F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[westwall]

I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable. Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg. For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's. In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth. An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed. If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.

Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.

The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.

An A-10 can. If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own. EFFECTIVELY. Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron. That's just reality. Aircraft break all of the time. So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have. In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say. Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.

Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.

Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable. Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg. For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's. In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth. An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed. If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.

Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.

The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.

An A-10 can. If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own. EFFECTIVELY. Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron. That's just reality. Aircraft break all of the time. So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have. In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say. Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.

Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.

Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely. The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it. The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons. The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.

You are missing the point here. There are MANY CAS platforms out there. One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops. Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS. But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors. The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer. It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops. Where was the A-10? Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range. Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird. To give you an idea. The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff. They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available. The last time I checked, this is called cheating. There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well. If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong. It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine. I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974. So they used the A-10 to kill the project.

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more. I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.

 

[westwall]

I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable. Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg. For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's. In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth. An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed. If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.

Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.

The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.

An A-10 can. If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own. EFFECTIVELY. Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron. That's just reality. Aircraft break all of the time. So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have. In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say. Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.

Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.

Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely. The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it. The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons. The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.

You are missing the point here. There are MANY CAS platforms out there. One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops. Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS. But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors. The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer. It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops. Where was the A-10? Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range. Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird. To give you an idea. The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff. They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available. The last time I checked, this is called cheating. There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well. If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong. It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine. I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974. So they used the A-10 to kill the project.

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more. I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.

Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft. And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future. It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable. Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg. For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's. In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth. An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed. If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.

Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.

The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.

An A-10 can. If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own. EFFECTIVELY. Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron. That's just reality. Aircraft break all of the time. So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have. In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say. Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.

Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.

Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely. The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it. The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons. The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.

You are missing the point here. There are MANY CAS platforms out there. One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops. Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS. But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors. The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer. It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops. Where was the A-10? Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range. Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird. To give you an idea. The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff. They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available. The last time I checked, this is called cheating. There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well. If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong. It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine. I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974. So they used the A-10 to kill the project.

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more. I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.

Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft. And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future. It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.

As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc.. It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130. What's left........Sandy. And only if the first parameters are met. That is extremely narrow in scope. Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.

 

[DrainBamage]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

What set him off again? Is he delivering new info? Not.

As for the gun runs, about half or more of those pictures were from an AC-130 that is supposed to be from the A-10 Gun Camera. They don't mention the AC-130 since it's usually tied in with a Spec Ops mission that we aren't supposed to know about. Congress is also kept in the dark on those missions since Congress can't keep a secret. Telephone, Telegraph and telecongressmen.

 

[DrainBamage]

The amount of misinformation some of these people lean on to form opinions about this plane is mind-boggling.

It won't be able to designate targets with it's own laser. Only four out of an entire squadron would be available. A pilot trying to look around at the ground below him while also flying a plane has awareness of where enemies are than a computer hilighting their locations and giving you information from all sensors at once. The plane that red air F-15s and ground radars can't see in exercises isn't stealthy. Etc.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The most expensive F-35 variant has hit another major snag that could take years to fix

 

[Manonthestreet]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

4 billion to keep how many planes in action.....now how much to keep same number of F-35s in action..........4 billion sounds rather cheap

 

[westwall]

I have not said the F-35 is a POS, what I have claimed is it is not so significantly better than the available 4th gen fighters that its cost is acceptable. Add to that the AF claim that it is a fighter that can do the CAS as well as a PURPOSE built airframe, and my BS meter hits the peg. For the cost of a single F-35 I can have three or four A-10's. In the CAS realm numbers are more important than stealth. An F-35 is wholly dependent on having someone on the ground lasing the target, or relying on some other aircraft to target its weapons system to take advantage of its speed. If it is going fast it can't hit anything by itself.

Last batch of F-35As had a flyaway cost of 102 million apiece, the next is projected to be 96 million each, and they anticipate 85 million each at full production. That is comparable to building any other modern multirole fighter. Pilots are saying it dominating in air to air exercises and in SEAD training has been able to geolocate radiation sources faster than three F-16s could, that fits my definition of "significantly" better especially since it can also take on strike missions against well defended targets that previously only F-117s and B-2s could. A-10s come with an entire logistical footprint that is an expense in itself, continuing to maintain it, and you don't just have an A-10 since you'd need other aircraft for other roles including CAS in contested environments. In the long run it is far more expensive to have planes pigeonholed for a specific role that can't do anything else.

The F-35 will not be dependent on someone on the ground lasing the target, EOTS has a laser that is used for targeting and range finding. EOTS specs iincludes air-to-surface/air-to-air FLIR tracker and air-to-air IRST modes, automatic boresight and aircraft alignment, laser spot tracker, passive and active ranging, and highly accurate geo-coordinate generation to meet precision strike requirements.

An A-10 can. If it is the only aircraft in the area the pilot can fly and fight on his own. EFFECTIVELY. Add to that the admitted non serviceability rate with any 5th Gen airframe and you will be lucky to get a flight of four airborne and on its way to a target out of an entire squadron. That's just reality. Aircraft break all of the time. So, in the wars we are finding ourselves in the CAS mission is the most important one we have. In that respect it is nowhere near as capable as an A-10, no matter what the propagandists wish to say. Add to that the ability to survive in the realm of the MK I eyeball where stealth gets you bupkus, and the A-10 will continue to be the better CAS airframe.

Again, most CAS is dropping PGMs which the F-35 can do better than the A-10. I have no idea why you believe an A-10 is unique in ability to fight on it's own.

Stealth isn't relevant for CAS so I have no idea why you're talking about eyeballs. For battlefield awareness no plane in the world touches the F-35, nothing is anywhere close. DAS an see targets moving that a pilot would have never spotted, and sensor fusion would automatically direct other available sensors to gather information to identify and track the threat for the pilot. F-35 sees more than A-10 and can target objectives on the fly much faster.

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.
The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing.

The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

You can't change the fact that the F-35 can fly lower and slower than just about any other jet safely. The pilot tells the F-35, "I want this" and the Plane figures out how to do it. The Plane sees that bad guys, targets the weapons and even picks the weapons. The Pilot makes the decision to fire or not.

You are missing the point here. There are MANY CAS platforms out there. One of the meanest and best is the AC-130 which is primarily protecting Spec Ops. Due to it's missions being hush hush, we don't get to hear about it doing the CAS. But to give you and idea, DSII would have been a complete failure without one loan AC-130 that cleared the surrounding LZ of some really bad actors. The Special Operators on the ground used it to take out the primary targets and make their own ground operations much safer. It allowed the initial landing of the Choppers full of attacking US Troops. Where was the A-10? Sitting on the ground more than 150 miles away since this was out of the A-10s range. Plus, if the A-10 would have been used, the enemy would have known something was going on.

The fact is, the A-10 is a very narrow use bird. To give you an idea. The flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10, they only allowed the use of the internal gun in the flyoff. They didn't allow the A-7 to carry the brand new 30mm gun pod it had available. The last time I checked, this is called cheating. There were other slants in the A-10s favor in the flyoff as well. If you think an A-7 wasn't a hard hitter and a hardened target then you would be wrong. It was also and Titanium bathtub as well that covered even it's engine. I think it wasn't the powers to be that was in love with the A-10 (they weren't) but the fact the followon A-7F would have jeopardized even the YF-16/17 as well since it had a better ground attack and range than they had. The A-7F could have been in service as early as 1974. So they used the A-10 to kill the project.

You will note that the flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C hasn't happened. It's been delayed, delayed and delayed even more. I believe that it's to not allow a fair flyoff since it would show that the A-10C is so lacking and can be matched in all areas it has the strong point.

Yes, the A-10 is a very narrow use aircraft. And guess what that mission is the most likely to be needed for the near future. It is retarded to take a purpose built airframe and retire it when the very mission it is the best in the world at, is what you are fighting.

As long as there are no Manpads, AA Guns, SAMS, it has to be within a short distance, etc.. It doesn't do CAS any better than the F-16/18, the F-15E does a better job and so does the AC-130. What's left........Sandy. And only if the first parameters are met. That is extremely narrow in scope. Too narrow to not save the 4 billion in not having it in the first place.

Oh please. The troops on the ground beg for the A-10 to show up, they don't specifically ask for any other aircraft. You claim the A-10 is vulnerable to manpads and then claim that the AC-130 is a better bet? Get real..

 

[westwall]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

The same go's for the F-35 dude. And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use. You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests. Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.

The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe. It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.


Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.



The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

 

[westwall]

The amount of misinformation some of these people lean on to form opinions about this plane is mind-boggling.

It won't be able to designate targets with it's own laser. Only four out of an entire squadron would be available. A pilot trying to look around at the ground below him while also flying a plane has awareness of where enemies are than a computer hilighting their locations and giving you information from all sensors at once. The plane that red air F-15s and ground radars can't see in exercises isn't stealthy. Etc.

it is you peddling the propaganda dude.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

The same go's for the F-35 dude. And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use. You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests. Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.

The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe. It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.


Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.



The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs. The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.

 

[westwall]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

The same go's for the F-35 dude. And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use. You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests. Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.

The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe. It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.


Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.



The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs. The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.

According to the propaganda that is true.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

The same go's for the F-35 dude. And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use. You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests. Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.

The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe. It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.


Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.



The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs. The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.

According to the propaganda that is true.

It's funny to listen to people talk as though the F-35 can somehow be stopped. It isn't a future aircraft any more, it's here now, several hundred are being purchased by allied nations. Not to mention that F-15s, F-16s, F-18s are all old technology now. Their performance has been edged out by the latest Russian and Chinese designs. The F-35 and F-22 will be the last manned combat aircraft. The robots are taking over in another decade or so.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Harriers are also long overdue for replacement.

 

[DrainBamage]

The same go's for the F-35 dude. And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use.

They are buying thousands of them, and they are comparable in cost to other modern fighter aircraft. Latest estimates have F-35A at about 85 million by 2019, an F-18 runs 78 million today.

You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests. Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern. The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe. It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.

The planes have some commonality and (obviously) many areas not so much, but costs have been dropping rapidly and estimates by DoD, LH, and CBO all have costs continuing to drop going forward so stop claiming costs will remain where they are, that is incorrect.

Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.

What do you mean "even" the CFR? Is this opinion piece by Janine Davidson carrying that much more weight because it is on a think tank's website?

Honest question: would you have thought so highly of CFR opinion pieces if they said A-10 should be retired? I doubt it. You're implying they carry weight only because you googled up an opinion piece that you agree with.

 

[DrainBamage]

it is you peddling the propaganda dude.

According to the propaganda that is true.

I get the impression you're quite used to doing this when facts don't agree with your assumptions. Just wave it off as propaganda and you'll never be wrong, easy peasy!

 

[westwall]

A-10's cost 18 to 20 million per. Your point? Insurgents hide. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 25,000 feet. It's impossible to spot them from a fast mover flying at 50 feet. The pilot is far to busy actually flying the aircraft. If the F-35 slows down it is vulnerable.

The A-10 is low and slow so the pilot is able to spot the bad guys. By himself. Think Sandy missions during the Vietnam War. The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

My point was no matter what the cost, if you buy the A-10 you also have to buy other planes anyway because the A-10 is niche. You aren't comparing costs in a vacuum unless you're also planning to use the A-10 for air superiority or deep strike. The Air Force estimates it will cost $4 billion to keep the A-10 in service for the next five years, that is a lot of cash for a single role specialized aircraft, when other multirole aircraft can also fill this role.

You're clearly don't understand how well modern sensors on aircraft can spot bad guys. F-35 has cameras and antennas passively scanning all directions all the time and sensor fusion will automatically focus other sensors on any perceived threat to present this info to the pilot's helmet. It will check it with EOTS, it will use the radar, it'll do SAR, it will be looking at any RF emissions etc. It is far better view of the battle space and F-35 pilots who have previously flown F-16s and A-10s have raved about how it takes battlefield awareness to the next level.

The A-10 can take a hit from a manpads that will turn an F-35 inside out. The A-10 will fly back to base and the A&P's will get it fixed and back out in the fight.

No. You don't plan a mission around some faint hope that when your plane gets hit by a missile it might be sturdy enough to limp back to base, you plan around not getting hit. When they suspended A-10s from being used against RG units in Iraq due to aircraft losses do you think they ever considered just letting A-10s tank their way through missile hits in hopes they'd be able to come home? Of course not.

For purposes of mission planning, a plane hit by MANPADs is a loss, regardless of whether it is an A-10, F-35, or F-16.

The 25mm cannon on the F-35 (GAU/22A) has a ammunition capacity of either 182 or 220 rounds depending on which variation it is mounted in. That is roughly 2 to 4 bursts of fire. Figure 4 seconds of firing. The GAU-8/A, on the other hand, has a capacity of 1174 rounds. Roughly 30 seconds of firing, and it is significantly more capable to boot.

In other words, in a CAS role the F-35 is pathetic. The most accurate form of aerial attack is the gun. The troops on the ground, when in close combat can call an A-10 in and that aircraft can deal with the threat with only the gun thus limiting friendly fire casualties.

The F-35 gets one, maybe two passes and then it's Bingo and time to go home.

As with many A-10 advocates, you greatly overestimate how often cannon fire comes into play in modern era close air support. Sure there are youtube videos floating about of dramatic gun runs in Iraq/Afghanistan but of most of what A-10s do in CAS is exactly the same as the fast movers.... dropping precision guided munitions. The usefulness of the A-10s gun is one of the most overrated weapons of war, A-10s went through an expensive upgrade to be able to use PGMs because PGMs are better weapons.

A-10 is better at gun runs, but gun runs are a tiny tiny minority of CAS munitions. F-35 is better at PGMs, which are the overwhelming majority of CAS munitions. A-10s also lead in friendly fire incidents.

The same go's for the F-35 dude. And, more to the point, because the F-35 is so ridiculously expensive you will never have enough to use. You're talking the history of the Arado 234 and ME 262 vs the Hawker Tempests. Not nearly as fast as the jets but there were so damned many of them the jets couldn't operate because they kept getting shot down in the landing pattern.

The F-35 series is NOT a common airframe. It has been admitted that they are three different airframes (which I was suspecting all along) and that is why the costs will remain as high as they are.


Even the Council on Foreign Relations says the USAF is not telling the truth about the reasons for getting rid of the A-10.



The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

Defense in Depth » The Air Force’s Argument to Retire the A-10 Warthog Doesn’t Add Up. Here’s Why.

The F-35 not only replaces several different aircraft designs. The naval VSTOL version will provide US LHDs and small carriers of allied nations with a credible offensive air capability.

According to the propaganda that is true.

It's funny to listen to people talk as though the F-35 can somehow be stopped. It isn't a future aircraft any more, it's here now, several hundred are being purchased by allied nations. Not to mention that F-15s, F-16s, F-18s are all old technology now. Their performance has been edged out by the latest Russian and Chinese designs. The F-35 and F-22 will be the last manned combat aircraft. The robots are taking over in another decade or so.

Ahhh, yet another person thinking the day of the pilot is done. They thought that way back in the 1960's. 1970's and finally came to their senses in the '80's. There will always be a place for a manned aircraft. Yes, UAV's have capabilities that are extraordinarily useful, but I foresee pilots still being in aircraft for decades to come. I never claimed the F-35 was going to be stopped. I have merely claimed that it isn't the best thing in the world as you all seem to think it is. I feel it is a grossly over priced aircraft that is going to have severe problems with reliability and which will spend most of its time in the hangar instead of out performing the missions it was designed for.

 

[DrainBamage]

[I feel it is a grossly over priced aircraft that is going to have severe problems with reliability and which will spend most of its time in the hangar instead of out performing the missions it was designed for.

85 million for a 5th generation stealth aircraft is not grossly overpriced, as pointed out a new F-18 costs 78 million. Go look up how much Typhoon, PAK-FA, and Rafale cost.

Where do you get your reliability figures for F-35, it's still teething and under development but most early issues with availability have been related to software and have been addressed. What is truly astounding is over 60,000 hours without a crash, do you know how many F-16s crashed by the time they reached this stage?