
U.S. Air Force Requires Airmen to Praise Troubled F-35 Stealth Fighter - smacktoward
http://warisboring.com/articles/u-s-air-force-requires-airmen-to-praise-troubled-stealth-fighter/
======
ckozlowski
Slight clarification: "Airmen" in the context here isn't necessary referring
to pilots, but Air Force personnel in general. No one should be surprised that
the Air Force is seeking to put this program in a positive light, but the
headline makes it seem as though pilots are being forced to talk it up about
it.

What they're describing is more of a policy statement. Public Affairs Office
documents put in writing the message so that various components will speak
with a single voice and avoid inconsistencies. Just like PR departments in
companies do.

As to whether or not you think the message is valid, I leave to the reader.
But I thought I'd give my two cents on what seemed like a slanted headline.

~~~
dragonwriter
> "Airmen" in the context here isn't necessary referring to pilots, but Air
> Force personnel in general.

That's what "airmen" always means: the generic name for service members in
each service are, as follows: Army => soldiers, Navy => sailors, Marine Corps
=> marines, Air Force => airmen.

If one wants to talk about _pilots_ specifically, the word used is "pilots",
not "airmen".

------
Someone1234
Related article [0]: The U.S. Air Force Has Always Loathed Close Air Support

Essentially the A-10 is being scrapped to keep the F-35 program afloat. But
that article argues that the Air Force always had ideological issues with the
CAS role and never wanted the A-10.

People argue in support of the A-10 largely because of its ability to travel
at a slower speed for better ground engagement (and having great weapons for
when it does).

So my question is: Aren't helicopters better yet still? An A-10 can travel
slow and low supporting troops, but a helicopter (e.g. Apache) can literally
hover above and lay down extremely precise fire.

So instead of arguing F-35 Vs. A-10, shouldn't we just accept that maybe jet
aircraft aren't the ideal platform for CAS, and look at helicopters or maybe
even prop aircraft?

[0] [http://warisboring.com/articles/the-u-s-air-force-has-
loathe...](http://warisboring.com/articles/the-u-s-air-force-has-loathed-
close-air-support-since-the-beginning/)

~~~
astrodust
Attack helicopters can't fly as fast, as high, or carry as much weight. They
also don't have weapons like the A-10 does, nothing else in the world short of
warships does. That gun is absolutely berserk.

So if you're in a situation where you need constant cover, you want either an
AC-130, which is usually limited to night missions since it's a gigantic slow
moving target, or an A-10 which can get in and out while having a very clear
sense of the battlefield by being in so close.

Helicopters are better suited to anti-tank warfare, they can sneak up on them
and pick them off at crazy ranges, but the last time we've seen that at scale
was 1991 Iraq.

The other problem with helicopters is how long they can stay airborne. Since
any helicopter pilot always has one eye on the fuel gauge, where "time to
bingo" is a constant concern as those things chew through gas like crazy,
they're not as versatile. Some joke that the A-10's loiter time is only
limited by how much food the pilot brought along, it's got massive fuel tanks
and efficient engines.

Consider this commentary on ground support planes:
[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-
slow](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow)

~~~
dingaling
> They also don't have weapons like the A-10 does, nothing else in the world
> short of warships does. That gun is absolutely berserk.

Actually the GAU-8's ammunition was derived from that of the ( non-Gatling )
Oerlikon KCA cannon, mounted by the SAAB JA-37 Viggen. Six times the energy of
most other 30mm aircraft rounds. Hughes developed a podded KCA that was tested
on a wide range of aircraft, down to little Broncos!

Later, a cut-down four-barrel but still full-power version of the GAU-8 was
fitted in a pod as the GPU-5 and briefly carried by F-16s:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1S95Cy7wg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1S95Cy7wg)

~~~
astrodust
Interesting. That's a similar weapon, but it's also single barrel, so it's
certainly comparable, but doesn't fire nearly as quickly, and carries far
fewer rounds: 126 vs. 1100.

The weapon I was thinking of is the Phalanx
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS)),
a naval weapon, though even that fires smaller shells at a slower rate.

The GAU-13 slower, smaller pod version of the GAU-8 is an interesting test,
but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

That video you linked to had a related video on the A-10 reloading procedure.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnSpkL1InuA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnSpkL1InuA)
That is a _lot_ of bullets.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The weapon I was thinking of is the Phalanx
> ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS)),
> a naval weapon, though even that fires smaller shells at a slower rate.

The Phalanx CIWS uses the a version of the M61 Vulcan 20mm gatling gun, as
have lots of Air Force fighters (from the 1950s through current fighters like
the F-22 and F-18.)

So, its not exactly a weapon that "nothing in the world short of warships"
has.

~~~
astrodust
Still not sure what you're saying here. Is there a 30mm gatling gun with over
1000 rounds of ammunition on anything other than a warship? Tanks have larger
bore primary weapons, but given how the gun inside the A-10 is too huge to fit
in any normal tank, I doubt they're ever equipped with one.

