I get this idea about platforms other than the A-10 being CAS players… AH-64, F-15, etc… what I don’t get are the acquisition ideas and strategy behind their continued use. For example, is the Army helo “modernization” plan still to retire the Kiowas and reclaim the Apaches from the Guard? And the states will roll over on this one? Is the F-35 such a money suck that we can’t move past these platforms?
Well, in many ways, the states cannot justify the expense and difficulty of maintaining an attack helicopter fleet. Think about that. A state guard, whose primary role is to support the needs of the state, is claiming they absolutely cannot part with a platform designed to kill tanks. That's ludicrous. Secondly, the Apache is a terrible burden for a state to own. The maintenance costs are high, blade hour cost is high, and there is almost no opportunity to keep pilots current on gunnery tasks.
Secondly, you're misapplying a term. No one in the Army is calling this the "modernization" plan. It's called ARI. Aviation Restructuring Initiative.
Thirdly, you're missing two key points. One is that the Apache is being continually upgraded. The 64D is now being replaced with the 64E. It's also slated for near-future engine upgrades to what will be the world's most advanced helo turbine power plant. The Apache is far and away the most powerful attack helicopter on the battlefield. Its combination of payloads and targeting systems make it the world leader by a wide margin.
Lastly, that's still not a case of "we can't move past this." The Army's modernization plan is called Future Vertical Lift. The Army is not going to replace the world's best helicopters (which we own in every category) with merely evolutionary platforms. FVL will be a revolution in how we conduct vertical lift operations. The goal is a massive leap forward.
I still don't get the idea of the F-35 being a CAS player. Disclaimer -- I see this part of the world through the eyes of a 70's Cold War era tank crewman -- but isn’t some of this about loitering in a high threat area and making gun and missile runs? If you accept the cost risk, what does the F-35 bring to table? 180 rounds, two trigger pulls? Can it carry external iron or sensor pods without compromising stealth? Or is the idea for it to be 100 km away and sneak in to JDAM where we think the bad guys were 5 minutes ago?[/quote]
For any fixed wing platform but the A-10, the gun is a low payoff weapon. If you're relying on 20mm strafing runs by an F-35 (or an F-15 or an F-16), the wheels have well and truly come off the cart. I can only think of one instance of a gun run by anything other than an A-10. It was a Navy F/A-18 and the results were less than impressive. It's not a primary air-to-mud weapon. If you're dropping a JDAM where you "think" the bad guys were 5 minutes ago, you're doing a crap job as a JTAC/SOTAC/FAC-A. The idea that you're always going to have a fixed-wing aircraft loitering continuously just isn't realistic or true. Far too many platoons and companies. Not nearly enough airplanes. So you're almost always going to be relying on CAS that wasn't there when the trouble popped off.
I also don't get the idea of the F-35 in any sense being forward-deployed. Support requirements and complexity aside, surely we remember the 2012 attack on Camp Bastion that resulted in the deaths of Marine Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Marine Sgt. Bradley Atwell and the loss of six Harriers? How can you make this sad, sad story worse? Replace "Harrier" with "Lightning."
Relying on an extreme outlier event as the example of why a war fighting machine would be left at home by the Marine Corps is a terribly flimsy argument.
Another disclaimer -- I am a UTC shareholder -- so I do have skin in this game. It's in my financial interest for the F-35 to work, at least well enough for Pratt & Whitney to get paid.
Don't worry, even if it doesn't, Otis is still cranking out elevators.
