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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... :)

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

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!

A-10. No question.

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.