Now THIS is the fight of the century

[Zimme83]

Of course.  But I'm sure that people debating whether or not the A-10 is useful to keep debate also that stealth is a necessary component of the role they have in mind.

An analogy I'm thinking of is more like this.  "We think the F-35 is a fine replacement for the C-130."  "What?  Are you insane?"  "Well, let's have a test to see which aircraft under real-life conditions delivers more cargo.  Our real-life condition by the way is that an aircraft without stealth will be shot down every time."  "But the C-130 is used in conditions that don't require stealth, and there, the F-35 is a horrible replacement."  "Yes, but those are not the real-life conditions of our test."

What I would like to know is what happen if there are an overcast at like 5000 ft over the target area. Can the F-35 still provide CAS if it has to go below the overcast?

[FLOOB]

This thread is a troll. It has nothing to do with Ali and Foreman's rumble in the jungle. Skuzzy must be on vacation or something.

[matt72078]

   In a fight with an enemy that had modern air defenses the F-35 would be better at CAS simply because it would survive longer than on the battlefield.  The SAMs Russia and China have today would shoot down the A-10 long before it had a chance to drop it's bombs.  People think the A-10 is awesome because of what it did way back in Cold war and what it's doing against a bunch of goat herders today.  Between budget cuts and F-35 cost overruns, the AF can't afford to have both aircraft.  So they chose the aircraft of the future.
   Having a competition between to two is a waste of time.  It's just about Sen. McCaine saving jobs at DM AFB in his home state of Arizona. I think it was the vice chief of staff of the AF who said using the F-35 to fight ISIL is like using a very expensive sports car to haul the garbage.  That is why the AF is now looking at a cheap replacement for the A-10.  Something like a turboprop that can do CAS cheaply in low intensity conflicts.

[icepac]

I'd love to see an A10 try to provide top cover.

Ridiculous comparison.

[wil3ur]

In 1991 Iraq was some of the most heavily defended airspace on the planet.  Did we just send in A10s all willy-nilly to blow stuff up, or even F18's for that matter?  No, we hit the living crap out of their air defenses for a month before we ever decided to bring in the ground attack planes.  I feel like the Pro-35 group is insinuating we'll be able to waltz into someone's air space and do ground ops without first destroying their ability to shoot back...  I don't think, even with stealth, we'll take that gamble with lives and equipment...  I'd say all things being even, I'd like to see the turkey loop back and put guns on target within the length of a football field.

[GScholz]

Iraq was a walkover and the coalition could have won that war with F-4 Phantoms. The Air Force isn't preparing to fight another third-world country. They're preparing for the next war where America or her allies may even be on the defensive against a major power. The next enemy may not be as accommodating as Saddam and not allow the allies to do much battlefield prepping before the troops need support. What then? Do you send in a squadron of F-35s on CAS or one A-10 with a squadron's worth of support assets just to keep him alive?

[Serenity]

In 1991 Iraq was some of the most heavily defended airspace on the planet.  Did we just send in A10s all willy-nilly to blow stuff up, or even F18's for that matter?  No, we hit the living crap out of their air defenses for a month before we ever decided to bring in the ground attack planes.  I feel like the Pro-35 group is insinuating we'll be able to waltz into someone's air space and do ground ops without first destroying their ability to shoot back...  I don't think, even with stealth, we'll take that gamble with lives and equipment...  I'd say all things being even, I'd like to see the turkey loop back and put guns on target within the length of a football field.

Agreed.

Iraq was a walkover and the coalition could have won that war with F-4 Phantoms.

The Hornet pilots I know who were there would beg to differ. No, it wasn't Russia, but the air defenses were real. But we neutralized them intelligently, just as we would with Russia, or China.

[Zimme83]

Iraq was a walkover and the coalition could have won that war with F-4 Phantoms. The Air Force isn't preparing to fight another third-world country. They're preparing for the next war where America or her allies may even be on the defensive against a major power. The next enemy may not be as accommodating as Saddam and not allow the allies to do much battlefield prepping before the troops need support. What then? Do you send in a squadron of F-35s on CAS or one A-10 with a squadron's worth of support assets just to keep him alive?

That was exactly the war the A-10 was built for, a war with the WP in Europe. The difference from then is that even back in the 80:s losses were a part of the game. the A-10 was expected to be shot down, but not until they had busted enough Red tanks and vechles so that the ground forces could deal with them. The F-35 (and F-22) is too valuable to be shot down in any greater number.


I would say that the A-10 isn't really going to be replaced, the F-35 will perform the same type of CAS as the F-16 and F/A-18 does today and that the USAF simply accept that the A-10 is going to leave a hole that is filled by other weapon systems. F-35, Drones, ATGM, Attack helos etc.

[GScholz]

When the A-10 was introduced in the '70s air defense systems were infantile compared to what's being fielded now. The A-10 could survive back then by being tough and having a low IR signature, using the terrain for cover. These days MANPADs can easily track any aircraft, so staying low to evade radar is even more dangerous now than flying high was back then. The A-10, while still a brilliant COIN aircraft has little or no chance of survival in a modern combat environment.

Even after Iraq had been prepped by SEAD for weeks the U.S. lost more A-10s than any other aircraft type. All to SAMs. Four were shot down outright, while three managed to limp back to base but were damaged beyond repair. That was with mostly pre-1980s SAMs and after weeks of unrelenting SEAD strikes. The small force of A-10s suffered almost 30% of all U.S. air losses in the Gulf War. Low and slow just isn't survivable anymore.

[Vulcan]

Can the F35 even mount and/or fire a cannon yet?

[Zimme83]

When the A-10 was introduced in the '70s air defense systems were infantile compared to what's being fielded now. The A-10 could survive back then by being tough and having a low IR signature, using the terrain for cover. These days MANPADs can easily track any aircraft, so staying low to evade radar is even more dangerous now than flying high was back then. The A-10, while still a brilliant COIN aircraft has little or no chance of survival in a modern combat environment.

Even after Iraq had been prepped by SEAD for weeks the U.S. lost more A-10s than any other aircraft type. All to SAMs. Four were shot down outright, while three managed to limp back to base but were damaged beyond repair. That was with mostly pre-1980s SAMs and after weeks of unrelenting SEAD strikes. The small force of A-10s suffered almost 30% of all U.S. air losses in the Gulf War. Low and slow just isn't survivable anymore.

But they destroyed a ton of tanks in the process. As i said in my previous post, that was how the A-10 was supposed to be used and thats why it is built like a tank. 4 A-10:s for 900 tanks is probably a much better result than anyone had expected. 7 lost Aircraft in 8100 sorties is a fantastic number for a plane like the A-10.
But for a number of reasons it is no longer a viable strategy to loose any greater number of Aircrafts so not even the A-10 will be able to fly those missions in the future. F-35 or not, the A-10 as you said will be reduced to a COIN-Aircraft and eventually retired.

[Serenity]

Can the F35 even mount and/or fire a cannon yet?

Nope.

[GScholz]

For this test the gun might not be relevant. The answers are in the article originally posted:

"The F-35 will not do close air support mission the same way the A-10 does. It will do it very differently. The A-10 was designed to be low, and slow, and close to the targets it was engaging, relatively speaking," Frank Kendall III, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate panel Tuesday. "We will not use the F-35 in the same way as the A-10.."

"We're going to let the F-35 pilots take advantage of the systems on that aircraft ... and see how well the missions are carried out in terms of the ability to strike targets in a timely manner and accurately, and then report on that,"

"Different or not, the Pentagon expects the F-35 to come out the winner in the face-off because it can handle different roles."

"Clearly the F-35 should have an advantage in higher threat environments than the A-10 does,"

[GScholz]

If I were to venture a guess I'd say they are going to simulate the F-35 carrying the SDB II. Allowing one F-35 to carry eight 204 lb smart-bombs internally + two AMRAAMs. The F-35 can stay high and for all intends and purposes be invisible and invulnerable to ground forces, while delivering precision strikes directed by friendly ground forces. Having two AMRAAMs each a small flight of F-35s will be able to defend themselves against potential air threats, and can also interdict enemy CAS missions before they reach the battle area.

[GScholz]

Pretty cool weapon the SDB II with its multiple sensors for terminal guidance: GPS, IR, laser and millimeter-wave radar.