Which airframe will do better in this CAS faceoff, the A-10 or F-35?

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:55:15 -0400

I lol'd at this one. IMO no contest.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/08/29/prove-cas-capabilities-face/71336130/

To Prove Its CAS Capabilities, F-35 To Face Off Against A-10

The Pentagon's top weapons tester has declared the JSF must face off against the lumbering A-10.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2015 10:13 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:13:34 -0400

Gonna go with A-10.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2015 10:17 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:17:32 -0400

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member,

The A-10 is a purpose built ground support instrument of hatred, death, and discontent. The F-35 platform was designed to fill a multitude of roles, in turn losing a little effectiveness in every capacity.

I know that a surgeon could successfully remove my appendix with a sharp knife but I'd much rather he/she use a scalpel, the tool designed specifically for the task.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Aug 25 at 2015 11:23 AM

SGT James Elphick — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:23:31 -0400

First, I have 2 points that I have to outright laugh at:
1. The F-35 will be able to perform high-threat close-air support in contested environments the A-10 could never survive, Welsh told reporters, although he noted the aircraft won't be fully operational until 2021 and beyond. - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
2. Still, Welsh noted the Air Force never intended to use the multi-role fighter jet as a direct replacement for the A-10, which is a single-mission platform dedicated to close-in attack. - HAHAHAHAHAHA, WHAT?!?! Then why have they been trying to do exactly that?

Now for the one decent thing he said: Welsh said he would like to see an A-10 replacement, often referred to as A-X, that can perform the low-threat CAS mission even better than the legacy Warthog. Service officials have recently indicated a notional A-X might be in the works. - This makes sense, and this is probably what the F-35B should have been developed with. The F-35A & C models actually had great potential as Joint Strike Fighters until the designers were forced to integrate all of the USMC's 'necessary' design features. Had the A-X program and F-35B been combined there is a good chance we could have gotten a decent plane, though neither service seems apt to take up that CAS role.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 25 at 2015 11:32 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:32:20 -0400

"Welsh said he would like to see an A-10 replacement, often referred to as A-X, that can perform the low-threat CAS mission even better than the legacy Warthog. Service officials have recently indicated a notional A-X might be in the works"....hold on a sec....if the F-35 was designed to take the place of (but not replace) the A-10, why would there be another plane in the works to do the same job as the A-10? Savings of "$4.2 billion over the next five years"...? How many billions does it take to contract and begin R&D on any military weapons platform? And then to begin testing and production? Did he really think before he spoke with this? To think there's another post on RP that the AF is talking about loosing 50 programs. I wonder if they used their heads, they could save 100?

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Aug 25 at 2015 1:12 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:12:57 -0400

Ah this should have also been a poll. Agree or disagree. I FULLY CONCUR. the big heads want a new bird and regardless of the F-35 possibly being a piece of crap and a huge brick( comparable to the A-10) not go over to well with congress and the Budget!

KEEP THE A-10

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 25 at 2015 1:43 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:43:34 -0400

One is a flying beast, one is a pretty bird
One is an attack aircraft, one is a fighter aircraft
One cost approx $18 Mil per unit, one cost approx $98 Mil per unit
One is a proven CAS platform, one is suppose to be able to provide the same from a distance
One has a GAU-8 30mm rotary cannon capable of firing 2,100 OR 4,200 depleted uranium armor piercing shells, one has a GAU-12 rotary cannon capable of firing approx 220 20mm shells

Without going on any further, I'd have to say Gen Welsh is correct... Pitting the F-35 against the A-10 is a silly exercise... :)

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 25 at 2015 1:46 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:46:07 -0400

Honestly, it is a silly test.

They aren't comparable. They just aren't.

We don't try to compare Pickups to Porsches, because they were designed differently.

Even if we account of the F35 "CAS role" we know the A10 is better at it. Just like an F150 is better at towing a trailer than my old Saturn was even after I put a tow hitch, giving it a "Tow role." Putting them side by side would have been a "Silly exercise" when we know what the outcome would be.

Just like comparing their dogfighting capability would be a silly exercise, or their ability to drop ordinance, or perform reconnaissance. The two planes are incomparable.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2015 3:59 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:59:11 -0400

Whether the test would be silly or not would depend on how it was set up. The F-35 could probably fly in and destroy a few targets more quickly and safely then the A-10 could... but could it loiter over the battlefield like an A-10 could? Also how much $$$ does an F-35 mission cost? If you can put multiple A-10's on the battlefield(s) for every one F-35, that's also something to consider.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Aug 25 at 2015 7:01 PM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:01:22 -0400

An excercize comparing the A-10, a platform senior AF officials have been chomping at the bit to be rid of for the last decade. Versus the F-35, the sleek and sexy (oh yeah, its got stealth technology) chick magnet with all the latest tech. I lay money the fly-off will be rigged (let the Wookie win) in favor of the Lightening II.

Let's see how it does at low level (in the weeds) while fending off optically targeted anti-aircraft artillery and man portable rocket launchers such as Stingers, the A-10's hunting ground. Fly it remotely and see how much punishment it can take. I triple-dog-dare you.

Next, put it against the F/A-18 Super Hornets area of expertise, off a carrier then several hundred miles into hostile aerospace for a precision target strike.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Aug 26 at 2015 8:11 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:11:25 -0400

Yes it is silly, two different airframes from different eras that do different things. Stupid.

Response by 2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 1:57 PM

2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:57:59 -0400

These two airframes are incomparable. The brass understand full-well what will happen in a test of CAS abilities between the A-10 and F-35. Unless the tests are conceived "in-house" by parties who have a dire interest in seeing the F-35 program survive and hopefully prevail, the A-10 will manhandle the F-35 in CAS missions -- mock or real. Period. What I find troubling is that no-one seems to be acknowledging the fact that the F-35 doesn't appear to be really good at anything. Hear me out because as an aspiring military aviator and current USAF aircraft maintainer (and US taxpayer) we all have a vested interested in seeing the F-35 succeed. I base my postulation off of critical thinking, observation and experience. Moving on, we (A-10 supporters, F-35 skeptics) keep being told "stop comparing the F-35's performance against all of these other aircraft because it's not dedicated to that function...it has to perform a variety of mission sets, etc". Okay...fair point BUT there's one problem: since its inception the F-35 has been sold to everyone as kind of an aviation unicorn of sorts...yes, the program's life cycle has a huge number attached to it, but the trade off is supposed to be twofold in that it can 1) perform a variety of mission sets at a high-level (thereby allowing the US to retire and replace a considerable portion of its military aviation inventory) and 2) standardize pilot and maintainer training across all the service and branches while also simultaneously reducing logistical costs/complexity. Case in point: two months ago it was confirmed that the F-35 (albeit and older model I concede) lost to a Block 40 F-16 in a series of mock dogfights. The F-35 pilot specifically stated he was a significant energy disadvantage. The F-35's avionics suite is supposed to enable the plane/pilot to see and kill targets with ease from afar, which is fine, until a skilled pilot with a fast and super agile fighter plane closes the gap, as evidenced by the aforementioned mock dogfight trials...then all that technology is apparently fairly useless. You think the Russians don't have some pilots, who should the the help of a MiG-31 or SU-35, couldn't match a skilled American pilot in an F-35? If we're placing all our bets on the F-35's alleged technological dominance to fight enemies from afar...we're simply repeating the past. (Research WWII Fighter Pilot Kill Ratios versus Vietnam Fighter Pilot Kill Ratios.) The F-16 is one hell of an interceptor and a magnificent dog fighter but it's 40 years old, and the F-15 and F-22 are just as good (better in some cases) and have more endurance. As for an attack role, the F-35 clearly isn't designed for that either...It's just a matter of physics and design functionality. If the F-35 can't hold its own against an F-16 (through critical analysis we can assume it probably wouldn't fare well against other US fighter aircraft it's supposed to replace) then what in the hell is it good at? What is this plane's real purpose? Why do we continue to pour time and money into it? Given what we've seen from the field trials thus far and the aircraft's extraordinary per-unit cost, I think those are fair questions worthy of contemplation. Like I have said before, I fear that when talking about the F-35 and the future of our Air Supremacy Doctrine, America is going to be saddled a jet that is a Jack of all Trades and a master of none. I hope I'm wrong. Every new US military aircraft brought to the table had its problems, but the F-35 appears to be a real problem child. This is troubling considering our nation's sustained military dominance and countless lives are riding on its success -- which, as of right now, seems marginal at best.

Response by SSgt Khanh Pham made Aug 27 at 2015 3:29 PM

SSgt Khanh Pham — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:29:43 -0400

My interests in this is political and strategy. I am also assuming that your A1C grade, mean you're interested because of your fascination with plane or latest "i got better toys". Here is my thought on something like F-35 vs A-10.

When was the last time you arm wrestle a 5 years old? What if you walks into the private office of an E-9 or general and request to prove that you are more intelligent than they are? If the these two questions does not make sense, then just disregard. It is only one of many ways to approach an answer.

I think the F-35 has some advance technology, and that is usually not disputed. In a conventional battle scenario designed around proving the F-35 abilities, will always make the F-35 look good. I cant imagine any benefits fighting A-10 with F-35, there isnt really anything to prove. Not only that they are for different purpose.

I thought that the Navy uses A-10 for a specific task that they would never uses the F-35 for. It doesnt matter how much better F-35 compares to the A-10, as it will not replaces the A-10. I am assumin that the Air Force will also not look at the F-35 as a competing tool for A-10.

From a Return on Investment perspective, one should look at total resources to keep that F-35. THat fixed cost of the F-35 is rediculous. Real solution address real problems. THe F-35 is solution for imaginary problems that does not exist. If you look at the total usage of military assets, pay attention to what we all uses the most of. That is what we need investment in. The thing we uses the least of, is because it isnt needed.

Response by 1stSgt Tommie Taylor made Aug 27 at 2015 7:32 PM

1stSgt Tommie Taylor — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:32:17 -0400

Deployed with the A-10 in multiple war zones as logistics support. The A-10 is a war machine. The FMC Rate fleet wide was outstanding. Met every AOR Tasking while all the pretty birds say on the flight line awaiting a digital avionic something or other. They been trying to replace the flying tank for decades and have failed miserably. Ask troops on the ground do they want fancy or effective and watch their answer.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 28 at 2015 11:19 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:19:48 -0400

Silly to the max.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Aug 29 at 2015 10:13 AM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:13:53 -0400

I'm biased because I've gotten CAS from A-10s then had the fortune of working on them

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 10:23 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:23:09 -0400

The 35 can't fly slow enough or low enough and as boxers would say, it has a weak chin.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 29 at 2015 10:30 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:34 -0400

No brainer. A-10.

It's not a question of "better." It's a question of "Is the F-35 capable of CAS, AT ALL?" If the answer is yes, then it meets the requirements of the platform. Keep in mind, we're picking a highly specialized "one trick pony" vs a "jack of all trades" platform.

If we reverse the arguments and measure the A10 v F35 using max speed... who's going to come out on top? What about if we put a missile package on it? Or dogfight the two?

I love the A10 just like everyone else, but we're focused on the wrong thing.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 10:52 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:52:06 -0400

Most likely, the A-10 will perform better. But I really don't think it matters, the Air Force has bet everything on the F-35. So they'll make up a good excuse to explain the results of the test, and the Air Force will continue to try and kill the A-10.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 11:00 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:00:57 -0400

The A-10 was built to be specifically air to ground. It was designed to counter the tank/armor threats and ground forces. The A-10 has been proven in combat, Desert Storm for great example. I believe that there are times when you need specific aircraft to do specific jobs. Another aircraft that is very lethal in air to ground/CAS roll is the AC-130. The AC-130 has a excellent loiter time and devastating fire power against ground forces.

Response by COL George Antochy made Aug 29 at 2015 11:11 AM

COL George Antochy — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:11:33 -0400

Sadly I responded with the F-35, not because of capabilities, but because of realities. Face it, the USAF has never wanted the A-10 nor the CAS mission. Back in the late '80's Congress was about to transfer the CAS mission as well as the A-10's to the Army, but then DS/DS came, and that was put to rest. The A-10 was supposed to be decommissioned from Service, as the USAF wants to get rid of it. The winner of the shoot-off will be the F-35, because the USAF wants it and the Contractors want the business, regardless of the true winner. You do not need a fly-off, shoot-off to know that the A-10 can give it and take it better than any other aircraft ever made.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 29 at 2015 11:12 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:12:08 -0400

It's got to be the gun with the plane wrapped around it.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 29 at 2015 11:30 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:30:19 -0400

Clearly the A-10 is a better, cheaper, more durable CAS platform. The fiscal geniuses we have in Washington are caving to the special interests of the military industrial complex. They certainly aren't thinking about the mission, the warfighters, or the taxpayers!!!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 11:46 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 11:46:04 -0400

This will just be another government goat rope and waste of tax payer money to appease the non-believers that the F-35 can accomplish CAS mission. Whether the test proves the F-35's vulnerabilities it will not be in the report. This review/testing will show the airframe can accomplish its mission. It would be to big of an embarrassment to everyone if it failed. This is the airframe that has been chosen and by damn sure we will have it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 12:04 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:04:22 -0400

I thought they decided to scrub the match up?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 29 at 2015 2:02 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:02:10 -0400

The F-35 will be finished with one or two bursts from its gun.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 29 at 2015 2:50 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:50:42 -0400

The tests will take place in 2018? Seems like someone is hoping the A-10 will die of old age before the F-35 has to take it on...

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 29 at 2015 3:19 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:19:55 -0400

85% for the A-10. That percentage is an honest reflection on the amount of troops with actual combat experience. The only time my beloved Kiowa was told to break station was for the A-10. Now they have killed both in favor of something shiny. God help us if we ever have to face another truly mechanized force.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 29 at 2015 4:38 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:38:33 -0400

I'm in the testing apples against oranges category. I've yet to see a realistic study of the lifecycle costs with all the relevant factors worked in. System production, maintenance, etc. are no brainers. The cost of survivability? The cost of losing X numbers of A-10s vs. Y numbers of F-35s in performance of mission? You can buy a lot of A-10 capability with one splashed F-35. We'll kill this many more pilots on this one vs. the other. There's other factors that would work towards the benefit of both choices. But I haven't seen it on paper.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 4:58 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:58:13 -0400

A-10. No question.

Response by SrA Tony Schamberger made Aug 29 at 2015 10:33 PM

SrA Tony Schamberger — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:33:35 -0400

A-10 is tried and true. Both serve diff purposes but the warthog is a flying middle payload tank.

Response by CPL Eric Allen made Aug 31 at 2015 1:36 AM

CPL Eric Allen — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:36:40 -0400

It would be a better ?
Who has more kills or.
who has the most tech
To me I think I would be safer with the A-10 in another war than with F35 which has yet to be tested in combat environment around soldiers. A-10 hands down anyday

Response by TSgt Dave Beem made Aug 31 at 2015 6:28 AM

TSgt Dave Beem — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:28:18 -0400

Well, this from a guy who started out as an Army FIST type (and pathfinder). Originally the A-10 was designed to have FOUR J57 jet engines, not the two turbofans it has now. But oddly, the powers that "BE" at the time decided that something that would deafen you on the ramp would probably be easy to hear coming AT you as well (like reverberations off canyon walls)

So the twin turbofan engines went on instead..and THANK GOD FOR THAT!

Now, CONGRESS has been fighting for YEARS to keep the A-10, even though the USAF doesn't want it. Here's a little tidbit of info from the first Gulf WAR, in the way of statistics. It seems that over 60% of all the "fast movers" like the F-16's, when we went over the airfields in Iraq, wound up firing at the DUMMIES, rather than the real planes. WHY? Because the pilot had maybe a tenth of a second to identify the target at the speed he was flying. Speed is a lifesaver in a dogfight, so is an overabundance of power. The A-10 has that overabundance of power in spades. I honestly don't think it would NEED a catapult launch to take off from a carrier, and if it did, designing a new front landing gear and a tail hook is a LOT cheaper than buying an F35. If VTOL was so great, the Navy would still be flying HARRIERS and so would the Marines.

The A-10 was built to do one thing. It was the modern day equivalent of the German Stuka..period. Basically a flying tank. The Stuka didn't have flush rivets, or smooth lines like the german fighters. It wasn't pretty (though I always thought the gull wing was menacingly cool as a kid). It was made to kill tanks, trucks, and whatever else looked interesting on the ground.

Which is precisely what the A10 was built for. To kill RUSSIAN tanks. (and I doubt the Russian's NEW tank has been tested against depleted uranium rounds from an angry A10 pilot too!) It is a purpose built TOOL, and in the right hands it's deadly, just like a Barrett is in the hands of a sniper. It can be surgically precise. Sure, a top speed of 500mph or so isn't mach 3 PLUS and climbing (like the old SR71), but I'd LOVE to see an A10 take on an F35 AFTER he's shot his missiles off. All the F35 jock could do is run away. But for the price of one F35, you could build quite a few A10's even today. The tech is VERY MATURE, and it usually doesn't break.

I remember WATCHING a KC135R DRAG an A10 home that only had HALF a wing. Yep, fuel spraying out like mad, but it was still flying with a little help from his friends. I seriously doubt that ANY F35 that can get off the ground is as highly armored as an A10 is. I know former A10 drivers who were simply amazed when they got OUT of their craft, after a successful mission, only to find that the cockpit armor had saved their lives, time after time. I know Marines who literally invaded a flightline after an A10 took care of an ambush that would have decimated their ranks (and many more who owe their lives to the RC-135 folks too)

At any club around the world where soldiers and airman mingle, an A10 pilot drinks for free if he's fired in anger at the enemy. Yes, in a bow to having residual radiation and idiot kids (and a couple of marines, and soldiers during the first gulf war, who couldn't figure out why their chests were rotting away after putting an A10 Depleted uranium round on a neck chain..and yes, it really DID happen..not everyone knew those rounds were radioactive, after all) we now fire tungsten carbide rounds. which wear the barrels out a lot faster. But for my money, in combat against a well armed foe (let's use North Korea, since they like to rattle their rusty sabers a lot), an A10's round, when it strikes, basically makes a micro-thermonuclear detonation as it goes thru turret armor (or any other kind of armor for that matter). Tungsten Carbide can still spall armor into the interior of a tank, but a one burst kill isn't guaranteed.

SO, how about we ALL talk to our congressmen and senators and WE come up with the TESTING PROCEDURES for both aircraft? I KNOW many of you have had your butts saved by an A10, or marveled at what you did NOT have to fight because an A10 was there to help. If they want to have a shoot off, LET THEM DO IT. But WE make the test, not the USAF. For once, our elected officials could actually do something GOOD for us. Remember, those of you who are 50 plus years old, how, in the 60's, we got NEW FIGHTERS EVERY TWO OR THREE YEARS? From the F80 to the Delta Dart (which I saw personally EAT two geese, shit them out the back end of the engine and kept on flying like nothing had happened. Another got into a top guy style flat spin, the pilot ejected, which shoved the nose down, and it slid down a mountainside and was retrieved by a Chinook and was flying a month later). They were all in and OUT of the USAF in a ten year time span from brand spanking new to being mirrors on a desert floor.

We had purpose built aircraft back then. Interceptors, to engage Soviet bombers BEFORE they got out of Alaskan airspace. Air to air fighters to take on other fighters. Air to ground as well, of which the A10 was the last. Yes, they do cost to maintain. But I'll bet my life that a squadron of A10's on their WORST behavior won't cost as much to maintain as the F35's will.

Now, the only caveat here is surviveability against GOOD air defense networks. There the A10 might have a problem, only due the minimal ECM, radar, and the entire data bus system (meaning the total electronics package). But it is world renowned for its surviveability on the deck. I don't think the F4 could boast such a record, but then again, the A10 wasn't doing ground support sorties in Viet Nam either.

However, that can be fixed, and even at the expense of a total airframe overhaul, you STILL won't come near the money for a new F35.

Odd that we haven't heard much about the F22's air to ground capabilities, nor the expense of having a single squadron of them, pretty much like the B-2's? I'd bet that single squadron of F22's costs more to keep flying than the ENTIRE ACTIVE INVENTORY of A10's! And their pilots love them..and they do NOT have problems with ....abort....retry...ignore.... (heard about the software glitches in the F22? Go read about them..

So do an email barrage on your elected officials.. SOUND OFF. Tell the Armed Services Committees to shitcan that ancient MOU and let the Army have them.

And for you navy guys, the USAF loaned a C130 to the Navy in (I THINK) 1968 or so, and a C130 DID takeoffs and landings off the USS FORRESTAL with NO cat, no tailhook. If that big lumbering sausage wagon could do it, you can be sure an A10 could...and you marines would sleep better at night knowing that a software glitch won't keep an A10 from it's appointment with what's trying to kill you either.

Go get 'em boys...and tell the politically correct folks to shove it up their ass! For those who really DID have their butts saved by an A10 pilot, dredge up his name and find him, and THANK him for his service. I've bought my share of FAC's a beer or two as well. Oh, and please DON'T tell the F35 guys about the friendly fire problems you get when you can only keep eyes on target for a second or two..A10 Drivers have a WAY better record..
Dave

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Aug 31 at 2015 11:18 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:18:48 -0400

The A-10 will crush the F-35 in real-world CAS missions every time. Human reaction speeds and cognitive function speeds are known, and not changing. CAS is an environment where you are trying to share lots of information about friendly and enemy locations and dispositions in a short amount of time. Aircraft airspeeds relate to this...the faster you go, the less time you have to make a decision as you roll in on target. Slower and tougher beats faster and digital for CAS. So if the Air Force's only job were CAS, we'd have lots more A-10s and AC-130s, and a few tankers.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 31 at 2015 11:52 AM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:52:04 -0400

This looks more like decision makers looking after their pet money making projects instead of looking after the troops on the ground. Yes an F-35 has speed but it doesn't do any good when we need ordinance an accuracy; after we want to kill the enemy and not us!

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Aug 31 at 2015 1:05 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:05:12 -0400

The A-10 may be a one trick pony but if it was my ass on the ground needing air support that is exactly what I would want instead of something coming over too high and too fast that is likely to take me out. I know that many disagree but I think that both the CAS mission and the A-10 should be transferred to the Army.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 31 at 2015 1:36 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:36:13 -0400

I don't know much about either one.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 31 at 2015 2:29 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:29:23 -0400

F-35 scenario:
Troops in contact: We need fast movers asap at TRP 3 plus 500 right 200. F-35: No good. Send me a grid so I can put it in the computer (as it passes over at Mach 2). "Damn it! Grid 12345678!!" (as F-35 passes directly over again at Mach 1)........ F-35 fires 1 second burst of 187 rounds......"Winchester, good luck."

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 31 at 2015 2:37 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:37:19 -0400

All I can say is that those A-10's better be kept in flyable storage. This is NOT a good decision. How about we cut back welfare a 6-pack a week and funding the A-10 and OH-58D platforms again.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 3:12 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:12:43 -0400

The F35 is designed for one thing and one thing only, to make money. Can it conduct CAS, sure, so can the Harrier(for about 6 min dwell time) or for that matter two cub scouts in a biplane with a .22 can too. When it comes to CAS, I'm really only concerned about two things: How much ordnance you bring, and how much dwell time you have.

Response by A1C Charles D Wilson made Aug 31 at 2015 3:22 PM

A1C Charles D Wilson — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:22:22 -0400

Lets see A-10 2 engines 30mm gun protective bath tub and reliable. F-35 1 engine 20mm gun no bath tube and unproven. F-35 may be the future but the A-10 is spot on for ground support and can stay over target slower for more accurate ground support. We will see but I say A-10.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Aug 31 at 2015 5:25 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:25:48 -0400

I select the A-10 as a ground soldier who has a love the ugly girl. That said the realities of time are going to show, it is close to a 40 year old airframe, if we were to keep it (and the AF is hell bent on not keeping it), it would need upgrades to the airframe, and control systems. No system lasts forever, and if we are going to keep it, then do what must be done, if can't afford the two airframes then the old girl is destined for the museum.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Aug 31 at 2015 7:12 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:12:15 -0400

The problem is that the AF does not care or want the CAS mission. The CAS mission and its assets should properly be with the Army. However, the AF will absolutely not give up airframes (and funding) to another branch.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 7:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:36:04 -0400

A10, those birds are hard to knock down...

Response by Capt Brandon Charters made Aug 31 at 2015 8:43 PM

Capt Brandon Charters — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:43:28 -0400

I know there is a lot more to this debate, but you can't deny the ferocity of this aircraft.

A-10 firing 30mm Cannon and rockets! Pt1

A-10s from the 422 TES firing guns and rockets on the Nevada Test and Training Range. Like us on Facebook at "US Military" - https://www.facebook.com/Militar...

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 5:59 AM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:59:09 -0400

While the F-35 has enormous potential as a Joint Strike aircraft, it is still very new in the operating forces. The A-10 on the other hand is a tried and true airframe. Both have their respective merits but to pit two fighters designed for two rather different tasks is ridiculous in my opinion.

Response by CCMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 11:01 AM

CCMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:01:19 -0400

Not participating here. This reminds me of the time that I spent as a Collection Manager. Everyone would ask for Predators. "Give me a Pred on this target..." All night long.

"Sorry, sir, we don't have that many in Theatre. Please, tell me what you need and I'll get you the best product."

Half of the time, people that were asking for a Pred didn't know why they needed a Pred. They just knew that it would orbit or loiter and it was cool to say it. Just give me the end effect and you will have what you need. This is my job, I'd like to think I can do it decently...please let me do it.

I hear a lot of the same arguments here. " I need the BRRRRTTT", "It gets low and slow", etc. Bottom line, is that what you need is different for each mission. From a Military Operations Research point of view, you are comparing apples and oranges. One is a flying tank, the other is a klingon ship with a cloaking device. One gives you the holy-$h1t-brrrrttt-effect, the other 'where did that come fr..... Hell, during some conflicts, we've tested using the B-1 to perform a CAS type mission. Those things carry a crapload of munitions.

Response by Capt John Schubert made Sep 1 at 2015 4:07 PM

Capt John Schubert — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:07:22 -0400

I think anyone who's spent any time on the ground, waiting on CAS, or watched from the TOC ISR video of a CAS, knows there is no "CAS faceoff." A fast mover dropping a bomb is not CAS in my opinion, after watching hundreds of GBUs dropped on enemies. If it were, then you could save us all a bunch of time and just send a B-1, F-16 or the Navy's F-35. CAS is effective suppression of an enemy to allow friendly's a freedom of movement. A 500lb GBU dead on target often still leaves the target. The enemy still gets up and runs. I've watched the squirters countless times. A single GBU isn't always a mobility kill if the enemy is mounted. So where does that leave you? Waiting for re-attack.

However, an A-10 can not only drop the GBU but also turn a large area into an environmental hazard zone due to high concentrations of lead. This is lead that instantly scores a mobility kill in an insanely high percentage of the time. No "re-attack authorization" required or needed. The engagement swings very quickly in favor of the friendlies. Dismounts turn into a mist.

In a zone where seconds and minutes matter, the F35 (and any fast-mover for that matter) just aren't effective in comparison to a relatively slow mover like an A-10 or rotary attack.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 9:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:05:23 -0400

with the money there going to put in F-35 they can have six new A-10 squadron in one year.

Response by SPC Matt Johnson made Sep 1 at 2015 10:38 PM

SPC Matt Johnson — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:38:09 -0400

Me and some of my buddies did a flight simulation with the A-10 and F-35. in a dog fight the A-won 6 out of 10. the f-35 couldn't slow down enough to get a lock on it and when it did the A-10 hit the breaks and the F-35 flew past it leaving it to the BRRRRRT. Plus it was able to out maneuver the F-35 by being able to turn on a dime. F-35....not so much. On ground targets the A-10 out performed in range, maneuverability, durability, survivability, and more kills per mission(due to is ability to loiter, size of payloads, and wide range of weapons

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Sep 2 at 2015 11:57 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:57:11 -0400

Not even a contest... A-10 is the right tool for the job. Some times simple is better... it's stupid to swat flies with a shotgun.

Response by SSG John Erny made Sep 2 at 2015 2:27 PM

SSG John Erny — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 14:27:37 -0400

The A-10 is clearly better than the F-35 for up close and dirty. Since the F-35 can not do that the solution will be to strap million dollar high tech weapons to it just to kill ground troops and soft targets. A burst from the 30 MM will get the job done for a lot less. The attack helicopter is going to have to pick up the slack left behind from the loss of the A-10. A hell fire missile costs about 70K and a smart bomb about 20K. 30MM about $25 bucks per round.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Sep 2 at 2015 4:08 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 16:08:14 -0400

I think the A10 is more survivable, and I don't know how long it will be before the F35 is FMC and not crashing, as all new airframes are wont to do...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2015 5:06 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 17:06:16 -0400

I think everyone underestimates the impact of being able to see and hear the aircraft during its support. There is no better sight or sound for us on the ground, or worse for the enemy. The psychology is as important as the weapon effect.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Sep 3 at 2015 6:14 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 06:14:19 -0400

A do everything aircraft only exists in a cartoonists imagination. I'm a mechanic, not a pilot, so my opinion means little. I do however think the Wart Hog is awesome and deserves to be in our inventory for CAS.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2015 9:41 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:41:58 -0400

I think a perspective that people should consider with the F-35 is common to a lot of weapon systems currently being fielded. Yes the F-35 is replacing a lot of air-frames that may have been better in a stand alone environment at a specific role. Yes F-22 are better in the air superiority role just like Seawolf are the best subs, DDG-1000 are the best ships, ect... but we already have the largest DOD budget of then almost all of the rest of the world combined so in place of more expensive weapons systems that we have developed and could produce should we need to we are making the trade off for what is good enough to maintain our superiority today.

F-35 for the F-22
Virginia for the Seawolf
LCS and DDG-51 for the Zumwalt
Refitting the Nimitz in place of more Fords
M1A1 for a more advanced Main Battle Tank
AAV for the AAAV

Yes we could have all of these super advanced better performing systems but in the end we the tax payer have to foot the bill. So in reality good enough is the answer.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Sep 3 at 2015 5:17 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:17:12 -0400

May as well have asked which airframe is sexier. Or as which airframe is allowed to win.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 9:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:53:20 -0400

As much as I admire the capabilities of the F-35, the A-10 in my view cannot be beat for CAS.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2017 2:41 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:41:02 -0500

Did anyone ever consider somehow buying from the former Eastern Bloc countries the front foot jet that the Russians use that is very similar to the A10? You no it can also break the sound barrier and it also land on four runways. American fighter pilots only seen respect planes that can fly Super Sonic and this plane can once it's dropped its full bomb load since it basically has the same jet engines is it as the Mig 25

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Jan 27 at 2017 3:04 PM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:04:47 -0500

I've always loved the A-10. Never saw them in combat and never saw the F-35 in combat. However after I separated in '79, I used to drive an hour to work in rural Louisiana. Early mornings, I would be driving and all of a sudden my truck radio would become nothing but static. I'd look in my rearview mirror and see an A-10 out of England AFB doing "lazy eights" and following me. I would flash my lights on and off a couple of times as he followed me down the highway. After awhile the pilot would pass directly overhead and waggle his wings in acknowledgment before peeling off. Just a moment of fellowship between a pilot and a former maintainer.....

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Jan 20 at 2018 4:35 PM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Sat, 20 Jan 2018 16:35:50 -0500

In the real world threat environment today, why not go cheap and off the shelf and just buy the A 29 Super Turcano? We are buying them for the Afghan's, so apparently the Brass thinks they work. They are simple and cheaper and we are realistically working in environments where anti aircraft threat is relatively minimal.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jan 21 at 2018 2:21 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 14:21:38 -0500

As technology keeps moving forward, my first question is will the F-35 be a better platform in the next 20 years for future weapons versus the A-10? That is what I would look at. Can the A-10 logistically still be supported, are the parts still out there, or are they dwindling to the point where it may not be a cost affordable option?