A-10 Thunderbolt II Replacement

[Goose489]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Sure it does: 

That's the latest AC-130J Ghostrider, and it does have a pair of Hellfire racks. It's indeed a good option for the A-10's role, though I'm not sure how it compares cost-wise, given that it's a much larger plane with multiple crewmembers, as opposed to a single seat, twin engine A-10. 

That's still more than APKWS. That said, spread can be an advantage attacking infantry groups. Phantom drivers actually complained about how low it was on the internal gun, they had to waggle the rudder back and forth to get the pattern they wanted.

 

17 minutes ago, ricktoberfest said:

Yes. And bombs. And a big ass artillery gun. And a smaller one too. And when it orbits it doesn’t need to extend and re-engage. It’s guns are always pointed at the target. 

Well, thank you for clarifying.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Goose489 said:

 

Well, thank you for clarifying.

And, that 40 foot (12 meters) grouping is an ideal spread. Conditions can make it better or worse. There's also the "splash zone" to consider. Those rounds hit and don't just disappear or imbed into the earth. A lot of them are going to shatter and send fragments flying every where. Of course, this is the case with every weapon, but the issue becomes more acute when we're talking about a constant stream of fire as opposed to a single launch.

These are, admittedly, not the most important issues where the A-10 falls short on a modern battlefield. After all, it's been well established the gun isn't terribly effective and an A-10 does have other options to utilized. But, because it's slower and more vulnerable than any other option available to the USAF? It has a reduced value to planners and will find itself an auxiliary option.

[Bremspropeller]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:14 PM, Goose489 said:

I don't understand how the F-35 is going to replace the A-10.

How and if one airplane is able to stand in or even replace another is purely based on the amount of assumptions flowing into the assessment.

TLDR: Replaceing the A-10 for what under which circumstances?

Circling above an enemy with an upgunned Toyota, or flying through heavily contested airspace?

Flying the mission it was concieved for, the A-10 would have been dead meat, as the NATO people were underestimationg the amount of small and mobile SAM assets within the WP by a lot. Turns out that reading through Hans-Urlich Rudel's autobiography isn't quite the prep for building a 1970s/80s purpose-built Tank-destroyer and CAS jet.

In fact, an upgraded A-7D would have been a wiser choice back in the day. The same A-7 that flew 9h RESCAP and extremely precise CAS missions in SEA. The Apache was arguably the better anti-tank platform back in the day. But money and ego were a thing even in the 70s. The USAF was already flying an adopted Navy bastard-child, the F-4. But the F-4 was a pointy, sexy jet, not the SLUF which in turn was handed away to the Guard as soon as possible.

Where the A-10 really shone was the low-tech-opponent wars that followed post-9/11. The fixability of the A-10 in-theater was a great help and an actual asset there. It prolly also can do the mission at the lowest cost (comapred to contemporary fast jets), which is quite a bonus.

[ricktoberfest]

I think we need to state again, most of us love the A10 for what it is. 
 

But that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to continue thinking it’s the only aircraft that can do its job. 

[Mars Exulte]

On 12/7/2023 at 8:34 PM, Goose489 said:

Troops aren't just going to need someone to drop 2 LGB and be on with their day. The enemy will move and advance on them and there will be reinforcements and trucks moving in and an F-35 will not have the payload to accomplish that.

 In RL aircraft do not fly around with 10,000lbs of bombs to level an entire city single-handedly. That's why they fly in groups. A single aircraft of any type is not expected or asked to stop an entire formation. There would not be "one" of anything. There would be dozens of them, just like there was in Desert Storm and every other major conflict. The difference being A-10s would be getting swatted out of the sky whereas stealth aircraft would not.

On 12/7/2023 at 8:34 PM, Goose489 said:

Also, with the stealth the A-10 can operate under the radar

 In the real world "flying under the radar" is not a magical cutoff whenever you're below a certain altitude.

On 12/7/2023 at 8:34 PM, Goose489 said:

and if there are sams it will just blow them up.

 No, it won't either. You're describing an environment that the A-10 has literally never been asked to operate in. In Desert Storm, nobody was "flying in under the radar" to strafe SAMs with an A-10.

On 12/7/2023 at 8:34 PM, Goose489 said:

The USAF did a test between the F-35 and the A-10 and there was a dogfight in the test. the A-10 put its reticle on the F-35 almost every time.

 Even if true, that's... completely irrelevant. A helicopter could probably do the same thing, that is irrelevant. Outside of canned scenarios ala Growling Sidewinder, that A-10 would never know the F-35 was around nor be expected to "dogfight" with it. Everything you keep typing just further emphasises you are using video game logic and don't really have any idea what you're talking about, no offense.

 It is not realistic to keep flying a 50 year old platform whose usefulness even when it was new is debatable. It has had a successful career due to operating in environments of overwhelming air supremacy where it could do its thing unimpeded. In a contested environment, A-10s would not last very long, and that includes the 1980s when they were designed with a Fulda Gap scenario in mind. It was expected then that they would all get destroyed relatively quickly, they were just a hammer to slow the Soviets down.

[Art-J]

^ That's pretty much it.

During past two decades A-10 played an important role in all asymmetric conflicts where it was engaging towelheads with not much of a AAA capability whatsoever. It excelled at that job, noone denies that.

Nowadays, though, geopolitical situation is changing. With tension between 3 superpowers increasing, even if direct conflict between them doesn't come (hopefully!), proxy conflicts between more equal opponents will involve more and more advanced AAA equipment being used on both sides. Ukraine conflict seems to show that already, with Thunderbolt's red brothers, Su-25s not being able to do much (on both sides really) despite flying as low and fast as possible. Damn, even Su-34s can't operate there easily and freely.

[Goose489]

17 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

Everything you keep typing just further emphasises you are using video game logic and don't really have any idea what you're talking about, no offense.

To be honest I don't even play DCS I want to so I came here to learn about it. I am currently short a computer that can run it.

[Goose489]

I am using only real-world information.

[Eugel]

30 minutes ago, Goose489 said:

I am using only real-world information.

You mean the real life examples where A-10s were flying under the radar, blowing up sam sites while dogfighting enemy stealth fighters ?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I couldn´t resist...

[Goose489]

13 minutes ago, Eugel said:

You mean the real life examples where A-10s were flying under the radar, blowing up sam sites while dogfighting enemy stealth fighters ?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I couldn´t resist...

Yeah, I guess I do sound pretty dumb.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 12/14/2023 at 5:30 PM, Mars Exulte said:

 Even if true, that's... completely irrelevant. A helicopter could probably do the same thing, that is irrelevant. Outside of canned scenarios ala Growling Sidewinder, that A-10 would never know the F-35 was around nor be expected to "dogfight" with it. Everything you keep typing just further emphasises you are using video game logic and don't really have any idea what you're talking about, no offense.

 It is not realistic to keep flying a 50 year old platform whose usefulness even when it was new is debatable. It has had a successful career due to operating in environments of overwhelming air supremacy where it could do its thing unimpeded. In a contested environment, A-10s would not last very long, and that includes the 1980s when they were designed with a Fulda Gap scenario in mind. It was expected then that they would all get destroyed relatively quickly, they were just a hammer to slow the Soviets down.

That comment about a dogfight made me giggle. That's some gamer scuttlebutt if there ever was one. The realization that the gun is useless on anything made past the 1970s always gets ignored because LMAO BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT.

An A-10 wouldn't know if an F-16 was prowling around, let alone an F-35. There's no real means for the A-10 to detect traffic in the area outside of AWACS input. An opponent with IRST and good heaters would be able to engage and down the A-10 with ease.

[Dragon1-1]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:30 AM, Mars Exulte said:

Outside of canned scenarios ala Growling Sidewinder, that A-10 would never know the F-35 was around nor be expected to "dogfight" with it.

A-10 jocks train for air to air combat, and it'd know about an F-35 the same way it'd know about any other aircraft: RWR, MWS and the Mk1 Eyeball. While it's not the best dogfighter, it's fully capable of taking down more advanced fighters if they try going for a gun or heater kill. Its slow speed can allow it to become hard to find by terrain masking (and yes, those advantages are shared with helicopters, which are also hairy targets for fast jets). It's got a lot of flares, relatively cool engine exhaust and would be attacked from above, causing ground clutter issues for heaters.

The problem with the A-10 is the fact that they're pretty old and worn out, not that its mission disappeared. It does need replacement, but by a real attack jet, or perhaps a light bomber. I can imagine armed tiltrotors taking over its roles (assuming the Valor works better than MV-22), including COIN and rescuing downed pilots. Cheap turboprops could do its job against low tech insurgents, while a pair of armed VTOLs could not only clear the area of enemies, but also make the pickup themselves. And if you really want the GAU-8 and don't want to stick it on a tiltrotor, there's always a direct successor, something like the Scaled Composites ARES concept, which can carry the gun, while being smaller (and looking seriously weird).

[Goose489]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

A-10 jocks train for air to air combat, and it'd know about an F-35 the same way it'd know about any other aircraft: RWR, MWS and the Mk1 Eyeball. While it's not the best dogfighter, it's fully capable of taking down more advanced fighters if they try going for a gun or heater kill. Its slow speed can allow it to become hard to find by terrain masking (and yes, those advantages are shared with helicopters, which are also hairy targets for fast jets). It's got a lot of flares, relatively cool engine exhaust and would be attacked from above, causing ground clutter issues for heaters.

The problem with the A-10 is the fact that they're pretty old and worn out, not that its mission disappeared. It does need replacement, but by a real attack jet, or perhaps a light bomber. I can imagine armed tiltrotors taking over its roles (assuming the Valor works better than MV-22), including COIN and rescuing downed pilots. Cheap turboprops could do its job against low tech insurgents, while a pair of armed VTOLs could not only clear the area of enemies, but also make the pickup themselves. And if you really want the GAU-8 and don't want to stick it on a tiltrotor, there's always a direct successor, something like the Scaled Composites ARES concept, which can carry the gun, while being smaller (and looking seriously weird).

Building off of what you said about the exhaust the genius engineers at Fairchild built the tail to block the already hard-to-lock exhaust because it doesn't have an afterburner.

[Goose489]

If they just made a stealth A-10 it would be much better.

[Eugel]

How would a "stealth A-10" be different from an F-35 ?

There are physical limitations how to make an aircraft stealthy.

They need a certain shape that doesn´t reflect radar waves right back at their attacker but scatter them.
You´d have to get rid of external stores and move them inside for the same reason.

But the mission, the A-10 was designed for, doesn´t need it to be stealthy.
So, by asking to make the A-10 stealth, you are practically asking it to be replaced by a different aircraft.

 

Edited January 9 by Eugel

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 1/8/2024 at 5:19 PM, Goose489 said:

If they just made a stealth A-10 it would be much better.

They could also put an AESA radar into an F-102A and bring those back into squadron service.

I would like that, but it doesn't mean it'd be a good idea. Why place such expensive materiel into a hopelessly outdated airframe?

That's the issue with making the A-10 "stealth." Why put RAM on it when it could be put towards another aircraft, even a Have Glass Viper? The use of stealth concepts on something like the A-10 flies in the face of the very doctrines it operates under. In my civil career, I've flown aircraft that are faster than the A-10, meaning it can't escape trouble. It has no internal weapon bays and, when you carry the A-10's payload, that reflects radar very readily. The Have Glass F-16s have RAM to delay their eventual detection to a point that the Viper's superior speed and maneuverability can provide ample protection. There's a reason why they're favored in the SEAD role. The A-10, given a similar treatment, would lack that survivability. This was learned in Desert Storm; the A-10 has poor chances in a hot AO.

The F-16 out sortied the A-10 while representing less losses and the F-111 out-killed it with its precision guided weapons, its ability to operate at night and in inclement weather (though, those issues have been addressed on the A-10), and without any losses during the entire combat operation to enemy action. 3 F-16s were lost. 6 A-10s were lost.

But, sure, we could build a modern A-10 with all the niceties of the modern age. We could give it the EOTS to allow it to really see into the darkness. We could give it the EODAS to allow it unprecedented situational awareness. We could give it all the nice gubbins that make a modern fighter so potent and we're left with the same problem that the A-6F program faced: Why?

Why are we putting next gen turbofans into an airframe that could recall Ike's presidency? Why are we placing a brand new radar set into an aircraft whose current crews weren't even alive when it first flew? Why are we even considering putting AMRAAMs on an aircraft that might have a lost Creedence Clearwater Revival 8 track laying in one of its storage bins?

See, the Navy was quite keen to update the A-6. It had been the backbone of their strike capability for decades. It had proven itself extremely good at this, too. It gave the Navy and Marine Corps the ability to hit targets in any weather, day or night, in an accurate fashion. Marines who would've dreaded the onset of the monsoon season would now know that Intruders could provide much needed CAS if they needed it. This is a capability and status that the A-10 didn't even hold with the USAF. So, the idea of making its primary strike platform more potent and more deadly was a tempting idea.

Until, they considered it a little more.

See, the A-6F was going to have all those options. It was going to have the F404 engine, it was going to have a much nicer AN/APQ-173 radar, MFDs, and the ability to carry and launch AMRAAMs. Eventually, the Navy discovered a better option. They could have a fighter that had similar capabilities but could also actually conduct the various air-to-air and fleet defense missions they needed done. This fighter could utilize the latest in computing technology and ergonomics, meaning that the two person crew of the Intruder could have their entire job done by a single pilot.

This aircraft was the F/A-18 Hornet. It fulfilled everything the A-6F program set out to accomplish and more. The only thing the A-6 had over the F/A-18, at the time, was total payload. But, when we're talking the use of precision weapons like Paveways and Mavericks, payload starts to lose its importance. And besides that, the Super Hornet almost matches the Intruders' payload completely, only being lighter by a slight margin.

To be accurate, the stated reason for the A-6F's cancellation was the A-12 Avenger program, but all roads lead to Rome, here.

This is still preferable to keeping a legacy aircraft in your units since those old aircraft get more and more expensive to operate as time goes by and reopening assembly lines is almost never even considered. The only time I can recall that happening? The A-10's predecessor, the A-1 Skyraider. While it proved itself a fantastic CAS platform, the Skyraider was not even considered something they'd throw into contested airspace or into airspaces with SAM activities. Most A-1 losses were to AAA. Why? It was slow. We do have stories of Skyraiders winning dogfights, but that has a lot more to do with the inexperience of VPAF MiG-17 crews than it does the A-1. Ask any of those guys behind the stick of A-1s ambushed by MiG-17s and they'll tell you it was a nightmare scenario.

The supposed stealth A-10 I described? It already exists: It's the F-35A. If you're needing stealth, it's because you're going into a very dangerous environment. You're going to need speed, stealth, and maneuverability to come out alive and the A-10 lacks all 3 of those. The A-10 proved itself to be an expensive, but effective COIN aircraft. This is not a role you need much stealth for outside of the cloak of darkness.

The A-10's time is here. It is better that its fans accept that than cling onto the false hope that it could find relevance on a modern battlefield. Were it to come to that? It would find itself sharing a similar ignominious end as the Luftwaffe's Ju-87 did once it encountered contested airspace.

Edited January 12 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Goose489]

 

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

They could also put an AESA radar into an F-102A and bring those back into squadron service.

I would like that, but it doesn't mean it'd be a good idea. Why place such expensive materiel into a hopelessly outdated airframe?

That's the issue with making the A-10 "stealth." Why put RAM on it when it could be put towards another aircraft, even a Have Glass Viper? The use of stealth concepts on something like the A-10 flies in the face of the very doctrines it operates under. In my civil career, I've flown aircraft that are faster than the A-10, meaning it can't escape trouble. It has no internal weapon bays and, when you carry the A-10's payload, that reflects radar very readily. The Have Glass F-16s have RAM to delay their eventual detection to a point that the Viper's superior speed and maneuverability can provide ample protection. There's a reason why they're favored in the SEAD role. The A-10, given a similar treatment, would lack that survivability. This was learned in Desert Storm; the A-10 has poor chances in a hot AO.

The F-16 out sortied the A-10 while representing less losses and the F-111 out-killed it with its precision guided weapons, its ability to operate at night and in inclement weather (though, those issues have been addressed on the A-10), and without any losses during the entire combat operation to enemy action. 3 F-16s were lost. 6 A-10s were lost.

But, sure, we could build a modern A-10 with all the niceties of the modern age. We could give it the EOTS to allow it to really see into the darkness. We could give it the EODAS to allow it unprecedented situational awareness. We could give it all the nice gubbins that make a modern fighter so potent and we're left with the same problem that the A-6F program faced: Why?

Why are we putting next gen turbofans into an airframe that could recall Ike's presidency? Why are we placing a brand new radar set into an aircraft whose current crews weren't even alive when it first flew? Why are we even considering putting AMRAAMs on an aircraft that might have a lost Creedence Clearwater Revival 8 track laying in one of its storage bins?

See, the Navy was quite keen to update the A-6. It had been the backbone of their strike capability for decades. It had proven itself extremely good at this, too. It gave the Navy and Marine Corps the ability to hit targets in any weather, day or night, in an accurate fashion. Marines who would've dreaded the onset of the monsoon season would now know that Intruders could provide much needed CAS if they needed it. This is a capability and status that the A-10 didn't even hold with the USAF. So, the idea of making its primary strike platform more potent and more deadly was a tempting idea.

Until, they considered it a little more.

See, the A-6F was going to have all those options. It was going to have the F404 engine, it was going to have a much nicer AN/APQ-173 radar, MFDs, and the ability to carry and launch AMRAAMs. Eventually, the Navy discovered a better option. They could have a fighter that had similar capabilities but could also actually conduct the various air-to-air and fleet defense missions they needed done. This fighter could utilize the latest in computing technology and ergonomics, meaning that the two person crew of the Intruder could have their entire job done by a single pilot.

This aircraft was the F/A-18 Hornet. It fulfilled everything the A-6F program set out to accomplish and more. The only thing the A-6 had over the F/A-18, at the time, was total payload. But, when we're talking the use of precision weapons like Paveways and Mavericks, payload starts to lose its importance. And besides that, the Super Hornet almost matches the Intruders' payload completely, only being lighter by a slight margin.

To be accurate, the stated reason for the A-6F's cancellation was the A-12 Avenger program, but all roads lead to Rome, here.

This is still preferable to keeping a legacy aircraft in your units since those old aircraft get more and more expensive to operate as time goes by and reopening assembly lines is almost never even considered. The only time I can recall that happening? The A-10's predecessor, the A-1 Skyraider. While it proved itself a fantastic CAS platform, the Skyraider was not even considered something they'd throw into contested airspace or into airspaces with SAM activities. Most A-1 losses were to AAA. Why? It was slow. We do have stories of Skyraiders winning dogfights, but that has a lot more to do with the inexperience of VPAF MiG-17 crews than it does the A-1. Ask any of those guys behind the stick of A-1s ambushed by MiG-17s and they'll tell you it was a nightmare scenario.

The supposed stealth A-10 I described? It already exists: It's the F-35A. If you're needing stealth, it's because you're going into a very dangerous environment. You're going to need speed, stealth, and maneuverability to come out alive and the A-10 lacks all 3 of those. The A-10 proved itself to be an expensive, but effective COIN aircraft. This is not a role you need much stealth for outside of the cloak of darkness.

The A-10's time is here. It is better that its fans accept that than cling onto the false hope that it could find relevance on a modern battlefield. Were it to come to that? It would find itself sharing a similar ignominious end as the Luftwaffe's Ju-87 did once it encountered contested airspace.

 

I completely agree that making the A-10 stealth would completely take away the cost efficiency of the aircraft. Still, there are three things things the A-10 has on the F-35, loiter time, maneuverability, and firepower. Yes, the F-35 can attack from 500 miles away but can't loiter for more than 20 minutes without refueling, whereas the A-10 can loiter for 90+ minutes without needing to refuel. two, there was a test back in 2018 where the A-10 and the F-35 had a flyoff. Reportedly the A-10 completely blew out the F-35 (figuratively) showing that the CAN outmaneuver the F-35 in close combat but at long range, the A-10 is smoked. Three, the A-10 has a higher payload than the F-35 by about 1,000 which may not seem much but that's not including the Volkswagen Bug size ammo container.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

5 minutes ago, Goose489 said:

 

I completely agree that making the A-10 stealth would completely take away the cost efficiency of the aircraft. Still, there are three things things the A-10 has on the F-35, loiter time, maneuverability, and firepower. Yes, the F-35 can attack from 500 miles away but can't loiter for more than 20 minutes without refueling, whereas the A-10 can loiter for 90+ minutes without needing to refuel. two, there was a test back in 2018 where the A-10 and the F-35 had a flyoff. Reportedly the A-10 completely blew out the F-35 (figuratively) showing that the CAN outmaneuver the F-35 in close combat but at long range, the A-10 is smoked. Three, the A-10 has a higher payload than the F-35 by about 1,000 which may not seem much but that's not including the Volkswagen Bug size ammo container.

Loiter time can be augmented by multiple flights. The 90 minute loiter of an A-10 is nice, but if you need CAS on standby for that long? You're better off relying on an attack helo which can be re-armed, refueled, and supported by a FARP that's much closer. That said, the 90 minute loiter was probably of great value in a counter-insurgency context. This is especially valuable vs. an enemy that is more nebulous and seeks to avoid a direct engagement. Which, once again, contributes to the A-10 successfully fulfilling the role of a COIN aircraft. This is a role that, as I initially stated, the F-35 will not be replacing the A-10 at. OA-1K will be. One of the OA-1K's performance figures reveals there is something to the value of loiter time to COIN operations as it has a loiter time of 6 hours within a 200nmi radius. I have experience with the aircraft its derived from and it can land on haggard strips of land, meaning it can possibly rely on the same FARPs that AH-64s rely on, given the right accommodations.

As for maneuverability, it really needs to be qualified as it's a pretty broad topic. The F-35 can reach a max AoA of 110 degrees with the limiter disabled. The F-35 has the power to then recover from that and return to normal flight. Much of the hubbub about its inability to be maneuverable came from enthusiast press that didn't bother to read the information they were given fully and failed to glib the portions that indicated that the FBW software has gone through iterations and that has gradually improved performance. Some examples, like AF-01, never received those updates or only did so much later on. The A-10 has a tight turning circle, which is advantageous to the use of gun and rocket, but that's about it.

And as for ammo count, you're not going to be loading down aircraft to their max payloads and throwing them into combat. Not even the truck that is the A-10, especially in a context where its used to its strengths as a counter-insurgency tool. You want that loiter time, so that demands fuel efficiency. In that regard, were I to load an A-10C for a COIN operation? I'd be looking at giving it APKWS and a TGP. With that lighter load, you require less throttle, that translates into less fuel burned, and more time on station. It also makes the aircraft a lot quicker in maneuver, allowing the A-10 to turn around faster to get back into a position to fire once more. This is what makes those turbine prop attacks so deadly in this context; they turn an even tighter circle than the A-10, they can carry a sufficient payload of sophisticated arms, and their lighter weight allows them access strips that the A-10 can't even. Especially if they have thrust reversal.

[Eugel]

47 minutes ago, Goose489 said:

Still, there are three things things the A-10 has on the F-35, loiter time, maneuverability, and firepower.

I´m really curious, how would you "make the A-10 stealthy" while keeping all three of these ? 
If you hang 7 tons of bombs under its wings, it won´t be stealthy. You´d loose the firepower if you added internal stores to an A-10 because you´d never get all of the 11 weapon stations inside.
You´d have to completely change the shape of the fuselage and/or the wings to have internal weapon stores, and I´m no engineer, but I wouldn´t be surprised if the massive turbines and straight rudder arrangement were also problematic on a radar screen. Changing all these would most likely affect maneuverability and loiter time as well.

55 minutes ago, Goose489 said:

Reportedly the A-10 completely blew out the F-35 (figuratively) showing that the CAN outmaneuver the F-35 in close combat 

You could probably do the same with a Spitfire...

[Exorcet]

9 hours ago, Goose489 said:

 

I completely agree that making the A-10 stealth would completely take away the cost efficiency of the aircraft. Still, there are three things things the A-10 has on the F-35, loiter time, maneuverability, and firepower. Yes, the F-35 can attack from 500 miles away but can't loiter for more than 20 minutes without refueling, whereas the A-10 can loiter for 90+ minutes without needing to refuel. two, there was a test back in 2018 where the A-10 and the F-35 had a flyoff. Reportedly the A-10 completely blew out the F-35 (figuratively) showing that the CAN outmaneuver the F-35 in close combat but at long range, the A-10 is smoked. Three, the A-10 has a higher payload than the F-35 by about 1,000 which may not seem much but that's not including the Volkswagen Bug size ammo container.

Conversely the F-35 has stealth, speed, SA, and self defense over the A-10, which is going to make it much more survivable in combat. The F-35 is replacing the A-10 because it's outdated. It's of little use in a modern conflict. Too vulnerable to SAM's and fighters, too expensive for COIN.

[Goose489]

11 hours ago, Eugel said:

I´m really curious, how would you "make the A-10 stealthy" while keeping all three of these ? 
If you hang 7 tons of bombs under its wings, it won´t be stealthy. You´d loose the firepower if you added internal stores to an A-10 because you´d never get all of the 11 weapon stations inside.

I completely agree, the A-10 would not be able to carry nearly as much as it can now while still maintaining stealth.

[Goose489]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:29 AM, Exorcet said:

Conversely the F-35 has stealth, speed, SA, and self defense over the A-10

I can't entirely agree with the self-defense part. Yes the F-35 has stealth but can the F-35 carry 240 chaff and 120 flares?

Also, saying its speed is its greatest advantage is the same as the F-4 in the Vietnam War where it was easily out-maneuvered by the smaller slower migs.

[probad]

you're like the last defender of the sword wielding knight as the world discovers machine guns

"b-but your machine gunner can't tank a sword strike! checkmate!"

 

its time to let go.

[Goose489]

1 hour ago, probad said:

you're like the last defender of the sword wielding knight as the world discovers machine guns

"b-but your machine gunner can't tank a sword strike! checkmate!"

 

its time to let go.

But what if your knight is invisible?

Edited January 23 by Goose489

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, Goose489 said:

I can't entirely agree with the self-defense part. Yes the F-35 has stealth but can the F-35 carry 240 chaff and 120 flares?

Stealth probably increases the effectiveness of those, along with jamming, speed, and standoff attacks. You might be able to point out something that are  technically an advantage in the A-10, but you need to look at the entire package together for a meaningful evaluation. You don't really want to have to rely on chaff and flare, you want to destroy air defense before they even know you're there.

  

2 hours ago, Goose489 said:

Also, saying its speed is its greatest advantage is the same as the F-4 in the Vietnam War where it was easily out-maneuvered by the smaller slower migs.

I didn't say greatest, everything contributes. Speed is not only important for combat, but for getting to the target. If friendlies 100 miles away call for CAS, all else equal, they will want a faster plane sent over to them. As for the F-4, the speed and thrust was a good thing. When pilot training was addressed, the F-4 was shown to be among the best fighters in Vietnam.