A-10 vs F-35 - taking (virtual) bets

[probad]

but the a-10 doesn't need an upgrade. nobody has any complaint about the a-10's a-g capability.

 

the problem is that just being good at a-g is no longer enough.

Edited May 1, 2016 by probad

[Mike5560]

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2016/04/the-perfect-storm/

[Sierra99]

Then let's yank out the middling A-10. If your argument is loiter time, then the AC-130s can out loiter you by many many hours.

 

What makes you think AC-130s aren't already being used in conjunction with A-10s? I'm pretty sure you're incorrect.

 

Furthermore, with aerial refueling assets in a permissive environment, which is the only one the A-10 is capable of operating in, loiter time is effectively pilot endurance time, which the F-35 with its superior ergonomics and easy to use sensor systems better helps compensate for.

 

WOW! Above all else This statement proves you don't know the first thing about Air Force pilots, Combat Operations or what the men and women flying Military Aircraft are capable of. "Superior ergonomics and easy to use sensor systems"... Really? How ever do B-1, B-2, B-52, crews survive flying 18-20 hours at a time in their antiquated relics? What happens when F-15, F-16 and F-18 Crews get extended in the Area because their Relief didn't launch on time? And in in case you missed it, we've operated in a "Permissive Environment' in Afghanistan for about 13 years. To say you overestimate the advanced threats from the Taliban and ISIS is an understatement.

 

That's the point, it's a future system moving forward, something the F-35 will have capability to use, and the A-10 does not. Furthermore, LSDBs are already being used off of Strike Eagles, so it's a weapon system already being employed.

 

Since the SDB IIs use the MIL-STD-1760 Aircraft/Store Electrical Interconnection System it's quite probable they CAN be dropped from the A-10C if they choose to do so. But I'm sure you knew that..>Right?

 

Operation Desert Storm. A-10s were unable to deal with the old soviet era anti aircraft weapons and suffered an attrition rate so high, they were pulled off the line. Most of their work was filled in for by Apache Gunships, and F-111s with laser guided bombs. The war the A-10 was designed for chewed it up and spat it out.

 

The whole "A-10 attrition rates were so high, they were pulled off the line" story is complete and utter BS. It is an Urban Legend started by the people wanting to retire the A-10.

"The Air Force deployed 144 A-10s into the AOR. Air superiority allowed innovative employment of A-10s in a variety of roles. Primarily killing tanks in an interdiction role, the A-10 proved its versatility as a daytime SCUD hunter In Western Iraq, suppressing enemy air defenses, attacking early warning radars, and even recorded two helicopter kills with its gun --- the only gun kills of the war. While the A-10 flew almost 8,100 sorties, it maintained a mission capable rate of 95.7 % --- 5 % above its peacetime rates. Despite numerous hits and extensive damage, the A-10 proved it could do a variety of missions successfully."

 

6 A-10s were lost during Desert Storm. Check your facts:

http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/a10_combat_losses.htm

Talk about misleading.

 

Again, that is the point, you can see individuals and differentiate them. You can see the equipment soldiers are carrying. EODAS is leagues above what you can see.

 

The EOTS (That's what you meant right) is really nothing more than an internally mounted SNIPER pod...Nothing cosmic or revolutionary. I don't think you understand the mechanics of Close Air Support. Do you believe the F-35 is going to fly around finding its own targets and prosecuting those targets without guidance and direction from the ground? Because its not. Close Air support is DIRECTED by the people on the ground telling the supporting aircraft where THEY want the ordnance delivered. Pretty much rendering all your fancy EODASEOTSABCDEFG irrelevant. The sniper POD will be useful...But its not "all that"

 

Not irrelevant, you're mistaking what it was. The test was to figure out limitations of the control system as programmed at the time, it was not a combat test. To say it was is disingenuous.

 

I let you have this one previously. Now I'm gonna eviscerate it.

First in case you missed it, NOW the failure during the test is being blamed on the wrong paint. To be blunt, The whole "It was just a test and doesn't matter" story stinks of Lockheed/Martin covering their ass.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html

"The test was to figure out limitations of the control system as programmed at the time"

If this were true there is no way on the earth a report from the pilot would have been written the way. Test reports are filled with references to "Expected Behaviors vs Demonstrated Behaviors" and "Configuration being tested" and the Test results. The report that hit the internet was written in the tone of person who just lost his lunch money to a 10 year old bully on the playground and he was pissed. It was written as a factual account of what happened. It listed shortcomings and problems from the standpoint of actual performance, not just testing.

 

 

The second issue had NOTHING to do with the F-35 handling capabilities. There were serious concerns raise about the "ergonomics" of the F-35 cockpit.

“The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.”

Basically the F-35 Pilot was blind when he got into a turning fight...and died.

 

EDIT: Also, to add something, to claim that the F-16 picture i posted earlier, with 6 feet off of its right wing ripped off in a collision is somehow unable to be compared to battle damage, either represents a gross lack of understanding of the forces involved, or an attempt to mislead others.

Go back and check...I never said they were different. I pointed out you posted a picture of an Aircraft that was not damaged in battle. NOW you show me a picture of an F-16 that's had an Engine destroyed in combat that returned to base...I'll be impressed. Nobody is attempting to mislead anyone.

[Bullfrog_]

How ever do B-1, B-2, B-52, crews survive flying 18-20 hours at a time in their antiquated relics?

 

Idk about B-1 and B-52s but B-2 pilots have constantly complain about crew comfort and it's a big factor going into the B-21

 

“The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.”

 

"With regards to cockpit view alone, I had an advantage in the F-16, but I am still able to maintain visual contact with my opponent during aggressive maneuvering in the F-35. The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35." Major Morten Hanche

[Basher54321]

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2016/04/the-perfect-storm/

 

Interesting link thanks

 

As a former A-10 pilot, when Sabin was selected to join the 31st TES, he was keen to bring his CAS experience to the F-35. The new jet has been touted as an eventual replacement for legacy airframes, such as the F-16s and A-10s. This plan has spurred several head-to-head comparisons in the media, especially between the A-10 and the F-35. To Sabin, however, that match up is like comparing “apples to chainsaws.”

 

They are two totally different things that serve totally different purposes,” he explained. “The bottom line is the A-10 does certain things very well. It is very effective as a close air support platform. The F-35 does certain things very well, and when you leverage its capabilities correctly, it can be very effective as a CAS platform.

 

“I think the important point to note is to find that fine balance between where to use one versus where to use another. I wouldn’t feed myself with a chainsaw. Vice versa, I wouldn’t try to cut down a tree with an apple. They’re just different, and they have different capabilities.”

 

Even though the two airframes vary in many ways, Sabin believes his new jet can be just as efficient as the A-10 he once flew.

 

“The biggest thing … is the training of the pilot in the platform,” Sabin said. “We are going to take a lot of the lessons learned that the A-10s have in their close air support experience, apply it to our platform, continue to integrate with those guys on the spectrum of CAS operations, and build our CAS playbook, like they have done for so many years.”

[Sierra99]

Lieutenant General Charles A. Horner, Central Air Forces Commander: http://mackenzieproductions.com/Gen._Horner.html

 

Horner is a classic example of a prick who simply didn't like the A-10C. Empirical evidence, Combat Loses vs Sorties flown and Mission Capable rate shows he was wrong.

[Basher54321]

6 A-10s were lost during Desert Storm. Check your facts:

Talk about misleading.

.

 

 

That site will also give you a list of some of the battle damaged A-10s that were stuck on the ramp. ;)

 

http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/abdr-home.htm

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html

.

 

 

 

FYI we don't need edited word from a third rate UK news rag when the (supposed) original journalist (David Axe) supplied the actual copy from the program - which I gather you have never seen.

 

Take note to read the first paragraph - very important

 

https://warisboring.com/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb#.5myycg9s3

 

The press release from LM was also public - and got to say seemed to make little attempt to defend the press reports :thumbup:

[Sierra99]

Take note to read the first paragraph - very important

 

My apologies. I could not find the original. Closest I found paraphrased the original. However, The last page is still pretty damming. NO matter what they do with flight software, the F-35 is going to be energy limited.

 

Sierra

[Mike5560]

 

Long winded video, but lots of information.

[Bullfrog_]

 

Long winded video, but lots of information.

 

 

Generally allright stuff but some of the stuff not regarding the F-35 is factually wrong

[Wolverine88]

IMHO...use the F35 to "kick the door down" by doing the SEAD mission and have the A-10's follow them in to the FEBA to put a serious hurtin' on the AFV's...

[Tirak]

What makes you think AC-130s aren't already being used in conjunction with A-10s? I'm pretty sure you're incorrect.

 

Why use A-10s at all if i can just fly AC-130s for longer loiter times, since that is according to you, the most important judge of an aircraft.

 

 

WOW! Above all else This statement proves you don't know the first thing about Air Force pilots, Combat Operations or what the men and women flying Military Aircraft are capable of. "Superior ergonomics and easy to use sensor systems"... Really? How ever do B-1, B-2, B-52, crews survive flying 18-20 hours at a time in their antiquated relics? What happens when F-15, F-16 and F-18 Crews get extended in the Area because their Relief didn't launch on time? And in in case you missed it, we've operated in a "Permissive Environment' in Afghanistan for about 13 years. To say you overestimate the advanced threats from the Taliban and ISIS is an understatement.

 

B-1, B-2, B-52=/=A10, I'm not quite sure where you got that mixed up... :doh:

 

Of course pilots can get extended, however there is a measurable loss of pilot efficiency past a certain point in the air. This can be extended by removing stress, such as a better cockpit layout, better automation or easier to use sensors. It's the reason why aircraft like the Su-34 have a kitchenette in back. Do please try to keep up.

 

 

 

Since the SDB IIs use the MIL-STD-1760 Aircraft/Store Electrical Interconnection System it's quite probable they CAN be dropped from the A-10C if they choose to do so. But I'm sure you knew that..>Right?

 

Could be, hasn't. Just like an F-14D could fire AMRAAMs, they just weren't set up for it :lol:

 

 

The whole "A-10 attrition rates were so high, they were pulled off the line" story is complete and utter BS. It is an Urban Legend started by the people wanting to retire the A-10.

"The Air Force deployed 144 A-10s into the AOR. Air superiority allowed innovative employment of A-10s in a variety of roles. Primarily killing tanks in an interdiction role, the A-10 proved its versatility as a daytime SCUD hunter In Western Iraq, suppressing enemy air defenses, attacking early warning radars, and even recorded two helicopter kills with its gun --- the only gun kills of the war. While the A-10 flew almost 8,100 sorties, it maintained a mission capable rate of 95.7 % --- 5 % above its peacetime rates. Despite numerous hits and extensive damage, the A-10 proved it could do a variety of missions successfully."

 

6 A-10s were lost during Desert Storm. Check your facts:

http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/a10_combat_losses.htm

Talk about misleading.

 

Hilariously and thoroughly debunked by others and the quote of the US Air Force General. :smilewink:

 

The EOTS (That's what you meant right) is really nothing more than an internally mounted SNIPER pod...Nothing cosmic or revolutionary. I don't think you understand the mechanics of Close Air Support. Do you believe the F-35 is going to fly around finding its own targets and prosecuting those targets without guidance and direction from the ground? Because its not. Close Air support is DIRECTED by the people on the ground telling the supporting aircraft where THEY want the ordnance delivered. Pretty much rendering all your fancy EODASEOTSABCDEFG irrelevant. The sniper POD will be useful...But its not "all that"

 

It's far easier to get someone on target, when everybody knows what they're looking at, the 360 coverage provided by the F-35s sensors make it far easier to figure out what's around you, the combined with the targeting system itself, it can get itself on target with far less hassle and from far greater distances. Otherwise we get situations like the aforementioned friendly fire incident, where everybody is talking about something else because nobody knows where each other is looking.

 

 

I let you have this one previously. Now I'm gonna eviscerate it.

First in case you missed it, NOW the failure during the test is being blamed on the wrong paint. To be blunt, The whole "It was just a test and doesn't matter" story stinks of Lockheed/Martin covering their ass.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html

"The test was to figure out limitations of the control system as programmed at the time"

If this were true there is no way on the earth a report from the pilot would have been written the way. Test reports are filled with references to "Expected Behaviors vs Demonstrated Behaviors" and "Configuration being tested" and the Test results. The report that hit the internet was written in the tone of person who just lost his lunch money to a 10 year old bully on the playground and he was pissed. It was written as a factual account of what happened. It listed shortcomings and problems from the standpoint of actual performance, not just testing.

 

Several things were pointed out as for the reason that the test happened the way it did, and while yes, lack of the advanced radar absorbent materials, the full work up of weaponry and the full programming of the avionics computer, none of this really matters. Lockheed is 'spinning' it that way because explaining to Joe Idiot the difference between testing the limits of the current CLAW program and a full on dogfight is like trying bail water with a sieve, so they chose to focus on the things Joe Idiot could understand, such as the fact that this fight will never occur. Now I could go on, but someone earlier has already mentioned the pilot opinions of the bird, such as 'It's an F-18 with Turbo', not a direct quote, so I'll leave it to them.

 

The second issue had NOTHING to do with the F-35 handling capabilities. There were serious concerns raise about the "ergonomics" of the F-35 cockpit.

“The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.”

Basically the F-35 Pilot was blind when he got into a turning fight...and died.

 

Previous generation helmet used for testing. :doh:

 

 

Go back and check...I never said they were different. I pointed out you posted a picture of an Aircraft that was not damaged in battle. NOW you show me a picture of an F-16 that's had an Engine destroyed in combat that returned to base...I'll be impressed. Nobody is attempting to mislead anyone.

 

Nice Try...Mid Air Collisions and Combat Damage are completely separate issues.

 

You're gonna have to parse this one for me because to me this pretty clearly reads as you don't seem to think a mid air collision and combat damage can be considered as comparable. :huh:

 

I notice that anyone who says anything good about the F-35 is a Lockheed shill, anyone who says anything bad about the A-10 is a stupid prick no matter what position they used to hold such as... Lieutenant General, US Central Air Command... interesting no?

Edited May 3, 2016 by Tirak

[SkateZilla]

there's a dozen or so active airframes that can drop precision and/or unguided ordinance.

 

Remove that and you got:

- Fly Low and Slow and Loiter Time over Battlefield

- Brrrrrrt

 

 

F-35 cannot do either.

 

 

The Plan would be F-35s for SEAD of S2A,

AC-130s Fly in and Orbit with Brrrt and Super Pew Pews.

F-35s Continue to Fly Scanning for S2A Threats to AC-130

 

Anything that needs upclose and personal would use Rotary Wing.

Edited May 3, 2016 by SkateZilla

[Tirak]

there's a dozen or so active airframes that can drop precision and/or unguided ordinance.

 

Remove that and you got:

- Fly Low and Slow and Loiter Time over Battlefield

- Brrrrrrt

 

 

F-35 cannot do either.

 

 

The Plan would be F-35s for SEAD of S2A,

AC-130s Fly in and Orbit with Brrrt and Super Pew Pews.

F-35s Continue to Fly Scanning for S2A Threats to AC-130

 

Anything that needs upclose and personal would use Rotary Wing.

 

Except fighters can do low level strafing runs if required. F-16s and F-18s get called in to do them. It's just they have far better tools at their disposal more often. It's not that the A-10 does low and slow better than everyone else, it's that the A-10 only does low and slow, which when you're putting it like that, you may as well call in the Apaches who do low and slow better than anyone on the block, AC-130s who hang around forever, or call in all that wonderful artillery we've spent so long developing.

[SkateZilla]

A-10s are Equipped for Strafing and survivability to small arms/caliber fire from the ground,

 

F-18s, -16s,and -35s don't have the Amour Bucket and the 30MM GAU/8

[Vampyre]

there's a dozen or so active airframes that can drop precision and/or unguided ordinance.

 

Remove that and you got:

- Fly Low and Slow and Loiter Time over Battlefield

- Brrrrrrt

 

 

F-35 cannot do either.

 

 

The Plan would be F-35s for SEAD of S2A,

AC-130s Fly in and Orbit with Brrrt and Super Pew Pews.

F-35s Continue to Fly Scanning for S2A Threats to AC-130

 

Anything that needs upclose and personal would use Rotary Wing.

 

Only problem with the AC-130 is that, at about almost $200 million for an AC-130U, it's flyaway cost is almost as much if not more than an F-35 and it is a lot more vulnerable than an A-10. That and there are so few of them, less than 50 airframes of all versions combined, that the ones we do have are overtasked as it is supporting JSOC, you know their parent command. ... and before someone says Apache, the AH-64's are also more expensive than the A-10 in both flyaway and operational costs even with inflation factored in. AH-64's are also vulnerable to the same air defenses as the A-10 and more (think rifle caliber and RPG's) if they fly a NOE profile. The only major attack carried out by Apaches in Iraq 2003 ended rather poorly for them. Until a suitable replacement is designed, the A-10 is still a needed asset here and now.

[Tirak]

A-10s are Equipped for Strafing and survivability to small arms/caliber fire from the ground,

 

F-18s, -16s,and -35s don't have the Amour Bucket and the 30MM GAU/8

 

All three have a gun and strafe programs on their avionics systems, all three can perform the role, the A-10 however can't fill any of the other roles of the other three aircraft.

[SkateZilla]

Im aware they all have A2G Gun Modes

 

Like I said, the others DONT have Armour Buckets around the Pilots or a 30MM GAU/8.

[Tirak]

Im aware they all have A2G Gun Modes

 

Like I said, the others DONT have Armour Buckets around the Pilots or a 30MM GAU/8.

 

Not arguing with you on that point, but what I'm saying is that the others can do strafing runs with their guns, an A-10 can't run a CAP or do long range strikes on a defended position, or SEAD, ect. ect. ect.

[probad]

so you want all the expense of moving another plane and all its required support personnel and logistics to theater just for the sake of going into manpad range for a gun run against soft targets that could just as well be taken out more safely by any number of ways by assets already in theater

 

 

like i get it riding a 30mm down is really cool and it makes a great sound but there's no room for romance in war

Edited May 3, 2016 by probad

[Hummingbird]

Err... did someone forget that the A-10 also carries LGB's, Mavericks and rockets?

 

It's not like all the A-10 can do is go "Brrrrrrrrt", that's just a really nice addition once the bombs & missiles are expended, or if the target poses no threat to aircraft and you want to limit the damage to the surrounding area.

 

By comparison using a fighter for gun runs is pretty risky considering that it lacks the same durability vs small arms fire that a A-10 does.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Hummingbird

[probad]

did someone forget the us precision a2g inventory is not limited to mavericks and rockets and those weapons are in fact on the way out? and that pretty much all the other airplanes are the ones that are and will be carrying them, not the a-10?

 

gbu? not exclusive to the a-10

sdb? not on the a-10

jsow? not on the a-10

 

furthermore none of these weapons require resistance to small caliber ballistics.

when you try to argue that small arms protection is a plus for the a-10 you are arguing for the 30mm, because really no other weapon necessitates flying low enough to warrant said protection.

perhaps you should take a step back and appreciate how silly it is to imply that us aerial striking power hinges upon a 30mm cannon as we move on into the 21st century.

Edited May 4, 2016 by probad

[Hummingbird]

Problem is that you can't always use bombs, either because you need to limit the damage to the surrounding area or if your own troops are very close to the enemy. That's just the reality of CAS atm.

[Tirak]

Problem is that you can't always use bombs, either because you need to limit the damage to the surrounding area or if your own troops are very close to the enemy. That's just the reality of CAS atm.

 

Small Diameter Bomb Focused Leathality Munition has you covered.

[Hummingbird]

Small Diameter Bomb Focused Leathality Munition has you covered.

 

Not applicable in all situations as it's still a bomb, also the A-10 is to recieve this as well.