary ground support approach will be from pretty high altitude, using smart weapons. That kind of approach will even work against first-tier opponents.
If you need "low and slow" close air support while shooting up the enemy with cannon, the Apache seems a better fit. The AC-130 is somewhere in between...note recent AC-130 variants have been getting longer and longer range weapons to decrease vulnerability to MANPADS.
Re:What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint St...
by InclinedPlane on Monday July 09, 2018 @05:49PM
(#17493729)
The F-35 is not a multi-role aircraft, period. It is at best a platform, but there is only about 30% commonality between the different aircraft variants (A, B, and C).
Multi-role aircraft are intended to save money, and it sounds like a good idea. You save money training pilots and ground crew. You save money with parts, support equipment and logistics. Unfortunately, the multi-role aircraft don't do the individual roles as well as aircraft designed specifically for the individual roles. I have yet to be convinced that the F-35 will be able to do close air support as well as the A-10.
When you put together the Marine Corps, the Navy and the Air Force requirements, it's really hard to come up with a multi-role aircraft that does each role well.