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

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

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.

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.

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."

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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