Posted on Aug 29, 2015
Which airframe will do better in this CAS faceoff, the A-10 or F-35?
51.6K
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
1
1
0
with the money there going to put in F-35 they can have six new A-10 squadron in one year.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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-$h1t-brrrrttt-effect, the other 'where did that come fr..... Hell, during some conflicts, we've tested using the B-1 to perform a CAS type mission. Those things carry a crapload of munitions.
"Sorry, sir, we don't have that many in Theatre. Please, tell me what you need and I'll get you the best product."
Half of the time, people that were asking for a Pred didn't know why they needed a Pred. They just knew that it would orbit or loiter and it was cool to say it. Just give me the end effect and you will have what you need. This is my job, I'd like to think I can do it decently...please let me do it.
I hear a lot of the same arguments here. " I need the BRRRRTTT", "It gets low and slow", etc. Bottom line, is that what you need is different for each mission. From a Military Operations Research point of view, you are comparing apples and oranges. One is a flying tank, the other is a klingon ship with a cloaking device. One gives you the holy-$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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
SMSgt Thor Merich Preach it Brother. I am pretty damn sure we would take it if we were authorized to. Thank you for your reply.
(0)
(0)
CCMSgt (Join to see)
Then, I'd propose the question: why are we still training TACPs, Combat Controllers, ALOs, etc? CAS is an Air Force Core Function that Falls under Precision attack. We have not written that out of the books, yet. I don't think that will ever happen, especially how 'joint' we've become.
From reading the doctrine and defense white papers, you can find a lot of evidence supporting the fact that the Air Force is looking to grow CAS. One of the conclusions that I come to is that the question is not A-10 vs F-35, rather it is A-10 vs F-16/F15/F-35/B-1/F-18/UH-1n/AH-1....etc. The concept is great. Sure, using an A-10 is a great demoralizing show of force to the enemy. But, what if you just need one GPS guided munition to make the point.
From reading the doctrine and defense white papers, you can find a lot of evidence supporting the fact that the Air Force is looking to grow CAS. One of the conclusions that I come to is that the question is not A-10 vs F-35, rather it is A-10 vs F-16/F15/F-35/B-1/F-18/UH-1n/AH-1....etc. The concept is great. Sure, using an A-10 is a great demoralizing show of force to the enemy. But, what if you just need one GPS guided munition to make the point.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSgt Khanh Pham
When it was announced that the F-35 was being developed, it was stated that it was going to be the replacement for the A-10. This is where my interest lies. The F-35 is not capable of sustaining ground support the way that the A-10 does. It does not have the survivability, nor the ability to come in low & slow, drawing fire away from the ground troops that are trying to get to safety. The F-35 is built to be a strike/air superiority platform.
They brag that it has advanced technology that will make it able to strike from a distance before the enemy even knows it is coming. This is all well & good, except that is not what a good CAS platform does. Does the Apache strike from afar before the enemy knows it is there, or do they hang out in the area & redirect fire as the enemy changes location?
To my knowledge, the Navy does not use the A-10, so I'm not sure where that came from. I have stated that the F-35 appears to be an ideal platform for the Marines because it is a compact build suited to be a launch & strike-type fighter.
My disagreement w/ this platform is that it appears that it has been pushed by contractors to be the 'Next Best Thing' when the actual next best thing was already being built - the F-22. They halted orders on the F-22 & stated that they needed the money for the F-35, which would be the replacement CAS platform for the A-10.
Now they have walked back the replacement statement saying that "it was never intended to fully replace the A-10" & that a new pure CAS platform is in the development stages.
I agree w/ the statement that the numbers for the F-35 are ridiculous. For the amount they have thrown at the F-35, they could continue to upgrade & maintain the A-10 fleet for as long as the B-52 is planned to be flying. It just appears that someone was convinced that shiny & new was pushed so hard that people are now adamant that it be pushed through lest they have a black mark on their record from pushing it.
When it was announced that the F-35 was being developed, it was stated that it was going to be the replacement for the A-10. This is where my interest lies. The F-35 is not capable of sustaining ground support the way that the A-10 does. It does not have the survivability, nor the ability to come in low & slow, drawing fire away from the ground troops that are trying to get to safety. The F-35 is built to be a strike/air superiority platform.
They brag that it has advanced technology that will make it able to strike from a distance before the enemy even knows it is coming. This is all well & good, except that is not what a good CAS platform does. Does the Apache strike from afar before the enemy knows it is there, or do they hang out in the area & redirect fire as the enemy changes location?
To my knowledge, the Navy does not use the A-10, so I'm not sure where that came from. I have stated that the F-35 appears to be an ideal platform for the Marines because it is a compact build suited to be a launch & strike-type fighter.
My disagreement w/ this platform is that it appears that it has been pushed by contractors to be the 'Next Best Thing' when the actual next best thing was already being built - the F-22. They halted orders on the F-22 & stated that they needed the money for the F-35, which would be the replacement CAS platform for the A-10.
Now they have walked back the replacement statement saying that "it was never intended to fully replace the A-10" & that a new pure CAS platform is in the development stages.
I agree w/ the statement that the numbers for the F-35 are ridiculous. For the amount they have thrown at the F-35, they could continue to upgrade & maintain the A-10 fleet for as long as the B-52 is planned to be flying. It just appears that someone was convinced that shiny & new was pushed so hard that people are now adamant that it be pushed through lest they have a black mark on their record from pushing it.
(0)
(0)
CCMSgt (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) "When it was announced that the F-35 was being developed, it was stated that it was going to be the replacement for the A-10. "
Here is a good article: http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support
We also have to be careful with the statement: "pushed by contractors to be the 'Next Best Thing'" --- remember that during the acquisition phase, the Air Force decides what the requirements are.
There are more to tactics than just a close up kill. Do you need a sniper at long range, do you need a group of door busters with an close and personal weapons, or do you need brute force? There are many different solutions to many different problem sets. We've used and prove that you can deliver a range of employment weapons with a range of tactics. They've even used a B-1 to deliver a CAS like mission....
Here is a good article: http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support
We also have to be careful with the statement: "pushed by contractors to be the 'Next Best Thing'" --- remember that during the acquisition phase, the Air Force decides what the requirements are.
There are more to tactics than just a close up kill. Do you need a sniper at long range, do you need a group of door busters with an close and personal weapons, or do you need brute force? There are many different solutions to many different problem sets. We've used and prove that you can deliver a range of employment weapons with a range of tactics. They've even used a B-1 to deliver a CAS like mission....
USAF Eyes New Era Of Close Air Support
Despite failed attempts to retire the A-10, the U.S. Air Force looks to a new generation of technologies and tactics for close air support mission.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I think the recent statements show that they are realizing that the F35 cannot be a solely CAS platform. While it may be able to do CAS-like tasks, it is not the main function. The admission that future development of a solely CAS platform is in the works brings that to light. I have contended that the 35 is more of a striker: launch, run in, punch, return. It seems ideal to be a carrier based bird, as the Marines seem to have realized and are running with. The 35 appears to be the Renaissance man of the air force. Can perform multiple roles, but cannot specialize in any one role.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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
KEEP THE A-10
(1)
(0)
SrA Zack Weber
The F-35, from what I am to understand is F-35 A/B/C B will be more of the Marine replacement for the Harrier II, as for the Air Force A/C one is a fighter, the other Multi-role, where as an A-10 is and Attack, still makes the A-10 more suited for ground strikes. The US really hasn't put a lot into the Attacker end, more into the Multi-role, its why the A-10 remains the an ARMY grunt's best friend.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google