F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. A-10 Warthog: The Ultimate Close Air Support Showdown

[Fishking]

Military commanders have been trying to push hybrid Swiss Army knife one platform can do all things for a long time and it fails in every single area that it touches. When you try to make one thing to everything you just get something that does everything mediocre to poorly.

Ya'll should watch the movie Pentagon Wars. It's a comedy based on the reality that was the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Unfortunately, is only too true and everyone that has served, especially on deployments, knows it.

 

[beerftw]

Military commanders have been trying to push hybrid Swiss Army knife one platform can do all things for a long time and it fails in every single area that it touches. When you try to make one thing to everything you just get something that does everything mediocre to poorly.

Ya'll should watch the movie Pentagon Wars. It's a comedy based on the reality that was the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Unfortunately, is only too true and everyone that has served, especially on deployments, knows it.

Awww I was going to bring up pentagon wars for this thread! But yeah the movie was a true story, about a troop carrier designed to be armored. It turned into a troop carrier that could not carry troops, and armored tank that had no armor, and an amphibious vehicle that could not go through water.

Sadder part is the guy who pushed the change got barred from reenlistment, but his actions did get the bradley changed to an actual effective vehicle.

 

[Deuce]

It is ready now. The Marines have a full squadron right now! The Air Force will have one later this year. You are just ignoring the facts. The aircraft is ready...RIGHT NOW!

I posted links to two articles earlier, I suggest you read at least the headlines.

It doesn't have a gun yet.

 

[blackjack50]

A-10. No question. As a CAS role it is going to be far superior unless there is significant air to air threats and the a10 has no support aircraft around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WI Crippler]

This is like taking an MMA fighter vs. a boxer and asking who is the better boxer.

CAS...Thats its role. So if you want an argument as to what is a better CAS weapons platform, I think that's a debate worth having.

Which platform will be better all around? F-35 once they get it rolling.

I always thought the A-10 was wasted on the Air Force. Culturally it fits with the Marines MAGTF mission, except it isn't carrier based...but I was in a 2 seat F-18D squadron that wasn't carrier based either. So if the Air Force wants to scrap it I bet Marine Corps would take it on the cheap. We love the brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttt sounds.

 

[DA60]

The F-35 is ridiculously over-engineered for 2016 U.S. ground attack missions.

It's big advantage is stealthiness. And that is more-or-less only good against radar guided missiles/AA guns. The enemies America is likely to face for the foreseeable future will probably have few (if any) of either. SO the massive extra cost for stealthiness is more-or-less wasted on ground attack missions...especially 'ground-pounding' missions that are 'low and slow'.

Other then range (which the F-35 has the edge): the A-10 can carry about the same weight of ordinance, is far better protected against damage, has two engines (for safety), is FAR easier to maintain, is probably far safer for the pilot, flies slower for greater accuracy and costs (in 2016 dollars) about 1/4 as much as the F-35 (though obviously they are not making new A-10's).

Unless the adversary has state-of-the-art defenses AND America had not been able to neutralize them, the choice is obvious - the A-10 by a mile.

The F-35 was designed in a different time for a different type of war then America now faces.

 

[kanabco]

The F-35 is ridiculously over-engineered for 2016 U.S. ground attack missions.

It's big advantage is stealthiness. And that is more-or-less only good against radar guided missiles/AA guns. The enemies America is likely to face for the foreseeable future will probably have few (if any) of either. SO the massive extra cost for stealthiness is more-or-less wasted on ground attack missions...especially 'ground-pounding' missions that are 'low and slow'.

Other then range (which the F-35 has the edge): the A-10 can carry about the same weight of ordinance, is far better protected against damage, has two engines (for safety), is FAR easier to maintain, is probably far safer for the pilot, flies slower for greater accuracy and costs (in 2016 dollars) about 1/4 as much as the F-35 (though obviously they are not making new A-10's).

Unless the adversary has state-of-the-art defenses AND America had not been able to neutralize them, the choice is obvious - the A-10 by a mile.

The F-35 was designed in a different time for a different type of war then America now faces.

Of course I am prejudice when it comes to CAS since, in my humble opinion, the Longbow is the most awesome killing machine ever to fly. However we had these discussions often with the army and in certain conditions they would rather rely on their own pilots and communications (us) than the A10 (usaf).
Here is an incomplete list of concerns that always came up
Time to target (A10 always won unless Apaches were closer as is usually the case)
Time at Target aka loitering. (Longbow always won)
Firepower (more complicated than just a canon)
Cost (longbow always won)
Field operation (Longbow always won -- Army vs Air Force)

I except the A10 vs F35 to go through a similar conversation.

If I can find the test criteria I will post the link.

 

[JANFU]

Flying close to ground troops in combat in hostile and high-threat conditions requires a host of unique attributes for an aircraft -- such as flying slow and low to the ground, absorbing some degree of small arms fire and having an ability to quickly maneuver in response to fast-changing ground combat conditions.

These, and many more, are among factors now being analyzed as proponents of both the A-10 Warthog and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter assess their respective abilities to perform the crucial and highly valued Close Air Support mission. The Pentagon and the Air Force are now conducting a thorough examination of each plane's capability for this role - including extensive analysis, simulated tests, flights of both aircraft under combat-like conditions and a range of tests, Air Force and Pentagon officials have explained. While many of the details of the ongoing evaluation are not now being discussed publically, the results are expected to bear prominently upon the visible ongoing debate regarding the future mission scope of both the A-10 and the F-35.

F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. A-10 Warthog: The Ultimate Close Air Support Showdown | The National Interest Blog

PS hope I did this right... I got kinda spanked once for posting links wrong.

Recall reading an article some time ago. The US had A10's and B22 active in AStan. The troops on the ground preferred support from the A10 by a wide margin. It is one mean and nasty piece of kit.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Awww I was going to bring up pentagon wars for this thread! But yeah the movie was a true story, about a troop carrier designed to be armored. It turned into a troop carrier that could not carry troops, and armored tank that had no armor, and an amphibious vehicle that could not go through water.

Sadder part is the guy who pushed the change got barred from reenlistment, but his actions did get the bradley changed to an actual effective vehicle.

To quote another user from another forum:

"Yeah...

...the problem with that is that the Bradley turned out to be one of the most effective combat vehicles ever fielded (a bit of hyperbole, but not by much), so comparing this concept to the Bradley is actually a ringing endorsement.

For starters, the Bradley was never meant to replace the M113, as it was always meant as an IFV (in the vein of the Soviet BMP) rather than an APC -- the only sense in which it was meant to replace the M113 is that there were several IFV prototypes based on the M113 chassis.

The whole idea of an IFV is that, while it carries fewer troops than an APC, it compensates by remaining in the fight to provide the dismounts with fire support. So, while the movie treats the addition of a turret and transition from a 20mm ("machine gun"?) to a 25mm to be some drastic change-over, even the M113-variants had a turret and planned to up-gun from 20mm to 25mm (BTW, both of which are much smaller than the BMP-1's 73mm gun). Similarly, all of those M113-based IFV prototypes had the side-portholes that the movie treats as a last-minute addition, which was a feature based on combat experience in Vietnam and also copied from the BMP. The anti-tank missiles are similar: the BMP had its own anti-tank missile, so the American off-shoot did as well.

And the Bradley turned out to be extremely effective -- not only did it score more anti-armor kills in the Gulf War than the Abrams, but also the majority of the losses were to friendly fire. Of course, most of the forces that they were fighting were badly outdated relative to the Bradley, but that was never the Bradley's role to begin with. "

 

[beerftw]

To quote another user from another forum:

"Yeah...

...the problem with that is that the Bradley turned out to be one of the most effective combat vehicles ever fielded (a bit of hyperbole, but not by much), so comparing this concept to the Bradley is actually a ringing endorsement.

For starters, the Bradley was never meant to replace the M113, as it was always meant as an IFV (in the vein of the Soviet BMP) rather than an APC -- the only sense in which it was meant to replace the M113 is that there were several IFV prototypes based on the M113 chassis.

The whole idea of an IFV is that, while it carries fewer troops than an APC, it compensates by remaining in the fight to provide the dismounts with fire support. So, while the movie treats the addition of a turret and transition from a 20mm ("machine gun"?) to a 25mm to be some drastic change-over, even the M113-variants had a turret and planned to up-gun from 20mm to 25mm (BTW, both of which are much smaller than the BMP-1's 73mm gun). Similarly, all of those M113-based IFV prototypes had the side-portholes that the movie treats as a last-minute addition, which was a feature based on combat experience in Vietnam and also copied from the BMP. The anti-tank missiles are similar: the BMP had its own anti-tank missile, so the American off-shoot did as well.

And the Bradley turned out to be extremely effective -- not only did it score more anti-armor kills in the Gulf War than the Abrams, but also the majority of the losses were to friendly fire. Of course, most of the forces that they were fighting were badly outdated relative to the Bradley, but that was never the Bradley's role to begin with. "

No the movie did not rag on what the bradley became, but rather it's design progress, it went from an armored carriier to a useless overpriced jack of all trades master of none. After testing was finally done the bradley was redesigned to become the effective fighter it is today.

The movie was about high ranking pentagon officials pushing the bradley far beyond what was possible, then sabotaging the tests to keep everyone from knowing what a piece of just all that money bought. It parallels the f-35, which has been the most expensive aircraft to design ever, tries to be everything, and fails. It is not the worst aircraft ever made, but it stinks of backdoor deals and hype more than functionality.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No the movie did not rag on what the bradley became, but rather it's design progress, it went from an armored carriier to a useless overpriced jack of all trades master of none. After testing was finally done the bradley was redesigned to become the effective fighter it is today.

The movie was about high ranking pentagon officials pushing the bradley far beyond what was possible, then sabotaging the tests to keep everyone from knowing what a piece of just all that money bought. It parallels the f-35, which has been the most expensive aircraft to design ever, tries to be everything, and fails. It is not the worst aircraft ever made, but it stinks of backdoor deals and hype more than functionality.

Except the movie gets most of the design process wrong as well.

The Bradley never had a problem of not enough armor, it was never meant to be an armored personnel carrier in the first place, the vaporifics the movie focuses on were never found to be a problem like the movie portrays. The Bradley certainly cost a lot, but because it had a serious role. It needed to provide fire support and rapid movement along with the M1 to counter the vast fleets of tanks and mechanized infantry the Soviets were expected to pour into West Germany.

And it's not like Burton's book was perfect, either.

 

[beerftw]

Except the movie gets most of the design process wrong as well.

The Bradley never had a problem of not enough armor, it was never meant to be an armored personnel carrier in the first place, the vaporifics the movie focuses on were never found to be a problem like the movie portrays. The Bradley certainly cost a lot, but because it had a serious role. It needed to provide fire support and rapid movement along with the M1 to counter the vast fleets of tanks and mechanized infantry the Soviets were expected to pour into West Germany.

And it's not like Burton's book was perfect, either.

His book nor the movie was perfect, but the bradley went through mny years of designs and changes, and ended up as unusable until changed. I was in the army, I watched crap happen like that alot.

Some soldiers praise the matv, fully computerized replacement for humvee. It broke down almost daily, had windows so small situational awareness was nearly impossible, and it's fire extinghishers were behing the rear tires, so when leaving pavement, the rocks kicked up would disable the halon system.

Since I had them in 2010 through 2011, I have seen very few units use them, it seemed the same issue, they were designed to be faster, better armored etc, but were so cramps they could barely hold 4 soldiers, were prone to failure, they had no cargo room so even though they were supposed to replace the humvee no unit could, and the few times they were not deadlined visibility was a joke.

The acu uniform was another, it was praised to no end, worked ok in iraq in lighter sand, failed everywhere else since gray does terrible except against gray concrete and very light colored sand. Later it was shown the testing done shown it was a loser, but was chosen anyways, it was supposed to be the latest and greatest does everything, but ended up being the shortest lived camo pattern in the army.

 

[kanabco]

His book nor the movie was perfect, but the bradley went through mny years of designs and changes, and ended up as unusable until changed. I was in the army, I watched crap happen like that alot.

Some soldiers praise the matv, fully computerized replacement for humvee. It broke down almost daily, had windows so small situational awareness was nearly impossible, and it's fire extinghishers were behing the rear tires, so when leaving pavement, the rocks kicked up would disable the halon system.

Since I had them in 2010 through 2011, I have seen very few units use them, it seemed the same issue, they were designed to be faster, better armored etc, but were so cramps they could barely hold 4 soldiers, were prone to failure, they had no cargo room so even though they were supposed to replace the humvee no unit could, and the few times they were not deadlined visibility was a joke.

The acu uniform was another, it was praised to no end, worked ok in iraq in lighter sand, failed everywhere else since gray does terrible except against gray concrete and very light colored sand. Later it was shown the testing done shown it was a loser, but was chosen anyways, it was supposed to be the latest and greatest does everything, but ended up being the shortest lived camo pattern in the army.

One thing I wish the layman would come to understand is that there is NO combat vehicle that does NOT go through design iterations.
When we quote a vehicle for the pentagon we have an idea.
We are not perfect.
We are never perfect.
We sell the idea and suggest a cost.
The cost is never met because in the process of design-build we find better ways to do some things and eliminate some bad ideas.
We find the ideas that will fail.
We create ideas that will succeed
Who pays for the failure?
Who pays for the success?

Stand back and give us credit. We are the most powerful military the world has ever seen!

 

[Jredbaron96]

His book nor the movie was perfect, but the bradley went through mny years of designs and changes,

and ended up as unusable until changed. I was in the army, I watched crap happen like that alot.

I'm in the Army now, and the Bradley's changes were often necessary. The early models provided no where near the protection necessary against Soviet weaponry; hence the changes. The M2 was necessary as we lacked an IFV, and the M113 didn't stand a chance against Soviet forces.

Some soldiers praise the matv, fully computerized replacement for humvee.



It broke down almost daily, had windows so small situational awareness was nearly impossible, and it's fire extinghishers were behing the rear tires, so when leaving pavement, the rocks kicked up would disable the halon system.

Since I had them in 2010 through 2011, I have seen very few units use them, it seemed the same issue, they were designed to be faster, better armored etc, but were so cramps they could barely hold 4 soldiers, were prone to failure, they had no cargo room so even though they were supposed to replace the humvee no unit could, and the few times they were not deadlined visibility was a joke.

Except the MATV wasn't a light utility vehicle like the humvee, it was an MRAP. The LATV we're getting now is the Humvee's successor.

The acu uniform was another, it was praised to no end, worked ok in iraq in lighter sand, failed everywhere else since gray does terrible except against gray concrete and very light colored sand. Later it was shown the testing done shown it was a loser, but was chosen anyways, it was supposed to be the latest and greatest does everything, but ended up being the shortest lived camo pattern in the army.

Yes, ACUs suck. I just bought my first set of OCP the other day.

 

[beerftw]

One thing I wish the layman would come to understand is that there is NO combat vehicle that does NOT go through design iterations.
When we quote a vehicle for the pentagon we have an idea.
We are not perfect.
We are never perfect.
We sell the idea and suggest a cost.
The cost is never met because in the process of design-build we find better ways to do some things and eliminate some bad ideas.
We find the ideas that will fail.
We create ideas that will succeed
Who pays for the failure?
Who pays for the success?

Stand back and give us credit. We are the most powerful military the world has ever seen!

Everything goes through design changes, the movie the entagon wars, and my two examples are of high ranking brass decided what to field rather than engineers and the soldiers who tested them. Like the acu, it failed pretty much every test, yet multicam which a variation of it is now used, passed every test far better. The better one was never selected, and the worst one was. It likely had to do more with general a had company holdings or had a brother working in x company making acu rather than it being effective.

Some equipment I will swear by, it is tried and true and is the best, other equipment, is more or less junk some top army official mandated we use. We switched truck wreckers from a mtv to a mtv p2. The old one had never broken down after many years of service, the p2 wrecker was breaking down weekly, and had no hoist, just a boom and hook.

There was not a single unit who wanted to get rid of their old wreckers, but the dod demanded we scrap them and switch to the p2 no one liked and always failed.

 

[chuckiechan]

You can afford to get an A10 shot up, even lose it. But an F35 moves the GDP needle is so damn expensive.

 

[beerftw]

I'm in the Army now, and the Bradley's changes were often necessary. The early models provided no where near the protection necessary against Soviet weaponry; hence the changes. The M2 was necessary as we lacked an IFV, and the M113 didn't stand a chance against Soviet forces.



Except the MATV wasn't a light utility vehicle like the humvee, it was an MRAP. The LATV we're getting now is the Humvee's successor.



Yes, ACUs suck. I just bought my first set of OCP the other day.

The latv is just as much junk as the matv, The mraps were also junk. Soldiers loved the caymen's, but hated the maxpros.The maxpros flipped over flom damn near everything and always broke down, guess which one the army got rig of, hint it was not the maxpro. The other one the worked the rg33 was pretty much phased out as well.

Humvees are junk, but if I want a replacement, I want one that works, not a downgrade.


And yes the bradley much like everything else went through changes, but before it's official production it was junk, the results of beurocrats designing it rather than engineers. The one thing I like about the finished bradley now is in tests done by 1st cav it always beats the abrahms and every other tank, due to it's speed and mobility.


I got out of active duty after afghanistan and we still had acu's, while every other unit had multicams. My unit rejected them not for functionality but because of apperance. When I was in the guard they allowed ocp riht before I ets'ed which is sad because not only did it look sweet, but I did not have to roll in a pile of sand to match my surrounding with ocp.

 

[ksu_aviator]

It doesn't have a gun yet.

It doesn't change the fact that the Marines have a full squadron and the Air Force will have one later this. Maybe as early as next month.

 

[kanabco]

Everything goes through design changes, the movie the entagon wars, and my two examples are of high ranking brass decided what to field rather than engineers and the soldiers who tested them. Like the acu, it failed pretty much every test, yet multicam which a variation of it is now used, passed every test far better. The better one was never selected, and the worst one was. It likely had to do more with general a had company holdings or had a brother working in x company making acu rather than it being effective.

Some equipment I will swear by, it is tried and true and is the best, other equipment, is more or less junk some top army official mandated we use. We switched truck wreckers from a mtv to a mtv p2. The old one had never broken down after many years of service, the p2 wrecker was breaking down weekly, and had no hoist, just a boom and hook.

There was not a single unit who wanted to get rid of their old wreckers, but the dod demanded we scrap them and switch to the p2 no one liked and always failed.

I apologize if I come across as superior or better or whatever.
You obviously have first hand experience using systems that we can only hope to provide without flaws.
But we did listen.
Two times per year in Mesa we had peer-on-peer conferences where pilots and arms officers sat down and talked off-the-record to our designers.
Indeed it was OTR and everyone from the draftsmen to the VPs listened to them.
What did they like?
What did they hate?
You know we love these(you) guys, right?
But what we could not do is change their experiences using the weapon which were beyond our control.
We could never change how the Apache was used.

Yes I am defensive. I am as defensive as the BAE engineers and assemblers and the rest of the people who manufacture things that some users come to hate.

 

[sookster]

In a documentary I saw, according to the pilots the government wants to scrap the A10 because it only does air to ground. The pilots were saying, that's exactly why you should keep it. They specialize in providing direct support to our troops. Keep them in the air. There were countless stories of them saving lives.

 

[blackjack50]

The F-35 is ridiculously over-engineered for 2016 U.S. ground attack missions.

It's big advantage is stealthiness. And that is more-or-less only good against radar guided missiles/AA guns. The enemies America is likely to face for the foreseeable future will probably have few (if any) of either. SO the massive extra cost for stealthiness is more-or-less wasted on ground attack missions...especially 'ground-pounding' missions that are 'low and slow'.

Other then range (which the F-35 has the edge): the A-10 can carry about the same weight of ordinance, is far better protected against damage, has two engines (for safety), is FAR easier to maintain, is probably far safer for the pilot, flies slower for greater accuracy and costs (in 2016 dollars) about 1/4 as much as the F-35 (though obviously they are not making new A-10's).

Unless the adversary has state-of-the-art defenses AND America had not been able to neutralize them, the choice is obvious - the A-10 by a mile.

The F-35 was designed in a different time for a different type of war then America now faces.

It certainly could fulfill the wild weasel role of the stealth tech is as good as the claims.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DA60]

Of course I am prejudice when it comes to CAS since, in my humble opinion, the Longbow is the most awesome killing machine ever to fly. However we had these discussions often with the army and in certain conditions they would rather rely on their own pilots and communications (us) than the A10 (usaf).
Here is an incomplete list of concerns that always came up
Time to target (A10 always won unless Apaches were closer as is usually the case)
Time at Target aka loitering. (Longbow always won)
Firepower (more complicated than just a canon)
Cost (longbow always won)
Field operation (Longbow always won -- Army vs Air Force)

I except the A10 vs F35 to go through a similar conversation.

If I can find the test criteria I will post the link.

That all makes sense, but try telling that to the Air Force.

 

[DA60]

It certainly could fulfill the wild weasel role of the stealth tech is as good as the claims.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, that makes sense...but a) the enemy America has been facing over the last decade does not (to my knowledge) even have radar guided missiles - which is the point of Wild Weasels; c) Wild Weasel squadrons tend to employ (for some bizarre reason) older aircraft...so I am guessing they would utilize F-15D/E's or F-16D's; and if they really wanted the best plane for the job, they would use F-22's (but they are probably too scarce for that) - or beefed up, stealth drones.

I think unmanned attack vehicles are the future anyway of ground attack missions (outside of possibly CAS).

 

[Deuce]

Sure, that makes sense...but a) the enemy America has been facing over the last decade does not (to my knowledge) even have radar guided missiles - which is the point of Wild Weasels; c) Wild Weasel squadrons tend to employ (for some bizarre reason) older aircraft...so I am guessing they would utilize F-15D/E's or F-16D's; and if they really wanted the best plane for the job, they would use F-22's (but they are probably too scarce for that) - or beefed up, stealth drones.

I think unmanned attack vehicles are the future anyway of ground attack missions (outside of possibly CAS).

F-22s are air superiority craft with minor air to ground capabilities bolted in at the last second out of desperation. Carrying more than a couple bombs means using external pylons which eliminates the entire stealth aspect instantly.

And yeah, I don't know why we wouldn't just use drones for that role. Air Force still has too many old fighter jocks in charge, can't let go of their obsolete warfighting methods.

 

[kanabco]

F-22s are air superiority craft with minor air to ground capabilities bolted in at the last second out of desperation. Carrying more than a couple bombs means using external pylons which eliminates the entire stealth aspect instantly.

And yeah, I don't know why we wouldn't just use drones for that role. Air Force still has too many old fighter jocks in charge, can't let go of their obsolete warfighting methods.

Speaking of obsolete
Remember the TOW missiles? Wire guided from chopper to tank. So old school. It meant the Apache had to be up high enough and linger long enough to give away their position.
But then we got the Hellfire which required no wire. It just needed a laser target supplied by the helicopter or a ground system. But even then, if the laser was in the Longbow then the Longbow had to remain high until impact and still give away its position.
Now we have the Hellfire II which is an anti tank missile with its own computer and radar. The Apache pops up, defines the radar signature of the thank, fires, and then drops behind the trees or the hill, kills the tank, and moves off in some other direction to pop up again 90 degrees afar and kills again.
All of this from two miles away where the four blades and turbines cannot be heard.

Pay your taxes
Support military research
Stop bitching.