F-35 to Go Up Against A-10 in 'Common Sense' War Scenario Showdown

[MigBuster 2,884]

Been talked about in congress for a while now:

 

 

The high-tech and expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will face off in upcoming testing with the Air Force's aging close-air-support stalwart, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the director of the Defense Department operational test and evaluation office said Tuesday.

The battlefield comparison "makes common sense" and will pit the two airframes against each other in a variety of war scenarios this year, Michael Gilmore said during Senate testimony.

The department is in the midst of developing the F-35 -- the most expensive procurement program in its history -- to take over the A-10's four-decade-old role of supporting ground forces with its titanium armor and powerful nose cannon. But the move is opposed by infantry troops and members of Congress who believe the A-10 is uniquely capable of saving lives on the battlefield.

 

 

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/27/f35-to-go-up-against-a10-in-common-sense-war-scenario-showdown.html

 

 

 

 

 

[+Typhoid 231]

we could probably run some sims for them for much le$$

 

[SkyStrike 15]

For the Close Air Support (CAS) role the A-10 is a decisive winner... it's no contest at all....

[MAKO69 186]

Well, this will be a heavily one sided fly off if the F-35 is asked to get in low and hard like the A-10 does, or are they going to have the A-10 try and sneak in "under" the radar undetected and drop its war load, then the F-35 may have a chance. The F-35 was never designed to fly a mission like the A-10.

[RUSTYMORLEY 162]

For the Close Air Support (CAS) role the A-10 is a decisive winner... it's no contest at all....

 

 

Agreed stick with the reliable and tested A-10, why tinker with something if it is working fine.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Well, this will be a heavily one sided fly off if the F-35 is asked to get in low and hard like the A-10 does, or are they going to have the A-10 try and sneak in "under" the radar undetected and drop its war load, then the F-35 may have a chance. The F-35 was never designed to fly a mission like the A-10.

 

Ha well the point is the F-35 wont be doing CAS anything like the A-10 (as testified to congress) and its possible the outcome could depend on other things even with the incomplete systems it has...........e.g. note angry A-7D pilot from the last A-10 flyoff.

 

 

""After the A-10 was selected by the Air Force, Congress directed the service to fly it against the A-7. The Warthog dominated the A-7 during the 1974 fly-off.""

 

Reason Congress wanted the flyoff was that the Hog was also gonna replace the F-100 and A-7 for BAI and some interdiction work. The Double Ugly was gonna be phased out as the Eagle came online. Funny, but we were gonna have a big gap in the mudbeater world until the Viper arrived, and that plane was not a factor in the A-10 design or ops requirements. All we had was the A-7, and USAF had to kill it in order to get the Hog. See my AvWeek editor letter in fall of 1974 if you can find it.

 

Only thing the Hog dominated was strafe effectiveness and its ability to get the nose around quickly for another run or a nape pass. Its bomb accuracy was a joke, and the thing did not even have a real HUD or decent nav system, much less a computer-assisted bombing system that the A-7 had since 1968!!!!!!. It was a WW2 plane with jet motors and a big cannon - a jet-powered A-1 that would have worked wonders in 'nam and be slaughtered over the Fulda Gap or the Sinai in 1973.

 

My immediate boss was TDY for the flyoff and he came back and told us all that the thing was rigged and we were flying planes that would soon go to the Guard. Sure enough, our A-7's went to one Guard outfit after another and the 356th TFS became the first operational Hog squadron after handing their SLUF's off to a Guard unit.

 

'nuff of my rant, but some more later

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=299954#p299954

[MAKO69 186]

The difference between the A-10 and F-35 is far greater than the difference between the A-10 & A-7. The A-10 is dying with no true replacement so if it looses it will just go away. Only a few squadrons left and they are timing out soon. The A-10 is probably the most apex air to ground mud fighter ever made, but the days of having specific platforms to do single jobs are coming to an end. It's the time of the multitaskers which can do many jobs good, instead of one mission great. Progression sucks, but it's a harsh reality.

[MigBuster 2,884]

USAF firming A-X requirements for A-10 'Warthog' alternative

 

Lt Gen James “Mike” Holmes, USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, says it’s the first step in the long process of planning and budgeting for an aircraft that might someday replace the hardy Fairchild Republic A-10. If approved by the air force chief of staff, a future close-air-support platform will be considered by a "planning choices” panel this fall for possible inclusion in the service’s five-year budget plan for fiscal years 2018-2022.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-firming-a-x-requirements-for-a-10-warthog-alt-423999/

Edited April 29, 2016 by MigBuster

[MAKO69 186]

These aircraft can do the mission for a fraction of the cost.

 

 

[MAKO69 186]

Why not rent Draken Internationl's A-4K KAHUhawk fleet, just put U.S. Military pilots in them Airforce, Navy, or Marine. its a pretty capable warplane, has the onboard war computers, radar, HOTAS of an F-16, and most of the weapon systems available to the A-10.

 

 

http://drakenintl.com/

[ironroad 218]

Agreed stick with the reliable and tested A-10, why tinker with something if it is working fine.

 

Because the A-10 doesn't come with a "golden parachute" and there are no Warthog factories in "safe" Congressional districts.

 

In all honesty what it really comes down to is are the services currently getting the best value for their money.

 

And please note that the "value" also includes training, spare parts, manpower, logistics, etc.

 

Yes there is often some "hanky panky" that goes on with defense contracts (money under the table, back slapping, job-trading, excessive spending, etc).

 

But the feasibility has to be weighed in if it worth reopening production lines for a particular type of aircraft (almost never feasible unless there is some sort of emergency situation) and if are there enough "bone yard" parts to keep it flying effectively and safely.

 

Aircraft, weapons, systems, and components do have a self-life. Just because someone can get a P-51, F-100, or Spitfire to fly at an airshow does not mean said type can be safely used in a combat environment.

Edited May 3, 2016 by ironroad

[RUSTYMORLEY 162]

Regardless, I would still prefer to stick with the A-10 as it has been designed from the outset as a specialized Ground Attack aircraft, and not as an aircraft like the F-35 which was designed to be multi-role and is being more or less tried out as a Ground Attack aircraft to see if it can do the job. Rather like a jack of all trades, trying his hand a different roles but becoming master of none. !!

[Stratos 3,192]

Can't imagine how they will match both planes on a competition, but sure it will be fun to watch!

[Toryu 156]

I hear there are some greek A-7s, looking for a new home.