Originally Posted by
tdracer
Gums, if the F-35 is carrying any external ordinance, it's RCS goes way, way up. Besides, for close air support, stealth doesn't mean much when targeting is being done by the Mark 1 eyeball. Being single engine, one lucky, relatively small caliber shot and it's not making it home. In contrast, the A-10 was designed to be hit by ground fire - nearly everything is redundant.
I just can't see the F-35 being a highly survivable asset in the CAS role. I watched something the other night on the F-111 in 'Nam - they were relatively survivable for ground attack because they'd be going well over Mach 1 at a couple hundred feet, so they were literally gone before the ground fire could react. But I don't think the F-35 has the power to do that.
Tell me why I'm wrong (serious question - not trying to sound smartass). I respect your opinion, plus you've been there and done that, I haven't.
What do you know about the RCS of the RCS reduced Station? including the AIM-9xII and other short range missiles. That made you come to this conclusion? "
it's RCS goes way, way up" You need to elaborate on this. It is inconsistent with the UK for example. They see it as viable and they have the real data. How did you arrive at your assessment?
Why is the F-35 using mark1 eyeballs as CAS sensors? Did you read about the Rafale needing to use binoculars?
Why is the F-35 in range of small arms gunfire?
As to the A-10, Manpads make strafing runs obsolete in the modern, peer battle space. The F-111 was obsolete last century, but we kept it till 2010. When it was replaced by Super Hornets
The B-52 did CAS missions in Astan, I think you need to widen your view.
This video has been downgrade in pixels since it was first put up. It still makes a bit of sense
F-35 JSF Distributed Aperture System (DAS) Sensors Demonstrate Hostile Fire Detection Capability