F-35 according to F-16 co-designer.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Besides, the history of postwar conflicts has shown what usually happens to the cheap and simple aircrafts, as witnessed by the MiG-21s been wiped out of the sky every time they met more sophisticated aircrafts...

But the AK-47 was enough to defeat the USAF and ground forces in Vietnam. Sheer numbers of simple, cheap weapons against sophistication.

[Procopius]

But the AK-47 was enough to defeat the USAF and ground forces in Vietnam. Sheer numbers of simple, cheap weapons against sophistication.

The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army would have fared as well had they used the SKS or the FN-FAL. The AK-47 was not the determinant of victory.

[LeVi Tophatter]

Not particularly fond of the F-35 but it may very well become the next Mirage, F-4, F-16... .

But the AK-47 was enough to defeat the USAF and ground forces in Vietnam. Sheer numbers of simple, cheap weapons against sophistication.

Nice point but what really got the 'Allied' forces in Vietnam were the tactics utilised buy 'Axis' forces... Many a time just a hidden trap intended to maim or just getting Fighter-Bombers to emergency jettison their bombs, well away from the intended target was all that needed to be done...

Quantity can very well be overwhelmed by quality, in every respect. It's all about how you use what you've got be it a You Tube channel or an F-35... The much talked about 1982 Beqqa Valley air campaign was a fair example of this.

[Giorgio N]

But the AK-47 was enough to defeat the USAF and ground forces in Vietnam. Sheer numbers of simple, cheap weapons against sophistication.

The AK47 did not defeat anything ! First of all, this weapon was not the most used in Vietnam as the SKS was much more widespread.

Most importantly however, the Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong never achieved any real victory over the American forces but suffered losses much higher compared to the total of the US and their allies. The US still lost the war but only because inflicting losses to the enemy is not enough when there's no clear political goal, but in the balance of the war on the ground and in the air the North Vietnamese forces were soundly defeated in every engagement.

Vietnam was a political defeat for the US, not a military one

[XV107]

Hence the oft-used quote:

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield, said the American colonel.

The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."(Col Harry G Summers, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (Novato, Calif.: Presidio Press, 1982), p1.

[bentwaters81tfw]

^ Someone who gets my point at last.

The little guys in pyjamas with the AK's won the war. Maybe not the battles, but that didn't matter, and how much did it cost in sophisticated Western hardware to lose?

[Procopius]

^ Someone who gets my point at last.

The little guys in pyjamas with the AK's won the war. Maybe not the battles, but that didn't matter, and how much did it cost in sophisticated Western hardware to lose?

What are you driving at here? All the Vietnamese had to do, in a limited war where the USA was constrained for political reasons from invading North Vietnam, and could largely only react to their moves, was not lose irrevocably. They also lost, low-order estimate, almost eight times as many men the Americans to do so (low-end North Vietnamese estimate of 400,000 military casualties, versus 58,220 American casualties). Is that a strategy you advocate for developed nations? How would that work?

[bentwaters81tfw]

Who said anything about developed nations? The point is THEY WON - whether by conventional or other means.

Uncle Sam was constrained, but spent in fortune in materiel and manpower and was still humiliated.

The same goes for Afghanistan. We lost in the 19th century, the Russians lost in the 20th and the American led coalition lost in the 21st. The Chinese will probably lose too, unless they just overrun the country with millions of peasants.

The point of this is the modern war is low key anti terrorism, and high falutin' stealth weapons are of little value against the fanatic who hates the Infidel. $130 million for 1 fighter against how many fundamentalists with a couple of pounds of C4? Who will do the most damage in the propaganda war when the folks back home are sick of unwarranted interference in other nations business? These guys are not highly trained professionals with tons of hi tech equipment, there are nationals on their own turf with an inbred dislike of outsiders dictating how they live their lives.

[Procopius]

Who said anything about developed nations? The point is THEY WON - whether by conventional or other means.

No, not really. This is also an argument for equipping the RAF largely if not entirely with Westland Wapitis in 1935, because it's only seeing action on the Northwest Frontier and bombing little villages in the Middle East. Only now it doesn't take four or five years to design and build a new aircraft to confront a new threat: it takes twenty or thirty. Not every war will be the modern equivalent of a 19th-century colonial war or punishment expedition. Equipping a military to only fight those wars is a good way to lose any other sort of war it may have to fight. Not every war will be asymmetical.

Also, point of order, the British won both the 1880-1881 Anglo-Afghan war, and the 1919 Anglo-Afghan war, and arguably the first, as well. They suffered two major defeats in the field (Maiwand in 1881, and the Retreat from Kabul in 1842), but destroyed the Afghan army utterly in subsequent engagements in both wars, achieved their limited war aims, and withdrew. They weren't total victories in the WWI/WWII sense, but the Afghans definitely didn't win.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Also, point of order, the British won both the 1880-1881 Anglo-Afghan war, and the 1919 Anglo-Afghan war, and arguably the first, as well. They suffered two major defeats in the field (Maiwand in 1881, and the Retreat from Kabul in 1842), but destroyed the Afghan army utterly in subsequent engagements in both wars, achieved their limited war aims, and withdrew. They weren't total victories in the WWI/WWII sense, but the Afghans definitely didn't win.

I think not.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/24956/Anglo-Afghan-Wars/301079/Third-Anglo-Afghan-War

If we had won, Afghanistan would have become part of the British Empire, but it didn't.

Yes it does take a long time to design a new aircraft now, and each time it comes into service it is out of date or unsuitable for the conflict of the day. The real purpose is to keep the munitions companies in business, and the Bank's coffers full with all the loan repayments.

[Procopius]

I think not.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/24956/Anglo-Afghan-Wars/301079/Third-Anglo-Afghan-War

That's as may be, but the war began with an Afghan invasion of British India, and ended with British troops on Afghan soil and British bombers bombing Afghan cities. Subsequent skillful Afghan diplomacy may have achieved their aims, but their military actions did not.

Yes it does take a long time to design a new aircraft now, and each time it comes into service it is out of date or unsuitable for the conflict of the day. The real purpose is to keep the munitions companies in business, and the Bank's coffers full with all the loan repayments.

I don't accept this premise, and thus, unfortunately, will not be able to accept any conclusions derived from it.

[bentwaters81tfw]

^ Oh, you will, in time. When I was your age I believed all the hype. Having done the research over the years, I learned otherwise. Find yourself a copy of this as a starting point.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Their-Bankers-Persian-Gulf/dp/1453757732/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420240601&sr=1-16&keywords=four+horsemen

You might want to read up on this guy as well.

http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm

[jimmydel]

Couldn't read through the whole thread right now, but I saw this video a while back and my only thought on it was that I think it's the first time in my life I've ever seen someone use almost every logical fallacy in exsitance in an argument. Some of it may be well and good...and perhaps even true. But I really do require more scholarly non-biased with discussions like these.

[-Neu-]

This is what they did with the A-10. It delivers! It's just not high tech enough for those who want to climb the greasy pole, rather than deliver the goods on target. It lacks the glamour and the buzzwords.

The problem is while that is a nice sentiment, it is just factually untrue. That is unless you're talking about how the A-10 was a step behind the A-7 which it replaced. I'd urge you to read the comments of Lt Col McAdoo, who flew the A-37 and A-7 in Vietnam, then the F-16 afterwards.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=261370&sid=45193ae73e6ef83b894e39307eaca47b#p261370

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=267373&hilit=gums#p267373

I believe the A-10 has developed a mystique, similar to the F-14, which might not be fully warranted. The A-10 was an aircraft that was intended to operate in a semi-permissive environment. While its armour and robust design was well known, it did not possess an advanced self protection system, or effective performance. These deficiencies came to light during the 1991 Gulf War. There, when faced by an even limited air defence network, the A-10 suffered serious losses among the highest in number and proportion operated. After three were downed in February 15th, General Horner ordered the aircraft pulled back to less threatening zones, with major restrictions on their tactics. This included forbidding daylight strafing missions. See Page 93 of this Official USAF Study.

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/afhistory/LucrativeTargets.pdf

This was even more problematic given the "no frills" design. A-10 did not possess the sensor and avionics that were basically considered standard in the 1980s and 1990s. This goes beyond the A-7's terrain following radar, targeting computers and INR... which were standard in the 1970s. The USAF had introduced and equipped a large number of aircraft with the first generation of LANTIRN pods, at significant expense. These systems were highly prized. The F-111, once heavily maligned for its cost, destroyed more tanks than the A-10 using its Pave Tack pod. A-10 Pilots famously used their maverick missiles as a poor man's FLIR to identify targets at night... a basic capability found on F-16 Block 40s and other allied aircraft. The A-10 did not receive such upgrades because it was largely intended for CAS and limited BAI. This is not to say the A-10 was not useful: it made a major contribution. However many of the issues it faced are ones that have grown in the past two decades. AD technologies have improved substantially: in 1991 Iraq used 1970s era SAMs and AAA. MANPAD technology has moved forward particularly far. These developments have only served to widen the vulnerability of the A-10.

In light of these deficiencies, the A-10 has subsequently received a number of major upgrades, the latest being "Precision Engagement modification program." basically would allow it to operate as well as the F-16 in F/A-18C/E/F at medium altitudes. This meant utilizing more standoff weaponry, at higher altitudes with new sensor systems... not low and slow gun-runs.

These modifications are a reflection of the emerging battlefield reality. Statements like the A-10 is the best aircraft for CAS belie the reality that the F-16 and F/A-18E have been responsible for the vast majority of weapons deliveries in Afghanistan and Iraq by tactical fighter aircraft. They have accounted for over 55% of strikes between the two of them, whereas the A-10 was responsible for less than 20%. That's a pretty critical consideration, which I'll go into later when I have some time.

Edited January 3, 2015 by -Neu-

[Alan P]

In fact the B-1B has carried out about 10000 CAS sorties, dropping 40% of total ordnance in Afghanistan - not bad for an airframe that was subjected to the same kind of press as the F-35 when in development about 40 years ago. It's still in service, and touted as the USAF recommended replacement for the A-10 for the CAS role. Which just goes to show how much these industry commentators and retired talking heads actually know about future requirements and outcomes.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Brokenedge

[Albeback52]

I am sure it is entirely predictable that someone involved in the design of one aeroplane is going to be somewhat dismissive of another design he/she is not involved in. Pierre Sprey also described the Harrier and its derivatives as "hopeless" aircraft.

Allan

[Paul A H]

You might want to read up on this guy as well.

http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm

The guy who could summon lucifer with his fancy bracelet and who was mates with the man who 'founded' the 'mafia'? Okaaaaayyyy. Do we know what his view on the F-35 was as well?