Derek 2.0

As noted in one of the many threads, deployment cycles and the Pacific pivot........the currently first USMC F-35 squadron is deploying to Japan later this year (or early next), a deployment that represents 1/3rd of USMC aviation, and is intended to be the first response to any North Korean aggression against the South or Japan.......been that way since '53 Further to that, I believe the first USAF F-35A squadron will be going to the United Kingdom to act as a pooled air asset for NATO.... The point, the Americans, by circumstance, can sing and dance at the same time.

Exactly, I revert back to the typewriter(A-10)........there is no doubt the Selectric was the cat's meow in its day........but who types up a paper letter anymore? Why would one consider one when they can use modern products with email/auto-correct/copy & paste/laser printers/Word etc etc? But like you said, its moot for Canada, as we're not in the market for either at this time.

Simple, as noted countless times, said entrance testing is intended for the end users to develop new doctrine and tactics for the new platform over preceding platform. I know the point you're attempting to make............but in the context of Canada, you're reaching. You're not suggesting the US isn't in budget troubles? Of course not, that trickles down to the forces, and with that niche platforms like the A-10 are low hanging fruit.......as to the personal, yes, that was/is an issue, as yet again, the numbers of qualified aircraft technicians is finite..........clearly as a new platform enters service, personal expected to go with the programs have to come from somewhere. I'm not ignoring any "CAS gap", the USAF (and USN, USMC) have wide ranging platforms to perform the mission (During the Afghan war, the iconic and elderly B-52 performed as many or more CAS missions as the A-10, afforded by modern munitions), the concern is availability of platforms..........a direct reflection of the usage of American forces for the last 15 1/2 years and the shirking of responsibilities by the American's "allies"........ ...........I just had a lightbulb moment........the correlation is as follows: -The Americans have stressed their current force with near 16 years of combat operations -This was compounded further with the delays in the F-35 program -This forced the Americans to use up the airframe lives of their older force, likewise keep buggering on with their A-10 force, likewise purchase the RAF's retired harrier force for spares etc And where Canada ties in? Simple, "Allies" like Canada that refuse to aide the Americans in CAS operations against ISIS are actually making the problem worse, in that they are forcing the Americans to use-up their aircraft's lives faster, likewise take away resources intended for the replacements, the F-35........ So the often spoken to "token" Canadian contribution, when contrasted with the reality of the anti-ISIS fight, is that Canada's smallish force (including the skilled ground crews) equated to several hundred American personal not needed in the fight, that could be committed to the replacement program (F-35), speeding up the retirement of older aircraft and introduction of the F-35 into the fight. I trust the Waldo is now opposed to the Trudeau Government ducking out on the fight against ISIS now? Mind the "CAS-gap", further widened by the Trudeau Government........

There's no need, and is why the Norwegians developed the Joint Strike Missile.......

My argument is straight............the A-10's ability to operate in contested airspace was in question once it entered service in the mid 70s, in large part due the IAF's experience during Yom Kippur and NATO doctrinal change to interdiction & striking the second echelon of Warsaw Pact Forces........both missions the A-10 couldn't do.......With that, the USAF looked towards an improved version of the A-7 (which the A-10 actually was to partially replace) and then the F-16..... Unlike what you're indicating, this wasn't a case of replacing the A-10 through natural progression (Like the F-15/F-22 or the F-16/F-35), but an early replacement because the aircraft was no longer "very relevant". Niche aircraft are very expensive for the United States and the West. Nice straw man, unfortunately it doesn't square with reality................if it did, we wouldn't see the decades long trend of platform rationalization across all modern forces. I don't doubt a great many things seem dumb or odd to you..........none the less, how many roles can an A-10 perform in, and in what environments, versus say an F-16, F/A-18 or what the F-35 will do? The A-10 is obsolete, and it wouldn't be able to perform it's niche role (without horrendous losses) against a somewhat competent force......and that is why the USAF has wanted to retire it since the 1980s.....its a drain on resources and only fills a niche role, a role that the uniformed attach emotional undertones of "supporting the troops on the ground" to.....it is to the USAF, what the Iowa's/Naval gunfire support was to the United States Navy........ There is no doubt that in their day battleships and slow flying CAS platforms played a useful role (and did save the "troops on the ground" ), nor that in permissive circumstances today they wouldn't be useful. The reality is that warfare has moved on from these types of platforms and what they brought to the table......... So yes, in the context of this topic, the A-10 is very much so a typewriter to the F-35 smartphone, and the suggestion that the A-10 would win such a "face-off" in the context of a modern (as in 1980s) oe future battlefield is laughable when variables associated with enemy aircraft and air defense networks are applied.......t There is no comparison between the A-10 and 4th generation aircraft like the F-16/F/A-18/F-15E etc, aircraft that unlike the A-10 have the ability to fight their way into the the conflict, conduct their task, and fight their way out.....and then if needed, do a completely different task the next day. So there is no comparison between the A-10 and a modern aircraft like the F-35........and Canada is not in the market for an obsolete CAS platform, nor a modern fighter, so Waldo's point is moot.

I think its a great idea...... that is until the Jehovah Witnesses replace their little old lady door knockers with T-800s........

Even more so when this government has no intention of purchasing replacements for our current Hornet fleet inside this decade

The very same reason........... You understand, the USAF procured and is procuring replacements for the F-15 and F-16, in the later case, the point of this thread? Off the mark? You just confirmed my point........niche aircraft, or niche platforms in general, are very expensive, and with lean budgets and future threats, aircraft like the A-10 are no longer "very relevant"........ Hence the comparison between a 70s era typewriter, that I don't deny is a useful item for typing a letter (and that's it), versus a smartphone with a whole host of uses.........

Exactly, on paper, a surplus A-10 (or RAF Harrier GR7s) purchase would have made sense during the Afghan war, a far better option for escorting Chinooks or convoys on the ground then the Griffons for example, likewise a contribution to the pooled NATO CAS force........but in the context of our Forces now and going forward, its a solution looking for a problem.

I see, so that's why the USAF started looking at options to replace them 30 years ago? Or no other nation has sought to purchase surplus and early retired aircraft since the early 90s drawdown.......The Americans "gave-away" early block F-16s to anyone that wanted them, but nobody clamored for the "very much relevant" A-10...........On paper, one would think countries like South Korea, Poland and countless Middle Eastern countries would have been in the market for a "very much relevant" anti-armor/CAS platform like the A-10......further still,the Philippines, African or Latin American countries that are fighting decades long insurgencies.......yet nobody has sought an aircraft, from the United States (that hands out surplus aircraft like candy), that is "very much relevant"...........why is that?

Agreed...........said "CAS competition" is akin to comparing an IBM Selectric typewriter to a modern smartphone.........And the Government of Canada isn't currently in the market for either.

Agreed, though its a potential threat, its one easily addressed by a modern integrated force.

Of course the Americans are better equipped, inversely Canada offers a buffer to their country.......it reverts to the debate over 50 years ago, which boils down to either American or Canadian forces intercepting threats to America over Canadian soil........we're just lucky the Americans no longer need nukes to do it....... It doesn't mater what USN/USMC aircraft carry, absent them being forwarded to USNORTHCOM and NORAD, which they aren't........if NORAD required additional interceptors and tankers during a time of increased tensions, a combination of ANG and USAF Reserve units would be mobilized, likewise any regular force units across the United States.......Canada doesn't have this luxury, hence a requirement to select the correct asset that we will get the greatest return of investment and granted an allowance to integrate with the Americans without a hitch.

You're missing the point, we don't have to "protect our entire country" because we're afforded collective defense through NORAD, which allows us and the Americans from needing to base "low tech aircraft near every city"..........with "low tech aircraft" you will revert back to the early 1950s, when there were nearly aircraft near every major center, and be unable to defend North America efficiently......... ........A modern police force doesn't need a cop walking on every corner today, but if you elect to return to callboxes and forgo costly digital comms you sure will.....

We aren't alone, that's the benefit of NORAD.......our Hornets aren't useless, they just have different intercept vectors, dependent on the location of the light aircraft, on the East coast, they're just as likely to be intercepted from the Vermont or Massachusetts Guard unit's F-15s and F-16........on the West Coast, Oregon ANG F-15s, or Alaskan based F-22s......inversely, our Hornets in Cold Lake have allowed the Americans to reduce resources in the central to Midwestern States.......the point, this is how collective defense works, and we better be willing to contribute, or the Americans will do it how they see fit . (USN doesn't base Hornets at NAS Whidbey, just Growlers and Orions, nor does the USN or USMC factor into NORAD intercept missions)

Yes and no......it comes down to both the number of interceptors you have, the locations they are based at and trigonometry......an old Canuck would be very hard pressed to run down a 777 unless it was placed in the airliners path from the start............much the same argument can be made with the "modern" Russian Blackjack bomber, no western fighter can catch the bomber on a mach 2 sprint, ergo, one has to place itself in the bombers path or intercept it before it starts sprinting.......now only if there was a way to prevent the Russian bomber's radar from knowing it was being intercepted, preventing the aircrew from putting the spurs to it

I'm not "squirming" the least, the SDB II will very much so be apart of the F-35's arsenal for performing CAS, as such would clearly be indexed for any future CAS requirements........SDB II won't be apart of the A-10s inventory.....nor can the A-10 defend itself against enemy fighters........nor can the A-10 perform SEAD......etc etc But again, in what context does the A-10s out of service date have with Canada's hornet replacement? I have no qualms drifting into the subject (We may very well have a future Canadian government that isn't opposed to killing groups like ISIS with airpower after all), but I really do fail to see your point........which reads like the F-35 won't be able to fully use the SDB II until 2022, the A-10 never, hence the A-10 is better than the F-35, so Canada should purchase the A-10? In the context of Canada's Hornet replacement? Where?

All good points.........I remember when the Clark Government in New Zealand did away with their fighter force.......within months of the stand down, they had a wingnut threatening to crash his light aircraft into a building in downtown Auckland. During the crisis, the Government contacted the Australians to come to their rescue, which they were more than willing to oblige (ironically, many of the former NZ pilots joined the RAAF), the problem, it would take upwards of 6-8 hours.......luckily for the Clark Government, the nutbar stalled or ran out of fuel and crashed in the harbor.

Dispute it? The maker of the SDB II refutes your claim and clearly stated that it is being integrated now.........Could that mean it won't be fully functional, in that it won't have the full use of its three differing seekers or networking capabilities, both its major improvements over the SDB I? Sure, without a doubt................That doesn't change the fact that the F-35, unlike the A-10, will have the use of the current SDB I (unlike the A-10) and may have partial use (or none at all) use of the SDB II until its fully integrated in ~2022............including in said CAS testing ........The point, advanced munitions that will be used by the F-35 will put it at a far greater advantage in performing CAS over the A-10 that is still reliant on 30mm depleted uranium and cluster bombs........making a marked difference between an aircraft that will be more survivable on a modern battlefield, using munitions that are both more efficient and can be used in a closer proximity to friendly troops on the ground......well greatly reducing collateral damage to the surrounding area.........versus the aircraft, that despite its lethal punch, wouldn't be able to deliver on the (then) modern battlefield of the 1980s....... One better Why? I never made that claim.........unlike your claim that the Super Hornet would be able to 3-4 years prior than the F-35. Of course I did, as its clearly the future of modern warfare, which will be a fully a integrated tool used by the F-35 in the decades ahead........unlike the A-10.......or Canada's current Hornet fleet........ I still fail to see the Waldo's point in the context of Canada's Hornet's replacement and the SDB II.........as this Government has no intention of purchasing replacements until the 2020s, nor has it shown a willingness to deploy our air force on missions that would entail performing CAS..........if the Trudeau Liberals have no intention of replacing the hornets in this mandate, and no intention of engaging a group like ISIS, what does it mater?

And thats the point.......I'm not arguing the A-10 is/was bad at its intended role, that's not in dispute, the issue is that its ability to carry out its intended missions against a foe with a semi-competent air force/air defense network, which was in question as early as the 80s, some 30 years ago.....today, outside of uncontested environments, the thing would be creamed. Hence, the aircraft is now a niche platform......akin to if the battleships were in service today.........really good at several roles under ideal circumstances, but bested by everything else currently in service (F-16C/F-15E) and the aircraft that will replace it (F-35) in all other roles...........in an ideal world, where money grew on trees, both the A-10s and Battleships would continue in service, filling their niche roles when required......but in the real world with tight budgets, one trick ponies are near at an end. ------------ Moot point again with regards to Canada, as we've been reliant upon multi-role aircraft since the Hornet entered service..........and the eventual replacement is simple.......the aircraft that currently has portions being made in Liberal ridings Canada.

I don't know that they are, that's your implication.

If it requires block 4A software.......how is it already being integrated with the F-35? Likewise, at what stage will the A-10 begin to receive the SDB II? Own goal? Not the least........the own goal is on you and your claim that the SDB II would be integrated with the Super Hornet "3-4 years" before the F-35..........that is incorrect. Question.......when will the SDB I be integrated with the Super Hornet..or the A-10.....like how it is already with the F-35?

In your above response Waldo........integration of any new aircraft is carried out on its entrance into service through to its retirement........that is standard across the board, not driven by a "pent-up debate" I just provided you with the USAF group that does exactly that for all combat aircraft within the USAF.......your conclusion is devoid of reality.

Oh I know, thats why the the USAF was looking initially at an advance A-7, then the A-16 with 30mm external gun........don't get me wrong, nothing wrong the A-10 when fighting lightly armed insurgents, but as the first Gulf War proved, even against the Iraqis that had their air defense grid creamed, the A-10 and the USMC's harriers were dropping like flies.......by an Iraqi force armed with 70s era Soviet SAMs and triple-A.......funny enough, both forces are replacing these legacy fleets with the F-35...........subsonic niche aircraft are a luxury few can afford, and the USAF already has the AC-130 for breaking things and killing people in a uncontested environment....... Imagine the CAS delivered by an aircraft that has the ability to track and determine launch points of artillery and mortar rounds with its radar/DAS?

A good point........call it grey/camo infrastructure