F-35 Lightning info

[Clark Griswold]

Adding to brabus' point: Algeria Air Defenses I'm not claiming we need to be worried about Algeria, but it makes the point about proliferation of advanced SAMs into what is clearly not China/Russia.

I do think the AF has woefully underfunded self protection jammers and EA/EP in general, let's face it the legacy fleet is going to be flying for a very long time before the F-35 has fully taken over. 25 years ago was GF1, that's almost how much into the future we can expect to have 4th gen fighters around.

I think a large part of the current thrash is preserving the F-35 timeline. Acquisition delays will drive up cost, and start the project down the rising unit cost death spiral. This is a direct result of learning from the F-22 experience. Or I could be totally wrong, sure as fuck wouldn't be the first time.

Didn't think Algeria would have such a good IADS but then with Libya as your neighbor, not a bad idea.

I completely agree that the AF needs its own EA aircraft and to not really only on stealth only. MALD-J kinda fills that hole (sts) but having a dedicated platform for EA would be better (no shit). I am sure with all the money out there and the huge budget increases coming for the AF, getting this aircraft will be no big deal. /sarcasm off

[brabus]

I will say my SOIS/JWICS time is fully occupied by studying actual threats, not theoretical ones. And that's not meant as a jab either, I mention it because the JSF has drained funding we desperately need to combat current threats. We're running out of hellfires (the good ones) and SOPGMs. That has consequences now

Current advanced SAMs proliferated around the world right now have made 4th gen nearly obsolete without 5th gen support by western standards (i.e. we're not willing to lose 6-9 fighters/1-2 bombers every vul). The upcoming stuff is even scarier. That said, I completely agree with you on the draining current requirements. The low number of "good hellfires" is bad and hopefully can be rectified...hope's a plan, right? The truth is I don't think anyone in upper management (mil or civ) can figure out a 1/2 way decent balance between the now and the future, but then again I'm not the guy getting paid the big bucks to make those calls; sucks to be them.

Didn't think Algeria would have such a good IADS but then with Libya as your neighbor, not a bad idea.

Not so much an IADS, but it's a good example of how advanced/long-range advanced SAMs are very quickly becoming flavor-of-the-month around the world (or at least have the potential depending on how much money states and/or non-state actors have).

[Ram]

Bros, listen to Brabus. Homeboy knows what he's talking about.

[BB Stacker]

The low number of "good hellfires" is bad and hopefully can be rectified...hope's a plan, right?

I think the current plan is throw more money at LockMart and hope they can shit out more missiles in a timely fashion.

Wait, shit.

[busdriver]

Guy's the point isn't that we need to be able to dominate China with no losses. The point is that we should be able to dominate a place like pick-a-shit-a-stan without resorting to the losses RedFox refers to. If we're forced to accept those kinds of losses to deal with pick-a-shit-stan, we need to get out of the power projection business altogether because it isn't sustainable.

[di1630]

I don't think anyone here is debating the actual need for some of the capes the F-35 has....except we already had better stealth/speed/maneuver in the F-22 which we ended production because it was too costly.

Instead of the cheap 5th generation F-16 replacement, we got sold bill of goods by LM and are now getting a jet that doesn't perform as advertised per schedule and at outrageous cost.

To add to insult, to pay for this ability to stay relevant in high end warfare which we may never use, we have to get rid of low end warfare capes we have been using for the last 20 years to pay the bill.

Again, when the JSF was $30 mil a copy....great...build 2,000 single engine 5th gen fighters, do whatever with them, fly em off boats, in bird severe, who cares, it's expendable F-16 version 2.0...at $100 mil+, not so much.

[Lawman]

I don't think anyone here is debating the actual need for some of the capes the F-35 has....except we already had better stealth/speed/maneuver in the F-22 which we ended production because it was too costly.

Instead of the cheap 5th generation F-16 replacement, we got sold bill of goods by LM and are now getting a jet that doesn't perform as advertised per schedule and at outrageous cost.

To add to insult, to pay for this ability to stay relevant in high end warfare which we may never use, we have to get rid of low end warfare capes we have been using for the last 20 years to pay the bill.

Again, when the JSF was $30 mil a copy....great...build 2,000 single engine 5th gen fighters, do whatever with them, fly em off boats, in bird severe, who cares, it's expendable F-16 version 2.0...at $100 mil+, not so much.

We definitely F'd up on Raptor. Especially when we are 10-15 years down this road from today and don't have a fleet of old A models in the desert and an assembly line to rebuild A's as B/C models and fly into 2050. We have an expectation to fly an airplane for 40 years... That works when you build over 2000 of a plane and only fly 800 of them 30 years later.

While all true on cost I think part of this problem is grossly magnified due to a lack of comparison between

1. Other 5th gen fighters (because there is only Raptor)

2. The rapid rise in cost of other aircraft who aren't even 5th gen

In a lot of ways we are like the dude that shows up to a car dealership after ten years of vehicles increasing in price and wonders why his payment is so much higher than his 2002 accord cost him.

Yeah 35 definitely bloomed more in price than we thought it would but when your talking a min of 65-100 million dollars for pretty much any comparable 4.5 gen fighter some of the fire from the omg it's so expensive argument is put out.

At this point I don't think we could build even a simple aircraft for cheap. Super Tacano is almost as much now as we paid for Vipers in the 90s and no way in hell do we get as much airplane for our dollar with that comparison. Same would be true for people screaming "let's make A-10 2.0" I can't see us in a world where a turbo prop plane costs 20-30 million making anything with Hawg like capes and modern tech that isn't also a 50+ million dollar plane. At that point even if you hadn't tried to fold harrier/hawg's jobs into the platform and had a 80 mil 5th gen plane your still buying a 50 mil plane to go with it.

[di1630]

Here's a good one!

[Masshole]

Apparently the F-35 won't be firing its gun until Block 3F software is installed in 2019. According to this anyway:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html

http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/lockheed-martin-on-f-35-no-gun-software-glitch-sensor-upgrades-expected/?dcz=

"On Monday we shared some bad news stories about the F-35′s gun and its sensor system. Contractor Lockheed Martin, which had not responded publicly at the time, offered this response:

'Contrary to the media reporting out there, there’s no gun system software glitches or timeline delays,' said Mike Rein, a company spokesman, by telephone. 'The requirement for the gun was established in 2005. It’s always been in the block 3F weapons to be delivered in 2017, not 2019.'

'In 2008, the gun completed all of its ground qualification testing. This year we’re going to do comprehensive flight test out of Edwards, include ground fire tests, muzzle calibration, flight test integration and in-flight operational tests,' Rein said.

Further, the services know 'that when they declare IOC [initial operating capability] they aren’t going to have all their weapons on their airplane at that time.'

Rein also offered a written statement on the Electro-Optical Targeting System,'a proven advance targeting capability.' According to Rein: 'EOTS allows F-35 to conduct air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting missions while maintaining the F-35’s VLO [very low observable] profile – a capability that external podded systems simply cannot provide.'

As of now, the overall radar, communications and electronic warfare capabilities support the execution of close air support missions, Rein said. He added:

'As with all development programs, F-35 baseline requirements define the starting place for capabilities that will be evolved and upgraded over the life of the program. There are a range of potential upgrades and enhancements for EOTS that will be implemented by the services and international partners for inclusion in future Block upgrades. Some of the additional capabilities for consideration include items such as Higher Definition Video, longer range target detection and identification, Video Data Link, and Infrared (IR) Marker and Pointer. All of the services and international partners are aware of the block upgrade plan and have endorsed its timeline.'"

Edited January 7, 2015 by Masshole

[StoleIt]

[di1630]

"yeah, for an extra few million per jet we can make the F-35 match current 2015 TGP capabilities by 2020"

[busdriver]

"yeah, for an extra few million per jet we can make the F-35 match current 2015 TGP capabilities by 2020"

It's always about the money.

[xcraftllc]

Lol well that's why I made sure to add "according to this anyway". Still can't help but think that news articles like this help push Lockheed along to hold up their end of the deal though.

[Clayton Bigsby]

It's surprising, but yeah you still gotta pay extra for the floormats in that fancy new car.

I guess what's surprising about all this weapons stuff is I thought we'd learned from the Euros...Eurofighter Typhoon didn't get A/G capability until Tranche 2 or 3, right? Same with the Frenchies and Rafale? So why are we paying this much for an airplane with limited capability at delivery?

[Clark Griswold]

So why are we paying this much for an airplane with limited capability at delivery?

Because we believed LM when it said "just the tip"

[BB Stacker]

Because spiral development is a fact of life in any major aerospace acquisitions program these days (and also in a lot of non-aerospace defense programs).

There's a plethora of reasons this is the case, and there's plenty of blame to go around for all parties involved (not just LM), but bottom line is getting all your capability up-front simply isn't going to happen. It was true with the Super Bug, it was true with the Raptor, it was true with the Eurofighter, it was true with the Rafale, hell, it's true even with the Reaper and Global Chicken. About the only program in recent memory I can think of that it wasn't true for was the Gripen, and even that's arguably not the case with the Gripen NG.

The real question to be asking is why in the hell the Marines are declaring IOC with that limited capability as opposed to waiting for the OFP rev that delivers full combat capability (like the Navy is doing, and like the USAF is mostly doing.) The answer of course is "our Harriers and legacy Hornets are about ready to fall out of the sky because we were too obstinate to buy Super Hornets because we want STOVL so we need to get F-35Bs out into the field just to have some airplanes, even if they can't actually do anything."

[Lawman]

The real question to be asking is why in the hell the Marines are declaring IOC with that limited capability as opposed to waiting for the OFP rev that delivers full combat capability (like the Navy is doing, and like the USAF is mostly doing.) The answer of course is "our Harriers and legacy Hornets are about ready to fall out of the sky because we were too obstinate to buy Super Hornets because we want STOVL so we need to get F-35Bs out into the field just to have some airplanes, even if they can't actually do anything."

In fairness to the Marines, between the Navy cherry picking Hornets to get non trapped out airframes, and the lack of money at the depot roughly a third of the Marine Hornets are broke or FMC on paper only.

I agree getting them E/F models like the Aussies would have been a smart long term move, even if they were only leased for a few years and then handed over to the Navy afterward.

[busdriver]

The whole thing can be summed up with the comment that we'll accept short term risk in capability to get the damn thing up and running with the hope that we're buying down long term risk.

[SurelySerious]

Because spiral development is a fact of life in any major aerospace acquisitions program these days (and also in a lot of non-aerospace defense programs).

There's a plethora of reasons this is the case, and there's plenty of blame to go around for all parties involved (not just LM), but bottom line is getting all your capability up-front simply isn't going to happen.

With the advent of so many computer and software capabilities, spiral development is a reality. With Moore's Law, even the development timeline of fighters before the rap-tor were too long to not be outpaced by computer development.

Like you said, though, whether it is being done the best way is really the question.

[Red Fox]

t will play the Viper/Strike Eagle role where those 4th gen aircraft do not have a chance in hell of operating successfully. This is a reality right now, I'm not even talking about future threats. Along with the Raptor and other LO assets, it will "open the gap" to allow 4th gen assets into bad guy land to continue the air war. The program is all kinds of FUBAR, but reality is we NEED the F-35. I hate to say it, but the days of 4th Gen ragefest on night one is already over in some places in this world, and on a short leash in other parts.

I'm now an ORF and a concerned taxpayer and come at this with a concern about our nation's fiscal health and defense, I was a career airlifter/training IP, but was involved with quite a few CAF-centric exercises, with several being CW. So, I'm familiar with current challenges, but not nearly as knowledgeable as you aviators who fly our CAF aircraft. I know enough to be dangerous one might say. I would like to give those we put in harm's way the best equipment possible. So I need to defer to those who have the experience, such as Brabus (above comment).

Here are a few questions/concerns I have, as a taxpayer and as someone who cares, directed at those of you who are far more "in the know".

1. I used to work with a gentleman who was an ATS pilot for many years. At the time I knew him, he was most likely the most experienced Aggressor the USAF had had. He called the F-22 revolutionary. Is the F-35 similar as a strike aircraft?

2. It seems to me we are making a huge investment for the sake of an LO VTOL/STOL design and losing aircraft performance for that design (from what I understand). What happens if/when a unique detection signature for the F-35 is found by our potential adversaries? I believe it is far cheaper for an adversary to find a counter to LO than for us to develop LO. I could be wrong. but again, we are investing huge sums of money into an airframe and powerplant that are not easily altered. It will be the backbone of our fighter fleet for how many years, thirty or forty?

3. Would it not be more prudent to build fewer F-35s and buy more F-16s (Block 60s), F-15Es, F-18s and augment the newer Gen 4 fighters with better ECM and lethal SEAD capabilities/tactics? Or buy the F-32 for the VTOL/STOL? (I knew the Boeing test pilot for the F-32. He was the first one to fly it. He was convinced Boeing had the better design. Of course, he had skin in the game). I believe it is not wise to put all of our eggs in one basket with the F-35 and with Lockheed. I believe it is in our best interests to have more than one company, just for the sake of business competition, building our fighter aircraft. We need to maintain the skilled workers from more than one company as part of our overall national strategic planning, IMO.

4. Will our military leaders be willing to put such a high priced aircraft at austere fields where base defense is not always guaranteed? Look at what happened with the AV-8's we lost in Afghanistan. If not, what is the point of having VTOL/STOL, FARP maybe?

5. I believe just as SAM capabilities and lethality have improved, so will/have SSM's. How willing will we be to risk our CV's? Will our CV's be required to be so far offshore as to where the F-35s will be outside their operational combat range? I understand there is air-to-air refueling, but what aircraft will provide that refueling? Right now, F-18's buddy refuel when nothing else is available (or so I was told). Even with the refueling, will they have the legs to get in and out?

6. Will our commanders be willing to risk such high value aircraft for low priority targets? What if there is high intensity barrage fire? How effective will the F-35 be at delivering PGMs from above the envelope against targets on the move? We lost more F-105's to AAA (including one my Dad was flying) than to SAMs. Yes, they were often flying below 20K and in the heart of the envelope, but how effective will we be if we always stay above the threat? My understanding is that our effectiveness against armored vehicles with PGMs in Allied Force was not that good (could be wrong). As a side story; on one particular mission in Vietnam, my Dad was flying as #2 when the weather over the Ho Chi Minh Trail suddenly cleared and revealed a huge convoy in a mountain pass. The convoy had no cover in which to hide and the FAC diverted all available aircraft to the target. My Dad's flight was the first on the scene. He and his flight lead put their bombs on the lead vehicles and 3 and 4 puts theirs on the trail end. The remaining vehicles couldn't move. They then low angle strafed until empty. They had a field day. Dad told me how the Vietnamese were firing down at them from their gun emplacements in the mountains. Will we be able to do that with F-35s? I understand we have far better and more accurate weapons than in Vietnam, but are we going to sacrifice high priced PGMs to kill low value trucks? Will we even have enough weapons in the air to destroy a convoy, like in this case? Another story; then Major, Jay Lindell (retired as a Major General) was awarded the Silver Star for saving a Special Ops unit under attack by executing a low angle strafe in an F-16 below the clouds with his wingman during Desert Storm. Would that happen with an F-35?

7. How smart is it to build such a pricey aircraft that is single engine? How smart is it to do that for carrier aircraft? How many F-16s have we lost due to engine failure? If I remember correctly, during the 80's we lost a lot of them due to fan blade failure on the P&W engines. I know in the past we and the Navy had a lot of single engine fighters, but we had a far larger fighter fleet and the planes were a lot less expensive.

8. Finally, I believe we will lose effectiveness/capability with the F-35, because our already risk averse commanders will be even more so when employing such an expensive aircraft. I fear those on the ground will not get the help in urgent situations, like the one involving Lindell.

I could write/ask more, but I think this tome was enough. Again, I want you guys and our future aviators to have the best equipment possible to get the job done and come home safely. But, I have serious doubts about the F-35. But, like I wrote earlier, I will defer to you who are in the know. So any insights than can be shared are appreciated. (I understand that one cannot truly have an in depth discussion about capabilities vs. capital expenditures via the internet.)

I appreciate the forum,

Regard, RF.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Red Fox

[Clark Griswold]

IAF is buying more.

Israel Buys More 14 More F-35s as US Denies JSF Sales to Gulf States

[brabus]

1. I used to work with a gentleman who was an ATS pilot for many years. At the time I knew him, he was most likely the most experienced Aggressor the USAF had had. He called the F-22 revolutionary. Is the F-35 similar as a strike aircraft?

If you want to consider the F-22 revolutionary, then yes, I think the F-35 will be revolutionary in it's own way. Again, one can go round and round about how X should or not have been done, but in the end, our capabilities well be far better in mission sets expanding well beyond traditional strike roles.

2. It seems to me we are making a huge investment for the sake of an LO VTOL/STOL design and losing aircraft performance for that design (from what I understand). What happens if/when a unique detection signature for the F-35 is found by our potential adversaries? I believe it is far cheaper for an adversary to find a counter to LO than for us to develop LO. I could be wrong. but again, we are investing huge sums of money into an airframe and powerplant that are not easily altered. It will be the backbone of our fighter fleet for how many years, thirty or forty?

America chose to lean on LO, adversaries chose EA. There's good arguments for both sides; in the end it is cheaper and easier to develop EA, but that doesn't mean LO doesn't have its place.

3. Would it not be more prudent to build fewer F-35s and buy more F-16s (Block 60s), F-15Es, F-18s and augment the newer Gen 4 fighters with better ECM and lethal SEAD capabilities/tactics? Or buy the F-32 for the VTOL/STOL? (I knew the Boeing test pilot for the F-32. He was the first one to fly it. He was convinced Boeing had the better design. Of course, he had skin in the game). I believe it is not wise to put all of our eggs in one basket with the F-35 and with Lockheed. I believe it is in our best interests to have more than one company, just for the sake of business competition, building our fighter aircraft. We need to maintain the skilled workers from more than one company as part of our overall national strategic planning, IMO.

More 4 or 4.5 gen fighters is not the answer, but merely a bandaid fix. I'm all for upgrading 4th gen with 4.5 gen capes right now, because honestly we need that bandaid to cover us for a while / compliment 5th gen capes. We can't ride the bandaid fix for decades, so yes, we need to make the full faith leap eventually. All of our eggs in one basket is not good, but it's what we have to deal with for now - we just don't have the money to do otherwise.

4. Will our military leaders be willing to put such a high priced aircraft at austere fields where base defense is not always guaranteed? Look at what happened with the AV-8's we lost in Afghanistan. If not, what is the point of having VTOL/STOL, FARP maybe?

I'm not a fan of the VTOL/STOL - I agree it will be decades, if ever, that we see one of these operate out of a truly austere field in combat.

5. I believe just as SAM capabilities and lethality have improved, so will/have SSM's. How willing will we be to risk our CV's? Will our CV's be required to be so far offshore as to where the F-35s will be outside their operational combat range? I understand there is air-to-air refueling, but what aircraft will provide that refueling? Right now, F-18's buddy refuel when nothing else is available (or so I was told). Even with the refueling, will they have the legs to get in and out?

I'm not sure this has anything to specifically do with the F-35. This scenario could create a "legs" / AAR problem regardless of fighter aircraft type.

6. Will our commanders be willing to risk such high value aircraft for low priority targets? What if there is high intensity barrage fire? How effective will the F-35 be at delivering PGMs from above the envelope against targets on the move? We lost more F-105's to AAA (including one my Dad was flying) than to SAMs. Yes, they were often flying below 20K and in the heart of the envelope, but how effective will we be if we always stay above the threat? My understanding is that our effectiveness against armored vehicles with PGMs in Allied Force was not that good (could be wrong).

Our capability to deal with AAA and kill movers has drastically improved since those days. AAA is still a threat, but not nearly the same threat to an LO platform with a lot of good capes than it is to a Thud raging down the valley below 10K.

As a side story; on one particular mission in Vietnam, my Dad was flying as #2 when the weather over the Ho Chi Minh Trail suddenly cleared and revealed a huge convoy in a mountain pass. The convoy had no cover in which to hide and the FAC diverted all available aircraft to the target. My Dad's flight was the first on the scene. He and his flight lead put their bombs on the lead vehicles and 3 and 4 puts theirs on the trail end. The remaining vehicles couldn't move. They then low angle strafed until empty. They had a field day. Dad told me how the Vietnamese were firing down at them from their gun emplacements in the mountains. Will we be able to do that with F-35s?

That's an awesome story, seriously. But we have much better capes today to take care of the same situation in 4th gen, let alone with 5th gen and the things newer technology brings.

I understand we have far better and more accurate weapons than in Vietnam, but are we going to sacrifice high priced PGMs to kill low value trucks? Will we even have enough weapons in the air to destroy a convoy, like in this case? Another story; then Major, Jay Lindell (retired as a Major General) was awarded the Silver Star for saving a Special Ops unit under attack by executing a low angle strafe in an F-16 below the clouds with his wingman during Desert Storm. Would that happen with an F-35?

Yes, there are enough weapons...within reason, unless we're talking some egregious amount of vehicles. Sure they can low angle strafe - but will they even have to? I love raging at 100 ft, shooting the gun, dropping CBU, etc...but admittedly there are better ways to solve problems nowadays. That said, the jet can still do it and will do it if in a situation where that's the only way to solve the problem.

7. How smart is it to build such a pricey aircraft that is single engine? How smart is it to do that for carrier aircraft? How many F-16s have we lost due to engine failure? If I remember correctly, during the 80's we lost a lot of them due to fan blade failure on the P&W engines. I know in the past we and the Navy had a lot of single engine fighters, but we had a far larger fighter fleet and the planes were a lot less expensive.

Engines fail - got it, but they're pretty damn reliable today. As you said, we've been flying single engine fighters for a very long time. I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to bet if you actually found total amount of F-16 flight hours in the world, and then took the number of F-16s that crashed due to engine failure, it's be an extremely small and almost inconsequential number (from a pure numbers standpoint, not a human/emotional standpoint). As a guy who flies single engine, it doesn't bother me nor has it ever.

8. Finally, I believe we will lose effectiveness/capability with the F-35, because our already risk averse commanders will be even more so when employing such an expensive aircraft. I fear those on the ground will not get the help in urgent situations, like the one involving Lindell.

Our effectiveness/capability skyrockets with the F-35 and other "5th+" gen capes. I'm sure there will be risk adverse bullshit, and it's use may start out slow, much like the Raptor. But just because "they" were very risk-adverse to using the Raptor for years, doesn't mean it wasn't a great idea to buy it or it's not a great jet. The Raptor has finally had it's day to a small extent, and we'll all be thanking God we have it when we're doing more than killing goat fuckers in the mountains.

Lastly, a lot of questioning directed at the program is very CAS-centric. This jet will do CAS fine; it will not replace the A-10. People need to step back and realize there is a massive world of non-CAS warfare out there, and a lot of what is involved in that drives the need for the F-35 and like-technology. We will not be flying permissive OIF/OEF/OND type CAS forever and we cannot afford to get caught with our pants down when the proverbial shit hits the fan. There are a lot of platforms who do great work in current AORs, there are also a lot of platforms who are basically useless in a lot of other conflicts - at least until day X.

Edited February 25, 2015 by brabus

[tac airlifter]

The Raptor has finally had it's day to a small extent, and we'll all be thanking God we have it when we're doing more than killing goat fuckers in the mountains.

Raptor has had it's day? We all get a chuckle when it checks in with its ridiculous SCL. It remains irrelevant in our current fight, even if shows up episodically, because we have no need for the specialized capabilities it brings. I'm sure it will kick ass doing what it was built for but cost/benefit validation won't occur until it goes against the threat it was built to face. If anything the current use of F22s proves we should have bought OV-10Ds.... Or at least ACC shouldn't have cock blocked commands that wanted them.

[di1630]

The F-35 was conceived damn near 20 yrs ago, and a big problem is that the world/military needs and technology changes...a lot when it takes that long to become operational. And for the price, it's not King Kong of anything, in fact less capable in some areas.

Air Interdiction - hindsight would have been a strike version of F-22s. That said, would you rather send a 4-ship of LO F-35's vs a preplanned tgt...or a truly stealth tail-less RPA (x-47b type) jet to do the same preplanned job?

CAS- anyone who knows CAS knows the F-35 can do some types of CAS with PGMs but cannot really do others (effective strafe/AGM-65) but it wasn't designed for CAS so I don't hold its future drawbacks against it. Proponents may argue you could load up external hard points but c'mon...at that point, why not just have a cheaper legacy jet doing the job. And don't give me contested airspace bullshit...the radar threat is not the main one in f on f CAS

A/A...again, should have bought more F-22's. Hope LO pays off but EA is a b-tch and the F-35 was not designed for a visual fight.

Technology....sweet, it's got an awesome touchscreen with 2005 era display technology but can't even put down an IR mark at night. Plus, a lot of the gee whiz, cool but not really necessary stuff doesn't work too well (yet) anyhow.

I'd like someone to tell me what I'm missing.

[TreeA10]

When we were going to buy 700+ Raptors, some of those squadrons were going to have air-to-ground as a primary mission, IIRC.