Posted on Aug 29, 2015
Which airframe will do better in this CAS faceoff, the A-10 or F-35?
51.5K
472
158
19
19
0
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/
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/08/29/prove-cas-capabilities-face/71336130/
Close Air Support (CAS)
F-35
A-10
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 60
21
21
0
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.
(21)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sadly I voted not with my heart but with the realities of technological advancements. F35 will win. It is a newer frame with better technology. However, I doubt the F35 would have the same success fighting in the same role as the A10 under similar circumstances (altitude, etc.). The A10 was a glutton for punishment. The F35 is likely a lot more fragile.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
A-10 Warthog Thunderbolt II scenes from Terminator Salvation (HD 720p)
Combat intro to Terminator Salvation plus the A-10 scenes from the movie.
SPC Matt Johnson - SKYNET hates the A10 too..I wonder why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9k7mGze4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9k7mGze4I
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
That type of thinking has been done before and the advanced aircraft could not provide the close air support. In Viet Nam the A1E Skyraider, a WWII vintage aircraft was taken out of mothballs as it could fulfill that closes air support mission mission. the faster jets could not. The A1E could also take battle damage and survive thing the advanced aircraft could not. The A1E could come in so close it was often referred to as a Sandy as it came in a treetop levels and below and got right down in the sand. In this picture the A1E is entering with a rescue helicopter that is also inbound to pick up a downed pilot. (notice how close to the ground the A1E is) The A10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) was designed to take over the mission only the A1E could do and was well suited for that. The A10 also could withstand battle damage other aircraft could not, was very maneuverable and designed for close air support. The A10 also has a backup system for every system in the aircraft. The A1E and its replacement to A10 both have a proven track record !
(1)
(0)
PO2 Gerry Tandberg
The Skyraider was an awesome airplane, and much bigger in real life than one would imagine. We affectionately called them Spads, and the Navy designation was AD. They were used by USAF, USMC, USN, British Royal Navy, French, South Vietnam, and I'm sure they found service in other countries as well. The engine was an R3350; similarly used in the B29, Constellation, DC-7, and P2 Neptune.
(1)
(0)
13
13
0
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.
(13)
(0)
13
13
0
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!!!
(13)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
Jeff, the Air Force has the most money, hence it has the most lobbyists, driving the politicians to buy and keep weapons systems and planes that even the military says it does not want. It is not rational, as we understand that word in this context-buy the best systems for the cheapest cost possible, using competitive bidding in an honest and transparent purchasing system (get the most bang for your buck)! This is a system that has gotten away from buying the best for the troops and the American Public and has devolved into a form of legal corruption, and a Big Government Welfare System for everyone sucking off the teat of the defense industry. Nothing is as corrupt as the Wasteful Defense Industry. Eisenhower's warning against the Military Industrial Complex is as relevant today as ever, maybe more so, since we are facing an unprecedented number of complex threats and challenges, from terrorists, ISIS, and Russia, and now China. We need now more than ever that our defense money go only to those programs that are truly necessary and effective.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
(1)
(0)
13
13
0
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.
(13)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Well said MSgt Clifford, Yes the A10 was designed for the mission and the AC130 also is well suited. Both fill very well needed missions. I was thankful for the AC47, Spooky gunships in Viet Nam which the AC130 replaced, and had a front row seat of the AC47 and the results on a perimeter post I was working while We were under ground attack at Da Nang Air Base (see photo of AC47 "Spooky" and notice the guns in the back two windows and the door on hte pilots side of the aircraft) I have also witnessed the A1E Skyraider, Which the A10 later replaced on close support air strikes off our own perimeter. I'm sure the ground troops now appreciate the A10 and AC130 as much as We appreciated these earlier aircraft. The more advanced aircraft do have their roles but not in these jobs.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
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.
(11)
(0)
11
11
0
SSgt (Join to see),
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.
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.
(11)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I like how, in the article, Gen Welsh walked back the statement a little aong that the 35 was never meant to fully replace the A10.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I like the way he didn't mention at all that the A-10s systems have already been upgraded to keep the plane relevant on the battlefield for the next 20 years, at no small cost to the taxpayer. I cannot recall the source, military.com or one of those sites.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Charles OBanion
The problem is the military industrial complex - they can't afford to keep old legacy systems around too long as there's no money in it for them. Why accept millions when they can get billions over the life of these newer systems? It's a money game.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
No F-35, F-15/16/18 can take a 23mm hit while the A-10. The F-35 and F-16 have one engine so if there is a flameout..bail out! The A-10 has titanium to protect the pilot agaisnt a 23mm round and it has 3 total backup systems, 2 hyrdraulic and one hard to use but flyable manual backup. It was overbuilt on purpose and able to fly with one meter of the win shot off... the others can be shot down by small arms fire.. the Bentley priced F-35 cant compete price wise against a way cheaper and harder to kill plane.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
9
9
0
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.
(9)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
(9)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
Slower is better in some situations. Unfortunately you are not taking into account the threat. We have enjoyed the ability to conduct CAS over the last 15 years in a very low surface to air threat environment. A-10s pack a huge payload and long loiter times but their survivability becomes an issue with radar guided and even MANPAD threats. Roll-ins are now limited to gun runs with the standard load outs of CAS aircraft and that is a big "other" when considering the F-35. Aircraft speed is not the defining factor when it comes to a good or bad CAS platform. The A-10 and AC-130 are great in certain roles and the F-35 brings capabilities that an A-10 nor AC-130 can fill.
(1)
(0)
CCMSgt (Join to see)
Maj (Join to see) True statement. Remember that the F-35 started out as just an attack aircraft. There was a move to develop CAS capes AFTER the fact. No problem.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
The 35 can't fly slow enough or low enough and as boxers would say, it has a weak chin.
(9)
(0)
TSgt Gwen Walcott
It (F-25) also burns FAR more Fuel (so, I guess the A-10 is also more EPA friendly)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google