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

[seastate]

www.military.com f35-to-go-up-against-a10-in-common-sense-war-scenario-showdownl

 

 

My money's on the A-10 of course

[Nooch]

It all depends on the scenario. In a heavy SAM environment the F-35 wins hands down. In low intensity conflicts like we have nowadays the A-10 is the better option.

[Tirak]

It all depends on the scenario. In a heavy SAM environment the F-35 wins hands down. In low intensity conflicts like we have nowadays the A-10 is the better option.

 

It doesn't matter. If the A-10 does anything better than the F-35, say, gunnery accuracy, then the A-10 crowd will scream how superior their aircraft is to the F-35, even if it fails in any meaningful category. If the F-35 wins, it's just "teh corrupt airfarce brass who hate teh army". There is literally no point to this competition, the A-10 will be retired, the F-35 will overtake its roles, this changes nothing except waste time and money the Air Force already doesn't have thanks to congress insisting on mandating the Air Force keep the A-10 on hand, but not funding the maintenance nor personnel costs to do so.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Tirak

[HiJack]

F-35 considering the enemy have new SAM system.

 

If taking out trucks on a lonely road somewhere in the mountains with no SAM but plenty of manpads, then also the F-35.

 

In the case a Jtac calls in the need for a strike, the F-35 would have solved the problem before the A-10 had reached 10 miles from homebase.

[Gliptal]

I love the A-10, but it's a plane born in the 70s and is not meant to survive the current generation of IADS. The only reason it's still in service is that it prooved to be astonishingly good in COIN operation, but the F-35 can still fill in that role barring minor problems like loiter time.

 

The golden era of the first Desert Storm are hardly a valid example of its capabilities, since the airspace was entirely in control of the coalition and no real IADS existed after the first SEAD strikes got rid of most of it. I doubt Russia (or China) would capitulate the skies so easily as Iraq did back then. And besides, that whole campaign was flown with an hard deck of 10000ft, the exact opposite of what an A-10 is expected to do. The only scenario where I see the A-10 being actually useful in an all out war is the ipothetic clash of the two Koreas, since North Korea has a pretty old military, and its IADS mostly consists of AAA and MANPADS.

 

The 30mm gun is amazing, but probably also overkill nowadays. You wouldn't see the A-10 hitting tank columns in case of big wars anyways, since they would be blown out of the skies by SAMs long before that.

 

The F-35 is the future, and no amount of bad press will change that. Newspapers have to sell, websites need clicks, and TV channels need views: negative news always bring more audience than positive ones. Let's not forget this is the first big military project born and raised under the internet era, I'd be curious to see what the comments on the F-16 could have been if the interconnected world we live in now existed at the time of its development.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Gliptal

[HiJack]

The F-35 Gun will be much more precise, hit at further distance, and even do more damage pr. round than the A-10C.

 

https://www.nammo.com/what-we-do/ammunition/medium-caliber/

[Sweep]

(snip)

 

Can't rep you... :(

 

Good post. :thumbup:

[probad]

times are changing

sure dinosaurs are cool but at the end of the cretaceous they're still dinosaurs.

[ricktoberfest]

And it only does it all at a bargain 3x the cost per flight hour. (I'm guessing but I'm probably not far off)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sierra99]

The F-35 Gun will be much more precise, hit at further distance, and even do more damage pr. round than the A-10C.

 

https://www.nammo.com/what-we-do/ammunition/medium-caliber/

 

LOL...181 rounds verses 1180 rounds...that's cute...what else does the F-35 do "better"?

 

The F-35 is a joke. It's a joke even politicians a growing tired of. Better to cancel it now and spend the money improving existing systems and start looking for a real next gen fighter.

 

Sierra

[NeilWillis]

I guess it depends on the world in which you live. If you're up against terrorists with severely limited air defences, then the F22 is an expensive waste of effort. If however you decide to invade a modern, well equipped country with intact and up to date air defence capabilities, then the F22 suddenly has meaning.

 

Oh and of course, basing your defensive strategy on a technology that is bound to become obsolete at some point in the none too distant future can be very foolhardy. I'm guessing before another decade is out, the radar systems of even third world coutries will be able to defeat stealth. Just look at history.

 

History demonstrates that the top brass of the US Air Force have made some pretty absurd assumptions, (nuclear offensive capability a la Dr Strangelove) and time alone will tell just how good the F22 may or may not be.

 

I have a feeling if the superpowers cross swords at any time, the least of our worries will be F22s penetrating air defences!

[StandingCow]

I guess it depends on the world in which you live. If you're up against terrorists with severely limited air defences, then the F22 is an expensive waste of effort. If however you decide to invade a modern, well equipped country with intact and up to date air defence capabilities, then the F22 suddenly has meaning.

 

Oh and of course, basing your defensive strategy on a technology that is bound to become obsolete at some point in the none too distant future can be very foolhardy. I'm guessing before another decade is out, the radar systems of even third world coutries will be able to defeat stealth. Just look at history.

 

History demonstrates that the top brass of the US Air Force have made some pretty absurd assumptions, (nuclear offensive capability a la Dr Strangelove) and time alone will tell just how good the F22 may or may not be.

 

I have a feeling if the superpowers cross swords at any time, the least of our worries will be F22s penetrating air defences!

 

Yep, that's pretty much what I was going to say... against terrorists the A-10 fits the role much better, it can provide long loitering support that the enemy can see and therefore fear. It lowers enemy morale and raises friendly morale.

 

But against an actual army with capabilities near ours... the A-10 would not do well without lots of support behind it, whereas the F35/F22 (or any fast mover for that matter) can strike fast, fill multiple roles and get out of there.

 

Both are valid airframes and valuable, but it just depends on their role.

Edited April 29, 2016 by StandingCow

[Sierra99]

The F-35 is the future, and no amount of bad press will change that. Newspapers have to sell, websites need clicks, and TV channels need views: negative news always bring more audience than positive ones. Let's not forget this is the first big military project born and raised under the internet era, I'd be curious to see what the comments on the F-16 could have been if the interconnected world we live in now existed at the time of its development.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/19/house-legislation-orders-f-22-restart-study/83248788/

 

I'm gonna leave this here...

 

You can sing the praises of the F-35 all day and night but the simple fact is...it's an albatross. It a Jack of trades and the master of absolutely nothing. And before you try to play this off as more "Bad Press" remember this. For the House to order this kind of study means they've already looked at the numbers and they KNOW ditching the F-35 is going to save money. They just want their numbers confirmed. Fact is it might be painful to start... but doing so would allow us to actually start buying aircraft that can actually do the job.

 

If Lockheed even THINKS the F-35 is gonna get cancelled, they will make DAMN sure buying more F-22s a really attractive altenative. AND the fact numerous F-35 buyers have backed out altogether or are showing concern means there is an Export market for the F-22 that didn't exist before...and Lockheed is smart enough to parley that to their advantage.

 

If you really think the F-35 is too big to fail you really need to study American military / congress relations.

 

Sierra

[Padi]

The A-10 is much more cheaper, has more ammunition, has a loiter time which is so much more than the F-35 could provide and it doesn't get destroyed by one single hit like the all-in-one-but-nothing-well-thing called F-35, which would never survive in a high thread scenario...

[sobek]

In the case a Jtac calls in the need for a strike, the F-35 would have solved the problem before the A-10 had reached 10 miles from homebase.

 

A-10s would be loitering just around the next corner, waiting for tasks.

[Vampyre]

It doesn't matter because both platforms are needed.

 

There is a lot of back and forth about the Air Force retiring the A-10 in favor of the F-35. The A-10 has capabilities that the F-35 cannot match and the F-35 has capabilities the A-10 cannot match. Trying to make one aircraft do the others job is not the best decision. The F-35 will be a great F-117 and F-16 replacement for the Air Force. To replace the A-10 something else is needed, something with loiter, combat persistence, overpowering punch, physical survivability, slow speed maneuvering capability and fiscal sustainability. Those are the A-10's strengths and are weaknesses of the F-35. Even with it's lack of stealth and other advanced technologies in the face of an integrated IADS the A-10 can still be effective where it was originally intended to operate on a modern battlefield, the FEBA. If we are fighting a near peer war correctly the first thing to go will be the enemy IADS. A weakened or non existent IADS (think Persian Gulf War 1991, 2003 or Afghanistan) allows the A-10 to be highly effective at all ground attack missions (CAS, BAI, Strike, COIN, CSAR Escort) for a lot less cost than an F-35 will provide. Right now Russia and China are the focus but we will still be fighting religious zealots for the foreseeable future as well and to continue running our expensive top end fighters airframe lives out to fight a man in a cave with an AK-47, as we have been doing for the past 15 years, is a losing proposition. This will be exacerbated if the A-10 is retired with no comparable replacement and the F-35 is forced to perform the roles of the A-10.

[Tirak]

LOL...181 rounds verses 1180 rounds...that's cute...what else does the F-35 do "better"?

 

Well lets go through the short list shall we?

 

Faster

Carries a heavier payload

Carries greater variety of weapons when deployed

Stealth

VASTLY Superior sensors (To stop those A-10s shooting up British Convoy problems they've been having)

Better countermeasure suite

Capable of self defense

 

As for toughness. Pictured here, the glorious A-10, the only aircraft in the airforce capable of taking a hit and flying on:

 

Oh wait...

[Sierra99]

It doesn't matter because both platforms are needed.

 

Vampyre I can agree with this statement to a limited point. I think the F-35 is a good fit for the Marines. It gives them a high performance strike aircraft. The problem was, there was no was to justify the costs for such a limited market. They HAD to market it as the replacement for EVERYTHING which is where it fails.

 

There is a lot of back and forth about the Air Force retiring the A-10 in favor of the F-35. The A-10 has capabilities that the F-35 cannot match and the F-35 has capabilities the A-10 cannot match.

 

Well, Yes and No. You cant really make this comparison because the A-10 is REALLY GOOD at the everything it was Designed to do. More importantly...the A-10 was never designed to be a fighter...

 

 

Trying to make one aircraft do the others job is not the best decision. The F-35 will be a great F-117 and F-16 replacement for the Air Force. To replace the A-10 something else is needed, something with loiter, combat persistence, overpowering punch, physical survivability, slow speed maneuvering capability and fiscal sustainability.

 

Your last sentence is really important. Fiscal Sustainability. I'll add to it "Fiscally responsible". We have a CAS Aircraft. Most if not all of the fleet just got new wings so structurally they're good for YEARS to come. Wouldn't it would make far more FISCAL sense to use money being wasted on the F-35 and "Studies" for a CAS replacement to extend the service life of the A-10? Seriously, there are relatively inexpensive things that can be done to extend the service life of the A-10 for many years beyond what it was "designed for" (Apparently nobody here has ever heard of the KC-135 and B-52.) And not to put too fine a point on it but the A-10, F-15 and F-16 are ALL the same age and ALL have received upgrades over the years. Implying the A-10 is outdated because of it's "Age" is an excuse. Nothing more.

 

 

 

Those are the A-10's strengths and are weaknesses of the F-35. Even with it's lack of stealth and other advanced technologies in the face of an integrated IADS the A-10 can still be effective where it was originally intended to operate on a modern battlefield, the FEBA. If we are fighting a near peer war correctly the first thing to go will be the enemy IADS. A weakened or non existent IADS (think Persian Gulf War 1991, 2003 or Afghanistan) allows the A-10 to be highly effective at all ground attack missions (CAS, BAI, Strike, COIN, CSAR Escort) for a lot less cost than an F-35 will provide. Right now Russia and China are the focus but we will still be fighting religious zealots for the foreseeable future as well and to continue running our expensive top end fighters airframe lives out to fight a man in a cave with an AK-47, as we have been doing for the past 15 years, is a losing proposition. This will be exacerbated if the A-10 is retired with no comparable replacement and the F-35 is forced to perform the roles of the A-10.

 

Well said.

[RoflSeal]

LOL...181 rounds verses 1180 rounds...that's cute...what else does the F-35 do "better"?

 

The F-35 is a joke. It's a joke even politicians a growing tired of. Better to cancel it now and spend the money improving existing systems and start looking for a real next gen fighter.

 

Sierra

 

Su-25

 

250 rounds

 

 

DAE SU-25 TERRIBLE GROUND ATTACK LELELELELLEL!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

 

GAU-22 has pretty much got double the accuracy

 

 

 

Never know, could the difference between taking just Abdul Al-ISIS in his Toyota pickup or him together with Kashim in the school 50ft away

Edited April 29, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Sweep]

This will be exacerbated if the A-10 is retired with no comparable replacement and the F-35 is forced to perform the roles of the A-10.

 

 

COIN? Yep, only cost a few coins, as well. :thumbup:

[probad]

hell bring back the bronco if you want a real coin plane.

[Sierra99]

Well lets go through the short list shall we?

 

Faster

Irrelevant with regards to CAS mission. How about we compare Loiter time...

 

Carries a heavier payload

F-35 13,000lbs / A-10C 16,000lbs...You must be using Common Core math.

 

Carries greater variety of weapons when deployed

Pretty much irrelevant as far as CAS mission goes. However, if the weapons in question has a CAS application uses the MIL-STD-1760 buss...It will find its way to the A-10.

 

Stealth

Irrelevant with regards to CAS mission. In fact it's pretty common for A-10s to make passes to ANNOUNCE their arrival.

 

VASTLY Superior sensors (To stop those A-10s shooting up British Convoy problems they've been having)

Irrelevant with regards to CAS mission unless the F-35 has a magical sensor that replaces the Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball.

(And sorry, I work nights and don't see much news. Did something happened recently or did you really go back to 2003 to dredge up an example of a Friendly Fire Incident? )

 

Better countermeasure suite

Irrelevant with regards to CAS mission.

 

Capable of self defense

Irrelevant with regards to CAS mission. AND lets not forget an F-16 took its lunch money Over and Over again.

 

As for toughness. Pictured here, the glorious A-10, the only aircraft in the airforce capable of taking a hit and flying on:

 

Oh wait...

 

Nice Try...Mid Air Collisions and Combat Damage are completely separate issues. Take a really close look at the Second Picture and you'll see THAT engine is incapable of providing thrust. Good thing the Hawg has 2 right!

(How many does the F-35 have?)

[Sierra99]

 

COIN? Yep, only cost a few coins, as well. :thumbup:

 

LAWL...LOOK A TARGET.

 

Seriously Sweep? You do really believe the Turcano is a replacement for the A-10?

 

Seriously?

[RoflSeal]

F-35 airframe is probably more durable to battle damage then you would think.

 

Firstly like all modern jets, it uses a lifting body, so even if more then half its wing is missing, it can still fly back and land.

 

A-10 meanwhile is a tube with wings.

 

 

Secondly and most importantly, the electro-hydrostatic actuators on the F-35 for flight control surfaces are fully self contained. means that if one actuator get shot out, it won't bleed out the whole system.

[Sierra99]

GAU-22 has pretty much got double the accuracy

 

I guess you missed the fact the F-35 was diving at a steeper angle? I guess that doesn't make any difference? Oh and What is skippy in his F-35 gonna see from 8,000 meters away?

 

Never know, could the difference between taking just Abdul Al-ISIS in his Toyota pickup or him together with Kashim in the school 50ft away

 

Shitty anology. Stop it.

A.) Terrorists choose to use women and children as shields and fight from urban areas. The blood of civilian casualties is on their hands.

B.) F-35 COMBAT capability is questionable at best with regards to CAS mission.