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

[Snoopy]

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

 

No offense Snoopy, I know you are in the loop on things but are you saying the A-10C don't need any upgrades and can just go in to the fight as it is? I'm pretty sure I have seen requests for upgrades that have been denied in the budget process. Needed new more powerful engines, new radar, new helmet, new radio etc. Much needed wing replacement being stopped by Obama also that ended some 4 squadrons due to old airframes. Are you saying this is not true? :huh:

 

Where did I say that? Not sure where you're getting your info for upgrades but many of the things you listed have already happened. What you quoted from my earlier post has nothing to do with upgrades and everything to do people who don't have any real (aka first hand) knowledge are the most vocal on which is better. Both are great aicraft but they were designed for two entirely different situations.

 

New powerful engines - talked about the last 20 years, won't happen.

New radar- the A-10 has never had radar.

New helmet- already done (HMCS)

New radio - already done (duel arc-210)

Wing replacement - ongoing, the retirement of airframes had nothing to do with this and everything to do with $$$$ and moving said $$$ to the F-35

 

Every aircraft in he USAF inventory is constantly being upgraded. We did TCTO's even while deployed. Hell, even the F-35, which technically isn't combat coded for the USAF yet is being upgraded.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Snoopy

[HiJack]

New radar- the A-10 has never had radar.

My bad. It was talk about a new system keeping contact with the JTAC, or showing position of the JTAC. No specifics.

Edited May 5, 2016 by HiJack

[HiJack]

Hell, even the F-35, which technically isn't combat coded for the USAF yet is being upgraded.

Yes I know, it have also reached the museum :music_whistling:

 

Engine not fully developed but will be in service 2022. More thrust and lower fuel consumption. That must be a good thing :thumbup:

[Sierra99]

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.

 

A strafing run from an F-16 or Mudhen simply isn't the same thing. "Can" they do it...sure. Were they "designed" to. No. not even close. The Gun in the F-16 and F-15 are optimized for Air to Air. Not Air to ground. And the gun in the F-35 with 180 rounds of ammunition is at best an afterthought...in reality it's an outright joke to imply it compares with the GAU-8. ( Not hyperbole...fact)

 

Finally, you keep ignoring the fact that when all said and done, all of your fancy sensors and gadgets mean absolutely nothing when attacking a 23mm anti aircraft gun that's mounted in the back of a Toyota Land Cruiser in an urban area. The F-35 was never designed to take that kind of abuse and survive.

 

The A-10 WAS.

[NineLine]

Finally, you keep ignoring the fact that when all said and done, all of your fancy sensors and gadgets mean absolutely nothing when attacking a 23mm anti aircraft gun that's mounted in the back of a Toyota Land Cruiser in an urban area. The F-35 was never designed to take that kind of abuse and survive.

 

The A-10 WAS.

 

Why would a F-35 want to do a gun run on that anyways... just based on your example of course, why would an A-10 want to do a gun run on that :) (I am assuming gun run as you are talking about the abuse the A-10 can take)

Edited May 5, 2016 by NineLine

[Sierra99]

Why would a F-35 want to do a gun run on that anyways... just based on your example of course, why would an A-10 want to do a gun run on that :) (I am assuming gun run as you are talking about the abuse the A-10 can take)

 

Correct. The A-10 was Designed to withstand damage from ground fire and has demonstrated the ability of do so quite well. It was designed to withstand damage from ground fire because that's the environment it was designed to operate in. By all accounts and beliefs, the F-35 is going to kill everyone from the next time zone using gizmos and gadgets...

 

What if it can't? What if it comes down to a gun run on a position that might be protected by a 37mm gun to safe troops on the ground. Which aircraft is better suited for the job and in fact designed for the job.

[Sweep]

Correct. The A-10 was Designed to withstand damage from ground fire and has demonstrated the ability of do so quite well. It was designed to withstand damage from ground fire because that's the environment it was designed to operate in. By all accounts and beliefs, the F-35 is going to kill everyone from the next time zone using gizmos and gadgets...

 

What if it can't? What if it comes down to a gun run on a position that might be protected by a 37mm gun to safe troops on the ground. Which aircraft is better suited for the job and in fact designed for the job.

 

The difference is that an F-35 would come in with way more knots and perhaps a different strafe angle.

 

Also, take into account that the real world doesn't have DCS AI in Zu-23s. :lol:

 

As for the time zone stuff...Who knows, maybe F-35 will fly into a different time zone and fry like those Raptors did way back! :P

Edited May 5, 2016 by Sweep
lololol

[Sierra99]

The weapons threat from walking soldiers/terrorists in vehicles is greater now than for 25 years ago when the A-10 had its prime. Would you really fly low if the previous attacking A-10 was shot down by a SAM? The A-10 may stay in service but I believe it will need a heavy upgrade to discover new threats to survive new conflicts.

 

Once again I say...show me an example of an A-10 that was shot down by a SAM while conducting a CAS mission after Air Superiority was declared. (SAM, not MANPAD...two different threats) show me an example of A-10s "running away".

 

You can't.

[probad]

when imaginations run wild itt :doh:

Once again I say...show me an example of an A-10 that was shot down by a SAM while conducting a CAS mission after Air Superiority was declared. (SAM, not MANPAD...two different threats) show me an example of A-10s "running away".

 

You can't.

 

ofc not because the a-10 was, is, and will forevermore be relegated to a bitch role. all it can do is clean up the leftovers from more relevant aircraft that have better and more important things to do.

 

it does things that can pretty much be accomplished by any aircraft, both manned and unmanned, that can carry a pgm into the air.

literally the only thing the a-10's got left is its fart.

Edited May 5, 2016 by probad

[Snoopy]

The difference is that an F-35 would come in with way more knots and perhaps a different strafe angle.

 

And that speed alone will result in less accuracy. Same thing happens today with F-16's.

 

when imaginations run wild itt :doh:

 

 

ofc not because the a-10 was, is, and will forevermore be relegated to a bitch role. all it can do is clean up the leftovers from more relevant aircraft that have better and more important things to do.

 

it does things that can pretty much be accomplished by any aircraft, both manned and unmanned, that can carry a pgm into the air.

literally the only thing the a-10's got left is its fart.

 

Wow, I'd love for you to say this to an actual A-10 pilot so I could watch his reaction. We had the best FMC rate in all the AOR during my deployment, we constantly had to clean up what the 15s and 16s couldn't and we didn't miss one sortie. Can't say that for the other airframes.

 

Yeah, I take offense to this post. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, bitch roll my ass.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Snoopy

[Tirak]

 

Finally, you keep ignoring the fact that when all said and done, all of your fancy sensors and gadgets mean absolutely nothing when attacking a 23mm anti aircraft gun that's mounted in the back of a Toyota Land Cruiser in an urban area. The F-35 was never designed to take that kind of abuse and survive.

 

The A-10 WAS.

 

 

The SDB(FLM) was designed specifically for the scenario you've just described, and do so without placing the aircraft in the grip of anyone aiming up at the sky. Perhaps you should actually educate yourself on what sort of "fancy gizmos" you deride so thoughtlessly.

[Tirak]

Once again I say...show me an example of an A-10 that was shot down by a SAM while conducting a CAS mission after Air Superiority was declared. (SAM, not MANPAD...two different threats) show me an example of A-10s "running away".

 

You can't.

 

A-10s being yanked away from Air Defense? Gonna sound like a broken record here, buuuut, Operation Desert Storm. Unless of course you're going to tell me once again that the Lieutenant General is a lying prick again.

[RoflSeal]

A strafing run from an F-16 or Mudhen simply isn't the same thing. "Can" they do it...sure. Were they "designed" to. No. not even close. The Gun in the F-16 and F-15 are optimized for Air to Air. Not Air to ground. And the gun in the F-35 with 180 rounds of ammunition is at best an afterthought...in reality it's an outright joke to imply it compares with the GAU-8. ( Not hyperbole...fact)

 

Finally, you keep ignoring the fact that when all said and done, all of your fancy sensors and gadgets mean absolutely nothing when attacking a 23mm anti aircraft gun that's mounted in the back of a Toyota Land Cruiser in an urban area. The F-35 was never designed to take that kind of abuse and survive.

 

The A-10 WAS.

 

Are you saying the F-35's GAU-22 is not powerful enough to take out a pickup truck?

 

Or is it not accurate enough?

 

Because neither of those are true.

 

According to you, only the A-10 could do this

 

[ame]

[/ame] Edited May 5, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Snoopy]

Are you saying the F-35's GAU-22 is not powerful enough to take out a pickup truck?

 

Or is it not accurate enough?

 

Because neither of those are true.

 

According to you, only the A-10 could do this

 

 

Of course the 35 can, 180 rounds compared to 1150 though ;)

[NineLine]

Are you saying the F-35's GAU-22 is not powerful enough to take out a pickup truck?

 

Or is it not accurate enough?

 

Because neither of those are true.

 

According to you, only the A-10 could do this

 

 

 

I doubt that is what is being said, what is being said, where you have to go for a gun run like that probably wouldnt be healthy for any aircraft, but the A-10 would have better luck... that said, if its just a pickup truck with AA.. then I would rather just drop something on it :)

 

Wat is the saying... more than one way to skin a cat :)

[Sierra99]

when imaginations run wild itt :doh:

 

 

ofc not because the a-10 was, is, and will forevermore be relegated to a bitch role. all it can do is clean up the leftovers from more relevant aircraft that have better and more important things to do.

 

it does things that can pretty much be accomplished by any aircraft, both manned and unmanned, that can carry a pgm into the air.

literally the only thing the a-10's got left is its fart.

 

Probad comments like this make you look foolish. The Air Force uses different aircraft for different missions. Characterizing the A-10s mission as a "Bitch role cleaning up leftovers of more relevant aircraft" is ignorant and uninformed.

 

The fact of the matter is The Air Force "tried" to replace the A-10 with another aircraft (The A-16) and discovered the A-16 could not accomplish the mission effectively and scrapped the plan. In fact one of the chief arguments was the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire". Sounds a lot like what people are saying about the F-35. So much for your "Any plane THAT can carry a PGM theory.

 

Simply put, just because a plane can carry a PGM , has nifty new sensors or speed doesn't mean it's relevant to CAS. There are a whole lot more factors involved.

[Sweep]

Of course the 35 can, 180 rounds compared to 1150 though ;)

 

F-35s need some of these!

 

 

Hehe... :D

 

Actually, now I kinda wonder if they'll have the gunpod station available to the A...

[Sierra99]

Are you saying the F-35's GAU-22 is not powerful enough to take out a pickup truck?

 

Or is it not accurate enough?

 

Because neither of those are true.

 

According to you, only the A-10 could do this

 

 

Nope...I am saying they were not designed to do it as their primary use...big difference.

[Snoopy]

F-35s need some of these!

 

 

Hehe... :D

 

Actually, now I kinda wonder if they'll have the gunpod station available to the A...

 

That pod was a total failure.

[Sweep]

That pod was a total failure.

 

I know, that's why there's a "hehe" and a grin!

Edited May 6, 2016 by Sweep
Wrong 'w' word! lol

[Tirak]

Probad comments like this make you look foolish. The Air Force uses different aircraft for different missions. Characterizing the A-10s mission as a "Bitch role cleaning up leftovers of more relevant aircraft" is ignorant and uninformed.

 

The fact of the matter is The Air Force "tried" to replace the A-10 with another aircraft (The A-16) and discovered the A-16 could not accomplish the mission effectively and scrapped the plan. In fact one of the chief arguments was the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire". Sounds a lot like what people are saying about the F-35. So much for your "Any plane THAT can carry a PGM theory.

 

Simply put, just because a plane can carry a PGM , has nifty new sensors or speed doesn't mean it's relevant to CAS. There are a whole lot more factors involved.

 

A-16 failed because the gun got so hot it torched the inside of the fuselage and burned out the systems there. It was never produced in numbers. It also never had nearly the same sort of sensor capabilities the F-35 has. Your complaint has been the F-35 isn't tough enough to play down low and slow in a gunfight, and with modern PGMs, we say yeah, it doesn't have to thanks to better sensors, putting far more information at the pilots fingertips, allowing him to make better, more accurate decisions.

[Avimimus]

True the A-16 argument doesn't work that well because PGMs were much less common.

 

Hey, anyone remember the plan to put 3xGPU/5s on an F-15? They also tried mounting them to F-5s...

[HiJack]

Once again I say...show me an example of an A-10 that was shot down by a SAM while conducting a CAS mission after Air Superiority was declared. (SAM, not MANPAD...two different threats) show me an example of A-10s "running away".

 

You can't.

I'm not to start an argue with you but it seams to me you think the SAM and MANPAD development have stopped for 25 years ago. And not to speak of small arms, lookup APEX.

[Sierra99]

A-10s being yanked away from Air Defense? Gonna sound like a broken record here, buuuut, Operation Desert Storm.

 

"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."

 

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/whitepaper.html )

 

Unless of course you're going to tell me once again that the Lieutenant General is a lying prick again.

 

“The A-10 will not be used in a high threat environment. Seventy percent of the A-10s we used during the first Gulf War suffered battle damage. It’s a rugged airplane, but it’s not hard to hit.” Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff

 

"According to the survey, between January 17 and February 28, 1991, a fleet of 132 A-10s executed 7983 combat sorties. There were 13 recorded instances of battle damage from enemy fire. In addition, there were four combat losses.

 

"Even if we assume that each incident involved a separate aircraft and even if we ignore the fact that a total of 169 A-10s participated in the operation due to airframe rotations, the total proportion of the fleet suffering battle damage would be 12.9%.

 

This means Welsh exaggerated the battle damage rate by at least 57.1%.

 

He also went astray in saying the A-10 was “not hard to hit,” as the excerpted table below demonstrates. The fleet suffered just 1.6 damaged aircraft per 1000 sorties despite operating constantly within range of enemy anti-aircraft and shoulder-fired missile threats, and carried a loss rate among the lowest across the entire coalition."

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/csaf-misrepresents-a-10-combat-record-in-first-gulf-war/

 

Lying Prick? Well no. Welsh is a pretty nice guy. But is he fudging numbers to kill A-10....absolutely!

[HiJack]

Of course the 35 can, 180 rounds compared to 1150 though ;)

Problem solved:

[ame]https://www.nammo.com/globalassets/pdfs/mp-symposium/presentations-2014/25-mm-apex-for-the-f35-lightning-ii.pdf[/ame]