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

[RoflSeal]

Well lets go through the short list shall we?

 

 

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

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

For the quick two hour, ten minute jaunt from Florida to AirVenture, each fighter jet burned about 5,000 pounds of fuel at 270 knots.

 

Thats over 6 hours of flight time with 18,000lbs on board

 

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

18,000+lbs for F-35

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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? )

 

 

Irrelevant with regards to CAS mission.

Countermeasure suite includes systems like DAS which greatly increase pilot situational awareness

 

 

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

 

 

 

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?)

 

 

You seem to not be able to comprehend the possibility of CAS missions EVER happening in a high threat enviroment.

 

I'll give you a really recent one.

 

Ukraine Donbass war, where the losses of the UAF effectively grounded them after 1-2 months due to Russian supplied radar and IR guided missiles in the hands of the rebels.

Edited April 29, 2016 by RoflSeal

[RoflSeal]

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

You convienently ignore the horizontal dispersion (which doesn't matter at angle) and the second graph.

 

And like it or not, the media like to talk about civilian casualties.

Edited April 29, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Sweep]

LAWL...LOOK A TARGET.

 

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

 

Seriously?

 

As it comes to COIN, why not?

[Tirak]

(Pic of Super Tuc)

 

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

 

Other Options Include:

 

 

 

Both of which play the CAS game better than the A-10.

[Sierra99]

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

For the quick two hour, ten minute jaunt from Florida to AirVenture, each fighter jet burned about 5,000 pounds of fuel at 270 knots.

 

Thats over 6 hours of flight time with 18,000lbs on board

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but the F-35s didn't fly to OshKosk with 18,000lbs of weapons on board. Check the pictures.

 

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

18,000+lbs for F-35

 

Oh but wait...Lets not forget the F-35 can only carry Air to Mud Weapons on 6 of those hard points...HALF the number of hardpoints available on the A-10.

 

And since were talking about External Hardpoints...Stealth, Weapons or Loiter time?. Which ONE do you want because You only get One. You lose your stealth card and loiter time if you hang external stores, You lose Air to Mud capability if you only use internal bomb racks...

 

 

Countermeasure suite includes systems like DAS which greatly increase pilot situation awareness

 

Annnnnnnd is irrelevant with regards to CAS.

[Sweep]

You forgot about these:

 

[Sierra99]

Tirak...

 

Other Options Include:

 

 

Both of which play the CAS game better than the A-10.

 

 

THIS...We can agree on.

[Sierra99]

You forgot about these:

 

 

For CAS? You're joking right?

[Sierra99]

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/a-10-effectiveness-assessment/

[Tirak]

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

Now that's some interesting stupidity right there. Speed means on call, also means better able to get into position for additional runs. While the A-10 moseys on around, the F-35 is back in position to strike again. That's what having a decent thrust to weight ratio brings you.

 

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

18,000lbs hauled in the F-35, but nice try.

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.

Irrelevant eh? SDB II and even the LSDB would like to have an interesting word with your A-10. Weapons advance and become more accurate and lethal. Believe it or not, we no longer drop bricks from planes like we did back during WWI.

 

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

Fully relevant actually, especially if your enemy isn't an uneducated terrorist in the back of a Toyota Hilux. The moment someone walks out of a cave with a MANPADs, or picks up any of the abandoned old vintage russian AA guns, A-10s have to knock off and let the real strikers in to do their job for them.

 

 

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? )

Allow me to introduce you to DAS, a system that gives the F-35 fantastic resolution in its targeting systems in addition to a hilarious amount of situation awareness. Information is God on the battlefield, and the A-10 might as well be the blind idiot compared to the vast array of powerful sensors the F-35 can bring to the fight. Where the A-10 pilot is looking with his eyes at 5,000 feet and misidentifying targets, the F-35 can sit comfortably up at 15k and use his advanced radar to target any vehicles he might have, or his IR sensors to pick out each and every target, and with those high resolution sensors, figure out who's doing what on the battlespace.

 

But no, go on and tell me how superior your eyes are to a sensor suite capable of reading your liscense plate from 30mi away at 30k feet.

 

 

Irrelevant with regards to CAS mission.

Countermeasures mean that when the bad guys point something nasty at the sky, you don't have to leave. I'd say that's pretty damn important to the CAS mission.

 

 

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

Still harping on about the War is Boring test eh? Tell me, is it hard to keep that ignorant as to what a CLAW test is, or do you have some kind of wall you bang your head into to forget about reality?

 

 

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?)

... You can't be this stupid. I refuse to believe someone who claims to have actively served in the military can be so blinded that he can't understand that having a wing blown off by fire and having a wing ripped off when rammed into at several hundred miles per hours by something weighing in at 20 tons is somehow incomparable.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Tirak

[HiJack]

The F-35 is not contracted to replace the A-10 but I'm sure we will see some real comparison when the F-35 is combat ready. If the A-10 lives on then it should go through another upgrade process to be able to work with 5th gen allies. But seeing a budget for that getting accepted. Well :huh:

[RoflSeal]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the F-35s didn't fly to OshKosk with 18,000lbs of weapons on board. Check the pictures.

 

 

 

Of course I was talking about internal fuel capacity.

loiter time with 18500lbs of fuel and internal weapons is probably around 6hrs

[Sierra99]

Now that's some interesting stupidity right there. Speed means on call, also means better able to get into position for additional runs. While the A-10 moseys on around, the F-35 is back in position to strike again. That's what having a decent thrust to weight ratio brings you.

 

" Emergency reinforcement requires 5 minute response, which is only achievable with air loiter – even supersonic jets are subsonic with air-to-ground weapons, and often need up to two hours to get from air base to target (F-22, with its Mach 1,7 – Mach 1,75 supercruise with internal weapons, would cut this to “only” 55 minutes). Other characteristics necessary are rapid response from strip alert, ability to base alongside troops or within 40 miles from the front, and ability to quickly shift from one base to another. Unlike fast jets, A-10 actually can be co-located with ground troops as it can fly from unprepared fields, dirt strips and other unenviable locations. During deployment in Afghanistan, A-10 was the only Western aircraft capable of using old Soviet airfields. These characteristics means that it can respond to requests of assistance from ground troops far more quickly than fast jets can. Ability to operate from short, austere air strips also allows it to generate far more sorties than fast jets are capable of."

 

In short, It doesn't matter how fast you get there...if the battle was over before you took off

 

Irrelevant eh? SDB II and even the LSDB would like to have an interesting word with your A-10. Weapons advance and become more accurate and lethal. Believe it or not, we no longer drop bricks from planes like we did back during WWI.

 

Get back to me when the SDB II is actually combat ready.

 

Fully relevant actually, especially if your enemy isn't an uneducated terrorist in the back of a Toyota Hilux. The moment someone walks out of a cave with a MANPADs, or picks up any of the abandoned old vintage russian AA guns, A-10s have to knock off and let the real strikers in to do their job for them.

 

Tirak if you can show me a verifiable example of THIS happening I'll withdraw my statement. If you cant its Hyperbole. More to the point, A-10s operate in a MANPAD environment all the time.

 

 

Allow me to introduce you to DAS, a system that gives the F-35 fantastic resolution in its targeting systems in addition to a hilarious amount of situation awareness. Information is God on the battlefield, and the A-10 might as well be the blind idiot compared to the vast array of powerful sensors the F-35 can bring to the fight. Where the A-10 pilot is looking with his eyes at 5,000 feet and misidentifying targets, the F-35 can sit comfortably up at 15k and use his advanced radar to target any vehicles he might have, or his IR sensors to pick out each and every target, and with those high resolution sensors, figure out who's doing what on the battlespace.

 

Unless it can see individual soldiers on the ground next to a building and differentiate them from the Bad guys 2 houses over... IT'S IRRELEVANT.

 

Countermeasures mean that when the bad guys point something nasty at the sky, you don't have to leave. I'd say that's pretty damn important to the CAS mission.

See my earlier comments about active SAM environments.

 

 

Still harping on about the War is Boring test eh? Tell me, is it hard to keep that ignorant as to what a CLAW test is, or do you have some kind of wall you bang your head into to forget about reality?

 

F-35 Fans see it as a irrelevant test, F-35 opponents see it as questionable. I think its funny the only people who claim the test was rigged are on Lockheed Martins Payroll. everyone else accepted it at face value. But ya know what...I'll give ya that one because the waters are muddy.

 

 

... You can't be this stupid. I refuse to believe someone who claims to have actively served in the military can be so blinded that he can't understand that having a wing blown off by fire and having a wing ripped off when rammed into at several hundred miles per hours by something weighing in at 20 tons is somehow incomparable.

 

Show me a picture of an F-16 that landed with that kind of COMBAT damage and you'll have a valid argument. (and do me a favor, don't call people stupid. You immediately lose credibility...)

[Tirak]

" Emergency reinforcement requires 5 minute response, which is only achievable with air loiter – even supersonic jets are subsonic with air-to-ground weapons, and often need up to two hours to get from air base to target (F-22, with its Mach 1,7 – Mach 1,75 supercruise with internal weapons, would cut this to “only” 55 minutes). Other characteristics necessary are rapid response from strip alert, ability to base alongside troops or within 40 miles from the front, and ability to quickly shift from one base to another. Unlike fast jets, A-10 actually can be co-located with ground troops as it can fly from unprepared fields, dirt strips and other unenviable locations. During deployment in Afghanistan, A-10 was the only Western aircraft capable of using old Soviet airfields. These characteristics means that it can respond to requests of assistance from ground troops far more quickly than fast jets can. Ability to operate from short, austere air strips also allows it to generate far more sorties than fast jets are capable of."

 

In short, It doesn't matter how fast you get there...if the battle was over before you took off

 

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. 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.

 

 

Get back to me when the SDB II is actually combat ready.

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.

 

 

Tirak if you can show me a verifiable example of THIS happening I'll withdraw my statement. If you cant its Hyperbole. More to the point, A-10s operate in a MANPAD environment all the time.

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.

 

 

 

Unless it can see individual soldiers on the ground next to a building and differentiate them from the Bad guys 2 houses over... IT'S IRRELEVANT.

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.

 

 

See my earlier comments about active SAM environments.

See my response above.

 

 

 

F-35 Fans see it as a irrelevant test, F-35 opponents see it as questionable. I think its funny the only people who claim the test was rigged are on Lockheed Martins Payroll. everyone else accepted it at face value. But ya know what...I'll give ya that one because the waters are muddy.

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.

 

 

 

Show me a picture of an F-16 that landed with that kind of COMBAT damage and you'll have a valid argument. (and do me a favor, don't call people stupid. You immediately lose credibility...)

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album30/ahf

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album30/ahd

 

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.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Tirak

[Wolverine88]

Ok, take this from a guy who's done some work as a USAF TACP...nothing will beat the A-10 for CAS. Not the F35...not F15's or F22's or the F16's. Period. Army/Marine gunships were the only thing that could hold a candle to the work the A-10's did for us.

 

In any kind of airplane except a hovering gunship helicopter you cannot see individual soldiers unless you want them to shoot at you with small arms...which would be a big mistake, you're way too close in that case. Most small arms will knock down pretty much anything flying if they hit you in the right place. Using the targeting pod means you're too high and showing up on most all radars in the area. Same goes for an AC-130...too high for most threats if they're facing enemy air and AC-130's aren't any more capable versus the same anti-aircraft stuff SOMEBODY said made the A-10 fold.

 

Not sure who/what you're reading Tirak. Don't know who wrote the crap about A-10's being pulled out of the CAS mission during DS but they got that wrong...they just changed their tactics since the threat of enemy fighters disappeared. It was always expected the attrition for A-10's would be high during a war in Central Europe. It would be for everybody I think.

 

And take this from a guy who has spent MOST of his time in the USAF as an F-15 and A-10 Crew Chief: F35 can't even get up in the air right now anyway...and once it is the low observable system/airframe it has will make sure that it will spend most of it's time on the ground being fixed once it is deemed combat capable....someday...maybe...in it's dreams.

 

Final point FOR the A-10, just look at how many munitions the F35 can carry vs. the A-10..the F35 will spend most of it's fuel/time going back and fourth from FEBA to the base to get more munitions. My poor weapons loaders will work themselves to DEATH and so will I doing 30-45 minute turns and getting it back up in the air...if it's not broke/NMC!

 

If you want the F35 around for more than 15 seconds he will have to carry a bunch of stuff on him that will NULLIFY his radar-stealthy airframe and make him no more stealthy than an F16.

 

So, all you NON-er's STFU while I build my 9-line dangit! ;)

[Boberro]

Both planes should be kept.

GheyTen is nice, functional bird, ideal for fight against terrorists or poor banana countries. If they want to force F-35 then they should at least leave 30-50 GheyTens as reserve.

Rest of A-10s to graveyard.

[Tirak]

Ok, take this from a guy who's done some work as a USAF TACP...nothing will beat the A-10 for CAS. Not the F35...not F15's or F22's or the F16's. Period. Army/Marine gunships were the only thing that could hold a candle to the work the A-10's did for us.

 

It will be performed in different ways, with more accurate sensors and PGMs, the battlefield is changing, thus my quip about dropping bricks from Biplanes.

 

In any kind of airplane except a hovering gunship helicopter you cannot see individual soldiers unless you want them to shoot at you with small arms...which would be a big mistake, you're way too close in that case. Most small arms will knock down pretty much anything flying if they hit you in the right place. Using the targeting pod means you're too high and showing up on most all radars in the area. Same goes for an AC-130...too high for most threats if they're facing enemy air and AC-130's aren't any more capable versus the same anti-aircraft stuff SOMEBODY said made the A-10 fold.

This is flatly untrue. There are more than enough TGP videos on youtube from both fast movers and aircraft like the AC-130 that very clearly show the ability of a targeting pod to locate and differentiate individuals. The primary limiting factor is the resolution of the screen being used, as demonstrated by pilots remarking that they were far better able to see detail in their post mission briefings because the resolution of the screens they were looking at was much better than their MFD, something EODAS, as well as the customization screen in the F-35 helps to mitigate.

 

Not sure who/what you're reading Tirak. Don't know who wrote the crap about A-10's being pulled out of the CAS mission during DS but they got that wrong...they just changed their tactics since the threat of enemy fighters disappeared. It was always expected the attrition for A-10's would be high during a war in Central Europe. It would be for everybody I think.

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

A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-IO. The [imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

 

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Emphasis mine.

 

And take this from a guy who has spent MOST of his time in the USAF as an F-15 and A-10 Crew Chief: F35 can't even get up in the air right now anyway...and once it is the low observable system/airframe it has will make sure that it will spend most of it's time on the ground being fixed once it is deemed combat capable....someday...maybe...in it's dreams.

The F-35 was designed from the offset to help mitigate the natural issues that come with Low Observable aircraft in terms of maintenance. The difficult to maintain radar coatings are baked right into the aircraft skin, as as much of the aircraft as possible has been built "One Deep" to allow easy access to as much of the aircraft as possible to keep it going. The Marine Corps has already declared IOC, the plane flies, and fights already in Marine testing exercises and has participated in the Green Flag operations, where it proved to be extremely effective at fighting engagements under unfavorable conditions.

 

Final point FOR the A-10, just look at how many munitions the F35 can carry vs. the A-10..the F35 will spend most of it's fuel/time going back and fourth from FEBA to the base to get more munitions. My poor weapons loaders will work themselves to DEATH and so will I doing 30-45 minute turns and getting it back up in the air...if it's not broke/NMC!

The A-10 has 11 hard points. 1 takes a TGP, 1 takes a sidewinder rail, 1 takes an ECM pod. An A-10 therefore has 8 hardpoints. An F-35 has 6 hardpoints slated for ground attack weaponry, with an additional 4 directed to Air to Air only weapons. The internal hardpoints are capable of carrying 8 SDBs all on their own. Now before you jump off pointing out that you can mount TERs on the A-10s hardpoints, this is not 8 dumb fall bombs, this is 8 PGMs, with a flight radius of 30 miles, and we haven't even started hanging things on the wings. The ability to carry weapons is not a weakness of the F-35.

 

If you want the F35 around for more than 15 seconds he will have to carry a bunch of stuff on him that will NULLIFY his radar-stealthy airframe and make him no more stealthy than an F16.

Nullify, no, reduce yes. However, this represents a capability the A-10 does not have at all. An F-35 wishing to provide CAS in a contested environment brings 8 PGMs to the table, an A-10 does not even walk onto that table. In an environment the A-10 can operate, the F-35 can operate with a greater combat load.

 

So, all you NON-er's STFU while I build my 9-line dangit! ;)

I've no intention of doing so.

 

EDIT For Bob: 2 things. 1, despite its shortcomings in a modern battlespace, the aircraft has served with distinction throughout the years and is worth of respect, please do not refer to the old war horse as a "Gheyten", it is demeaning to an airframe which despite my opposition to is worthy of respect and praise. 2. The Air Force cannot afford a highly diverse fleet anymore, the funds do not exist. They cannot keep the A-10 because Congress will not fund it.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Tirak

[Bullfrog_]

Pretty much anything can do COIN and that's about the only foot hold the A-10 has today and to add insult to injury, that's just a niche.

 

If the A-10 beats the F-35 in this competition, then I imagine it was done the same way the A-10 won over the A-7.

[Mike5560]

A few things not considered:

 

Air to ground radar (SAR). 4th gen aircraft, if equipped with a capable enough radar to perform CAS with it (F-15E), need to fly out 15-20 miles to map the ground at an ideal resolution. The F-35 can do this from a near overhead CAS orbit, and it's the highest resolution A-G radar out there. Consider this is an all weather capability, where IR spectrum sensors are hindered. Also, higher accuracy coordinates for targeting are acquired from much, much farther away than with a TGP lasing for coordinates.

 

Outside of identifying personnel hidden in trees, the DAS system is a huge SA builder for both a pilot and JTAC. Imagine flying the A-10 and being able to put the targeting pod wherever you look. Now, the scorpion hmcs will and does help the hawg drivers do this, but one must take the TGP off of a point of interest to examine another area. The EOTS on the F-35 will be able to stay on an area of interest while the pilot can scan elsewhere, as slightly less fidelity, yet with IR, with the DAS. This can help greatly with talk ons and mutual support (SAM/AAA fire), where now the pilot no longer needs to look "over the rail" to identify such things.

 

The integrated ELINT sensors help the F-35 geolocate radars, similar to the harm targeting system on the F-16.

 

The F-35 will still retain more stealth capability with external stores than any other aircraft in an A-G role.

 

The A-10 excels in several areas:

The pilots, having a solely air-ground role, have more experience and understanding with the ground maneuver picture. They are excellent at CAS procedures and frequently act as a safeguard to freventing fratricide...because, not all JTACs are created equal.

 

The GAU-8 is excellent for protecting troops where many times bombs are too dangerous. I know someone who was 20 meters from taliban, and a burst of 30mm saved him and his team.

 

IMO, it's hard to compare loiter times. The F-35(A) carries much more fuel, but of course burns more. As far as payload, an A-10 carrying more than 4 500lb class bombs, 2x maverick and a pod of WP rockets is a bit of a rarity. The jet is very survivable, and can get in close to protect troops effectively. Single hits from MANPADS have killed A-10s before, however.

[Emu]

Other Options Include:

 

 

 

Both of which play the CAS game better than the A-10.

Everyone always forgets GMLRS+, MS-SGP and ATACMS.

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2016 by Emu

[Emu]

Put MANPADS in the hands of every other enemy combatant with dense cloud cover and the A-10 will be damn near inoperable, or will spend 99% of its time worrying about its own ass.

[zxarkov]

The F-35 has a lot of advantages, no doubt. The low observable airframe, AESA radar/sensor packages, advanced gen HMDs giving it a clear edge in battlefield SA.

 

However, at approx $100 million a unit and all the budget issues (cost overruns,etc) I believe it is way over budget. A single A-10C is what $18.8 million a unit? I expect the cost and maintenance per hour to be incredibly high as well with the F-35..my point is the weapon system has to be somewhat cost effective. At least with the A-10 you get your moneys worth and it is combat proven.

 

In a modern full out war against nations armed with next gen s-300/s-400 systems, can we even say with certainty that the stealth aspects will be effective? If not I would say the money would have been much better spent on proven practical equipment and upgrades. Maybe a upgrade package for the A-10?

Edited April 30, 2016 by zxarkov

[otto]

Difficult to say .I would keep the A10 too. You never know when you need it.

[probad]

In a modern full out war against nations armed with next gen s-300/s-400 systems, can we even say with certainty that the stealth aspects will be effective? If not I would say the money would have been much better spent on proven practical equipment and upgrades. Maybe a upgrade package for the A-10?

 

if a f-35 isnt going to be any good against those sams what good is your a-10 upgrade package going to be? :doh::doh::doh::doh:

 

lololololo

Edited April 30, 2016 by probad

[zxarkov]

I was not trying to say the A-10 is a effective aircraft for SEAD missions/anti-SAM nor was I implying that a upgrade package would change that. I was proposing a hypothetical what if scenario upgrade to the A-G capabilities or something along those lines.