F-35 To Face Off Against A-10 In CAS Test 502
An anonymous reader writes: Lara Seligman from Defense News reports that the capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter are to be evaluated for close-air support (CAS) missions. She writes, "To gauge the joint strike fighter's ability to perform in a close-air support role, the Pentagon's top weapons tester has declared the sleek new fighter jet must face off against the lumbering A-10. The Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation plans to pit the full-up F-35 against the legacy A-10 Warthog and potentially other fighter jets to evaluate the next-generation aircraft's ability to protect soldiers on the ground."
Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a little late for testing with several of these deployed in Europe. Seems more like a marketing/PR stunt.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's staged because the F-18 kicks the ass off the F-35, and the cost of operation of the F-35 sucks as well, even though we're stuck with it.
Just watch, the evaluation criteria will be designed to have the F-35 come out on top, even though it lacks the armor of the Warthog, which not only jeopardizes the crew but the astronomically expensive asset as well.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Funny)
It's staged because the F-18 kicks the ass off the F-35, and the cost of operation of the F-35 sucks as well, even though we're stuck with it.
You didn't read the rest of the story, which states "In order to make the comparison fair, the A10 will be fuelled with paraffin wax and weedkiller, have a large number of anvils bolted to it, and will be dragging a large boat anchor. 'We hope this at least evens the odds a bit so the F35 will look OK', a Pentagon spokesthing was quoted as saying".
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't read the rest of the story, which states "In order to make the comparison fair, the A10 will be fuelled with paraffin wax and weedkiller, have a large number of anvils bolted to it, and will be dragging a large boat anchor. 'We hope this at least evens the odds a bit so the F35 will look OK', a Pentagon spokesthing was quoted as saying".
Sadly the A-10 will still come out on top as it can probably run on paraffin. It's also maneuverable enough that the pilots will turn the boat anchor into a weapon and swat enemy fortifications with it just before purging the boiling wax on their position. And still have enough fuel to loiter longer than the JST.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Insightful)
The A10 isn't a plane. It's a tank they managed to make fly.
http://www.aircraftresourcecen... [aircraftre...center.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Used to have a friend who jokingly (though I think its true) commented on the fact that they started out with the GUN and designed the aircraft around it.
That's the story I heard as well. If you look at the gun by itself [tumblr.com], you can see that it's probably not far from the truth.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Funny)
I can just picture this.
A10 Approaches tank.
Tank commander: Ooooooh shiiiit!
A10 Overflies tank.
Tank commander: Phew!
*CLUNK*
Tank is now thirty feet from where it was. And upside down.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
"We're looking at all the missions and where it would make sense to do comparison testing and where it wouldn't, and we're going to be working with the services to develop that plan."
In other words, that's exactly what will happen; they just need to figure out the best way to rig this in the shiny new thing's favour.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:4, Interesting)
10 years from now they'll still be trying to fix it.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:4, Insightful)
30 years from now, they'll give up on fixing it, and retire it.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Insightful)
200 years from now, we'll still be paying for it.
Re: (Score:3)
But by then we'll have the F48 project which will be 15 years behind schedule and 2 trillion dollars over budget, which is way more than the paltry 3-4 years behind schedule and 200 billion over budget that they managed with the F35.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:3, Informative)
The whole comparison is silly anyway. The question is, is the F35 as good as a few dozen A10's? Because in terms of cost, that's what we're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm really curious what the F-35 will look like in 30 years, I'd love to see acres of them sitting and rotting in the sun at Davis-Monthan.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Insightful)
F_35 CAS:
Solider: "You see that that little hut next to the big tree two klicks from our smoke?"
F-35 pilot:"Negative, I have no visual"
Solider:"You have to come down from 35k"
F-35 pilot:"Negative, I'm not authorized to operate below 15k".
A-10:
Solider: "You see that that little hut next to the big tree two klicks from our smoke?"
Target disappears in a cloud of smoke, debris, and body parts.
A-10 Pilot: "You mean that one?"
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Did not see this happen during DS, and subsequent generations of marines did not see this during OEF/OIF.
The A10 sucks for CAP. Given a choice for no CAP or A10, would probably choose none unless it was determined we will die in any case. Those idiot A10 bastards shot at my unit twice, then disappeared during the actual assault phase.
God bless them fuckin F18s.
Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why compare the F-35, a fighter with the A-10 a ground assault craft, wouldn't it make more sense to compare a ground assault craft to its replacement ground assault craft?
B/c they're trying to use the F-35 as a replacement for the A-10, something it's not really designed to do. It would make better sense to have a new plane designed for it but they've already sunk so much into the F-35 JSF program that they're trying to justify it.
Re:Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Informative)
> It's a little late for testing with several of these deployed in Europe.
You are confusing the F-22 Raptor with the F-35 JSF. The F-22 has recently been deployed to Europe because of the russian attack on the Ukraine. The F-22 is a twin engine stealth fighter with extremely high operating costs and not exactly stellar reliability/availability levels, even after 15 years of service, but at least it works and is VERY capable.
In contrast, the F-35 JSF is a single engine stealthly fighter-bomber, which hasn't been deployed anywhere yet, still being essentially a prototype with many tech problems, despite 100 of them having been assembled. Most problems stem from the fact that it is actually based on a russian prototype called Yak-141, whose design the drunkard Yeltsin sold to USA (L-M) for 300m USD in the late 1990s. L-M company had no experience whatsoever in vertical landing planes and relied on this tech import to compete against Boeing-BAE-Rolls-Royce, who bidded with the X-32 prototype as a very distant successor of the Harrier. L-M won, but proved unable to integrate a russian-derived airframe with western electronics. On the other hand, Pentagon was asking for too much, landbased, marine and naval fighter in a single basic arframe, constant mission creep, etc.
Re:Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:4, Informative)
> Most problems stem from the fact that it is actually based on a russian prototype called Yak-141 ...snip ...
L-M won, but proved unable to integrate a russian-derived airframe with western electronics.
That really would have been an amazing trick, since the Yak-141 (aka Yak-41) had THREE engines. One main thrust engine, and two VTOL engines. The F-35 airframe has NO similarity to the Yak-141 except for the fact that it has wings and a cockpit. The three engine design is documented in several web pages and books about the Yak-141.
I have no love for the F-35 or JSF program. However, I have to call out arguments that are just patently wrong. I suppose it is possible L-M borrowed some VTOL ideas from the Yak-141. However, the F-35 is drastically different.
Re:Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of which role CIA played in the Ukrainian events, the presence of Russian ground troops in Donbass does amount to an invasion of Ukraine (and said presence has been repeatedly confirmed informally by the rebels themselves - I've personally spoken to two people who have participated in the Debaltsevo operation on the rebel side who have said that it was only made possible by Russian troops and esp. armor).
Re:Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score:5, Funny)
You call it a mistake. It's name is "Warthog". Calling it "Thunderbolt" or "Thunderbolt II" just marks you as an outsider. Troops on the ground sure don't call it that. "Incoming Hog, duck!" No one wants to be clipped by a wing as the Hog passes overhead. Let's see if those fucking F-35's get that low to the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LMAO - I didn't say "A-10 Warthog", now did I? I said "hog". I said "Warthog" as well. WTF has the time or the inclination to say "A-10 Thunderbolt"? Hog. Warthog. One or two syllables - short and to the point.
A-10 for the Win (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect the A-10 will have a very strong showing, regardless of how they try to cripple it in the tests.
Re:A-10 for the Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'll take $20 on the 'hog.
Re:A-10 for the Win (Score:4, Funny)
You're too kind.
Re: A-10 for the Win (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't we be comparing the efficiency of 6 warthogs vs. Just 1 F35? That would be a better like-cost comparison.
Then again, the warthog has almost twice as many active duty days per month. So maybe the comparison should be 12 hogs per single F35?
And we haven't even gotten into the costs of special training for pilots and engineers.
Anyone who thinks the f35 is more capable of ground support than 12 hogs needs their head checked.
If I was on the ground and had a choice between support from 12 warthogs or 1
Re: A-10 for the Win (Score:5, Insightful)
And the A-10 can brrrrrrrt, the F-35 can't even yet.
Re:A-10 for the Win (Score:4, Interesting)
The a-10 is my favorite weapons platform. The AC 130 is my second favorite.
My favorite jet is the SR-71.
I'm hoping that we haven't learned yet what replaced the SR-71 , cause if it's just satellites and the x-37b - my childhood awe of a jet traveling over 2000 mph will be crushed.
My fingers are crossed that the aurora is really an asset. That would make my inner child very happy.
Re:A-10 for the Win (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem right there: the Warthog is beloved by the Army troops, and that's why the Air Force generals hate it so. Unfortunately, the Army isn't allowed to use fixed wing aircraft due to division of powers, so it remains subject to the whims of the old men who sneer at anything that wasn't meant to fly thousands of feet above the earth.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's awesome that the U2's are still flying.
It'd be good if they could fly... ...With or Without You
Re:A-10 for the Win (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that F-35 was sold as a "multirole" airplane, to replace F-16 and A-10.
It has already been evaluated against F-16, and it came up a DISMAL second place in air combat, an arena in which there are NO prizes for second place.
It is now going to be evaluated against A-10. I'm with the previous guy who put $20 on the Warthog, except I'll bet the traditional "$1 and bragging rights".
Re:A-10 for the Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means that it's a swiss army knife against [Crocodile Dundee voice] "this is a knife" aircraft.
Re:A-10 for the Win (Score:5, Funny)
Makes perfect sense - it's equal to the F-16 for air-to-ground and almost as good a fighter as the A-10.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that in that evaluation, the F-35 being tested was AF-2, a flight science model, right? It had:
* No situational awareness software
* No advanced weapons targeting software
* No stealth coating
It was not designed to be a combat evaluation of the full system, rather just an attempt to stress the system with visual combat maneuvers.
That said, the F-35 is not designed to be a visual dogfighter. It has dogfighting capabilities, but its main design principle is high situational
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize that in that evaluation, the F-35 being tested was AF-2, a flight science model, right? It had:
* No situational awareness software * No advanced weapons targeting software * No stealth coating
It was not designed to be a combat evaluation of the full system, rather just an attempt to stress the system with visual combat maneuvers.
Only because, after ten years, none of those other systems are available yet, let alone operational.
That said, the F-35 is not designed to be a visual dogfighter. It has dogfighting capabilities, but its main design principle is high situational awareness enabling kills from far away - seeing the enemy from long before it itself is seen.
So, you're saying it's a replacement for the F-15, not F-16? With only half the weapons load capacity?
Re: (Score:3)
Can't make it as a fighter so... (Score:2)
It's becoming the anti-anti-tank weapon.
hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
pros and cons (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that as the article says, there will be pros and cons of each. Obviously the A-10 has been very successful in this role, while the F-35 benefits from decades of technology advancements.
The A-10 is robust. The F-35 gives the pilot a much better view the of entire situation. The A-10 can put a lot of fire down in a small area as it flies low and slow. The F-35 can start applying fire earlier, while it's still further away. The A-10 is a proven system that has stood the test of time. The F-35 doesn't have to run away when an old Russian surplus fighter is detected in the area.
I really like the A-10 and generally I appreciate systems that have stood the test of time - newer doesn't mean better (aka the fundamental belief that means I'm a conservative) .
ALSO, when improvements are made, when someone "does it better", that's also new. SOMETIMES the new thing IS better is significant ways. We'll see what happens in the testing.
The F-35 IS expensive _per_unit_. The A-10 does one job, and there are several other aircraft that do different jobs. So the A-10 sits on the ground while there is air-to-air taking place, waiting while another aircraft handles that. IF the F-35 does four different roles, replacing four different types of aircraft, that cuts the effective cost by 75%. It wouldn't be parked on the tarmac waiting for a time when CAS in needed with uncontested skies. It could, supposedly, when the skies while also bombing enemy airfields , then do close air support.
Let's see how it actually does in testing before we declare the result.
Re:pros and cons (Score:5, Interesting)
The F-35 IS expensive _per_unit_. The A-10 does one job, and there are several other aircraft that do different jobs. So the A-10 sits on the ground while there is air-to-air taking place, waiting while another aircraft handles that. IF the F-35 does four different roles, replacing four different types of aircraft, that cuts the effective cost by 75%. It wouldn't be parked on the tarmac waiting for a time when CAS in needed with uncontested skies. It could, supposedly, when the skies while also bombing enemy airfields , then do close air support.
Let's see how it actually does in testing before we declare the result.
The astronomical cost of the F-35 means that 1) we won't make that many of them and 2) we won't deploy that many of them. In the event of a free for all fight, having four separate aircraft doing four separate things is a good thing. It allows the pilots and support crews to concentrate on fewer issues. The F35 is going to have to be air support, AWACs and air to ground fighter. The theory behind the F35 is that it is so smart, it can deal with all of the issues from a lot further away. The slow development cycle of the plane means that it won't have all of it's capabilities for another ten years or so.
The idea of having one airframe play multiple roles only works if you make enough to do the job (and that it actually does all of the jobs reasonably well).
Re: pros and cons (Score:4, Informative)
The F35 is a lot like a dual sport motorcycle. It can't keep up with the sport bikes (F-22, F-15, F-16) at track days, and it can't keep up with MX bikes (A-10) at the dirt track, but it is awfully good at the 90% of the rest of the time uses.
Its second big issue is that the Pentagon canceled the engine that was designed to go in it, which had twice the power of the current engine. That is also why it lost VTOL capability. Then they cut the dual engine dogfigter which was proposed after the more powerful version was cut.
The end result is that we have a QB with one leg broken, and thefans are demanding pushing contests with defensive linemen and races with running backs.
Re: pros and cons (Score:4, Informative)
Your causality is backwards. The cost to build each F-35 isn't all that much. What makes it "expensive" is the total development cost divided by a small number made. Same problem the F-22 had. Cost a fortune to design and progress the technology, but each individual airplane cost less than half what their overall cost is, since they only made 187 combat aircraft.
Most of your post is simply wrong information...
Thousands of F-35 planes will be built, for many nations... It is meant to replace a whole lot of airframes, so it isn't going to be a short production run...
The F35 is a lot like a dual sport motorcycle. It can't keep up with the sport bikes (F-22, F-15, F-16) at track days, and it can't keep up with MX bikes (A-10) at the dirt track, but it is awfully good at the 90% of the rest of the time uses.
Actually, it isn't really good at anything, just average at a number of things. Average is not what you want in wartime, you want to be really good, or you have to overcome not being the best with a huge numbers advantage.
Its second big issue is that the Pentagon canceled the engine that was designed to go in it, which had twice the power of the current engine. That is also why it lost VTOL capability. Then they cut the dual engine dogfigter which was proposed after the more powerful version was cut.
What makes you think it lost VTOL? That is still there, they canceled the second OPTION engine, it sure as heck wasn't going to be TWICE THE POWER...
Most of what you understand about the F-35 appears to simply be incorrect information.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, all our allies will suck... the problem is Russia and China, who this plane is really aimed at...
Our existing F-16 and F-15s are plenty to fight nations like Iran, what we need the upgrade for is a major conflict with a major power...
The Western media likes to downplay and make fun of Russian and Chinese technology, but there are parts of what they do that are better than we are, and better than the aging F-16/F-15 fleet.
The F-22 Raptor is indeed awesome, but 187 airframes isn't enough to fight a war
Re:pros and cons (Score:4, Insightful)
The F35 is a peace time fighter. Same with the F22 and Eurofighter. Too expensive and complex for a proper shooting war. Even the Russian and Chinese offerings will need to be put through some simplification before they're ready to be mass produced on the scale needed for war.
If the shit really hit the fan (and somehow no-one dropped the bomb) then the current crop of aircraft will be radically redesigned to be cheaper and simpler to manufacture. WWII demonstrated that with Nazi Germany producing vastly superior tanks but because of their complexity, they were swarmed by cheaper, mass produced tanks. So in a shooting war against an enemy that can defend itself, the fighters we have dont matter as much as the fighters we can build.
The British had the same problem in WWII, their existing bomber force consisting of Blenheims and Wellingtons would be wiped out in 3 months. So they started designing new bombers, such as that thing they knocked together out of balsa wood and glue which became one of the most famous fighter-bombers of all time.
Re:pros and cons (Score:4, Interesting)
WWII demonstrated that with Nazi Germany producing vastly superior tanks but because of their complexity, they were swarmed by cheaper, mass produced tanks.
No, WWII demonstrated that if you can not put fuel in your tank it does not matter how good it is. Germany was swarmed by cheaper, mass produced tanks but they lacked the fuel and personnel required to operate a larger force. They made the most out of the resources they had and were surprisingly effective. They could not handle many losses so they had equipment that, despite being expensive, allowed them to make the most out of their limited resources.
The United States is in a similar situation to Germany in some ways. The US can not tolerate lost soldiers - the political cost is too great. For the administration to convince people that military action is required, they have to be able to keep their soldiers alive. Keeping soldiers alive is best done by using advanced equipment. So it is difficult to look only at price and the job done when evaluating military goods - there are more factors to consider.
Re:pros and cons (Score:4, Interesting)
WW2 went on for 6 years, and you got roughly two generations of planes. I suspect a modern war against a proper opponent might not go on long enough to actually produce new models - you'll fight with what you've got at the start.
P.S. I'm not talking about the scenario where it's over in a few hours.
Re:pros and cons (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh, not quite.
The thing knocked together to replace the Blenheims and Wellingtons was the Lancaster. It was an all-metal fusealge made in the traditional British design in that it was there to dump as much ordinance on top of the enemy as possible (which seems to have been the primary British military doctrine over the centuries).
The thing knocked together out of Balsa wood and glue was the Mosquito. It was initially an abortive attempt to mean an impossible military spec, but kind of the brainchild of its designer who realised that in many configurations, wood had equivalent strength to weight ratio as contemporary alloys if you made the wood composites right. The "non strategic materials" bit was part of the original military spec.
It was sort of originally designed as a fast bomber, but they abandoned the spec and just decided to build a really awesome plane, and it actually entered service as a photo reconnisance plane.
The mossie is actually an excellent example of a multirole aircraft: start with a good airframe and see what it can do.
It didn't have the payload to compete with the Lancaster in the favourite British miitary pastime of blasting the ever living shit out of an enemy, nor did it have the defensive capability to go into fighter infested area (no turrets so a squadron couldn't put out a wall of flak like the turret bombers), though it could get in fast, drop a small payload and get out.
It could kind of go up against enememy fighters in that a well disciplined squadron could defend itself, but it couldn't dogfight 1-1 with any of the British fighters (this was tested).
It was how an excellent airframe (good range, very fast, high service ceiling) with great flexibility, so it was adapted to a hugh number of roles, everything from unarmed recon to toting round a 57mm cannon which made it something akin to a flying torpedo boat. The flexibility also allowed all sorts of ancialliary kit to be loaded like various kinds of radar which made it well suited to rather varied roles.
WWII was a different era with different tech (Score:3)
WWII demonstrated that with Nazi Germany producing vastly superior tanks but because of their complexity, they were swarmed by cheaper, mass produced tanks.
The reasons the Nazi's lost were FAR more complex than you are implying here. Furthermore the Soviet T-34 [wikipedia.org] tank was among the best tanks in the world at the time and even the German's thought and said so. The German's ultimately lost because they picked a fight with a much larger country with deeper resources including more land, more people and more natural resources. The only reason the German's did as well as they did was because the Soviets were behind the curve technologically and organizationally ea
Re: (Score:3)
The astronomical cost of the F-35 means that 1) we won't make that many of them and 2) we won't deploy that many of them.
Depends on how you are calculating the costs. If you consider just the production costs, it's not that expensive. If you take all the development and testing costs from day 1 and divide them by the amount of planes produced, the costs are indeed astronomical - at the moment. The more you produce though, the less expensive each unit becomes. And if it really turns out to be THE multirole fighter for the next 40 years, the costs per piece will be extremely manageable.
Not making many of them does not make sens
Re:pros and cons (Score:5, Insightful)
"[The F-35] wouldn't be parked on the tarmac waiting for a time when CAS in needed with uncontested skies."
Based on its performance so far, it would be parked on the tarmac because of something like the wings falling off when it got dark, or the engines turning themselves off whenever the pilot tried to arm a missile.
Re:pros and cons (Score:4, Insightful)
> IF the F-35 does four different roles
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.
Re:pros and cons (Score:4, Interesting)
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.
^ This... and in war, you don't want "average" if you can avoid it, unless you have a massive numbers advantage...
The F-35 is the perfect example of jack of all trades, master of none. That is normally not a good idea in war.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:pros and cons (Score:4, Interesting)
The A-10 does one job, and there are several other aircraft that do different jobs.
The A-10 only does "one job" because that's all it's been allowed to do. However it has on occasion gone outside the box with devastating results against a variety of primary ground targets not in a CAS role, and it could also be used against maritime targets in the same way. The A-10 has demonstrated devastating anti-aircraft ability as well, with at least one known air-to-air kill. This is an area that could easily be expanded: no known aircraft can survive the A-10's gun. It is the most powerful dogfight cannon ever put in the air.
That's the key: very few things used in war or on a battlefield could resist that gun. The A-10 is likely to be a formidable platform if it was allowed to do more than CAS. Let it hit buildings, vehicles, ships and boats, and aircraft. All the A-10 needs is freedom to shoot anything that needs to be engaged.
read your post. I understand you're a fan (Score:3)
I understand why you're a fan of the A-10. It's a good plane, the does what it's designed to do. Re-read what you just wrote:
> The A-10 has demonstrated devastating anti-aircraft ability as well, with at least one known air-to-air kill.
One kill. In decades. One. That's devastating capability? Once, a rubber band killed someone. Therefore a rubber band is a devastating weapon? Again, the A-10 is a good ground attack plane. It's not a fighter; it's not a bomber, it's not a frankfurter. It's
No the A10 is not a fighter (Score:3)
The A-10 has demonstrated devastating anti-aircraft ability as well, with at least one known air-to-air kill.
The A10 shot down a couple of helicopters [wikipedia.org]. That's hardly "devastating anit-aircraft ability". It's a great plane for shooting stuff on the ground of almost any description but let's not pretend it is some amazing air-to-air fighter because it is not.
This is an area that could easily be expanded: no known aircraft can survive the A-10's gun. It is the most powerful dogfight cannon ever put in the air.
Having the biggest gun in a dogfight doesn't mean much. It is FAR slower and less maneuverable and those matter hugely in a dogfight. The 20mm cannons on other jets are more than adequate to the task of shooting down other aircraft (including the A10) and ha
Re: ps, jets are faster than A-10 bullets (Score:3, Informative)
at mach 2+ however, faster than the bullet at rang (Score:3)
I love how you said "at 1400 mph". I guess if the fighter slows down, and places it's engines 2 feet from the A-10's muzzle ...
Calculate the velocity of the gun round 2,000 feet down range, after it's encountered air resistance, and compare that to even a 1980s fighter like the F-16. The F-16 is literally faster than a speeding bullet.
Re:ps, jets are faster than A-10 bullets (Score:4, Informative)
Unless said scooter and Ferrari are IN TRAFFIC.
All tools are superior in their intended use cases.
The a-10 gun aims DOWN 2 degrees, so to shoot another aircraft it must be intentionally mis-aligned with the target.
That same angle makes sure the A-10 can strafe without diving directly at the ground... which is why 0 angle deflection aircraft like fighters are lousy at ground strafing targets.
Jets are much slower than A-10 bullets (Score:5, Informative)
The A-10 flies at about 420 MPH. Even 1980s fighter jets fly at mach 2, about the same speed as the bullets from the A-10 gun. An A-10 going after a fighter is literally the same ratio as a scooter going after a Ferrari.
Don't misunderstand, scooters are good. They are useless for chasing down sports cars, and an A-10 is just as useless for engaging enemy fighters. The fighters would (and do) fly by as if the A-10 is standing still.
Actually, even fighters from 1950's can fly at mach 2, BUT:
Even those 1980's fighters won't be flying at mach 2 at 95% of their time. They can only fly at mach 2 at high altitudes on straight line, full afterburner, wasting huge amount of duel.
Practically all dogfights happen at subsonic velocities. When you start doing high-g manouvers the velocity drops to subsonic very quickly.
> no known aircraft can survive the A-10's gun. It is the most powerful dogfight cannon
The bullets from the A-10's gun go about the same speed as the fighter. So if somehow, magically, the A-10 got on the fighter's tail and fired, the bullet probably couldn't catch up to the fighter. If it was fired off angle, it might hit the fighter at 30 MPH relative speed - not enough to dent the sheetmetal.
Survive that A-10s gun? No jet fighter in the last 40 years can be HIT by the A-10 gun unless the fighter is either a) parked or b) intentionally flying toward the A-10 without shooting it down.
This part is so incorrect....
The speed of bullets from GAU-8 is 1070 m/s.
Top speed of the worlds fastest jet fighter(mig-25) is ~890m/s flying on straight line on high altitude, with afterburner, but only ~333 m/s on low altitude.
Top speed of most modern jet fighters is in the class of 700m/s. (high, straigt line, full afterburner)
Common speed of modern jet fighters during dogfight is about 250-350m/s , 3-4 times slower than the bullets from GAU-8.
A-10 is actually quite good plane for shooting down slow low-flying aircrafts such as helicopters. It can use AIM-9 missile from slightly longer range, and from the close range the GAU-8 is very deadly. And because it can fly lower and slower it can more easily hit those slow low-flying targets than faster, higher-flying aircrafts can.
MUZZLE velocity. Then drag happens, squared (Score:3)
The MUZZLE the velocity of the A-10 rounds are just below and just above 1000 m/s. Then the hit air and immediately start slowing down. At high velocities, drag is approximately proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, which means that an object loses most of it's velocity in the earliest portion of it's flight.
At the design range of 4,000 feet, the rounds will be traveling at somewhere around 200 m/s or so. My ballistics tables don't cover that exact round at that exact distance, so I'm extrapolating.
Re: (Score:3)
The basic fact that you're forgetting is, a tool that is engineered for one specific purpose always performs that task or purpose better than some awkward multi-purpose tool.
The F-35 is a multi-purpose tool, trying to fill the niches of multiple special purpose tools. It is going to fail. It is going to fail expensively, and it is probably going to fail disastrously.
Let's assume that you are an electrician, electronics, or some related technical person. You have a tool box with a couple dozen pairs of "p
Re: (Score:3)
Refitting tech packs is not like swapping a graphics card and "voila". The systems are highly integrated and cannot be replaced piecemeal like newer aircraft.
What they need is a tech pack that makes F35 "voila" it is an A-10. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Back in 1991 the A-10 had to be pulled off attacks on the Republican Guard and given a blanket lower flight deck because they were getting shot down. Think about that. The air defences of a 3rd world dictatorship bested the A-10 almost 25 years ago. The replacement were F-16s using precision weapons and a new method called 'tank plinking'. The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 ever since. Its an aircraft designed for killing tanks, but it haven't been able to do that
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon me, but I seem to hear you justifying the rigged tests.
"We know the A-10 does a hell of a job in ground support, but we have a new tool that doesn't quite do the same job, so we're going to change the job description to make the tool fit the job better."
Strip away all the bullshit, and doctrine amounts to the judgement of a bunch of stuffed suits trying to explain what is happening in the real world.
How about this for doctrine?
"We're taking away all the cost efficient tools, and replacing them with new tools that will make our campaign contributors a hell of a lot richer."
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
My father's opinion, and he was a military aircraft mechanic for 35 years, from the A6 to the B2, is that the problem with A-10, F16 and F18 is not is that they are obsolete, it is that the standard mechanic cannot work on them effectively.
As he put it, after so many field repairs and variations, you cannot go to the book and read how to fix it like you can the B2 and other more recent aircraft. B2s can be fixed by going to the bin and getting the part or subsystem and replacing it. Very modular. Every repair has tools, parts and a timecard for repair time associated with it. Follow the instructions and you will be able to disassemble to get the part, replace the part, reassemble and test the part to ensure it is working correctly.
Older aircraft are much more oddball. It no longer looks like the factory spec. Parts have to be fabricated because they are no longer made. Hydraulic lines need to be bent because they don't route the same after taking damage and being repaired in the field.
Now, there are arguments pro and con for having well trained and flexible mechanics that understand how the aircraft operates and can repair it, and there is pro and con for having a weapon system where individual skill is less important and repairs can be done quicker. (providing spares are on hand)
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I posted another comment with the same basic content -
Reopen the A-10 production line. But, don't just start producing the exact same aircraft. Electronics have advanced astronomically since the last A-10 was built. So, we improve the electronics. Maybe we can improve the air frame a little - so build in the improvements. We might be able to grow the fuel system a little, addressing the complaint of limited range. The wings are probably already strong enough, we could probably add external fuel pods to get more range. Hell, we might be able to improve the pilot's view a little. Can we give the cannon magazine any more capacity? Might we add any thrust to the engines?
With the new aircraft, and new parts, and new logistics lines, we will have addressed your father's complaints of old, worn out, damaged, stressed components.
But, the basic engineering is solid. Start production of the newer, improved A-10's. Roll out a thousand or more, and get them out to the fleet, and the troops.
If the Air Force doesn't want A-10's, the rest of us don't give a flying fuck about the Air Force. Everyone outside of the Air Force upper echelons loves these craft.
Even with the cost of retooling and reopening the A-10's production line, we could probably build five of these for the cost of a single F-35. Ignoring the cost of tooling and opening the production line, we can build ten or eleven A-10's for the cost of an F-35.
And, no matter the level of technology, often times, numbers count. Five A-10's can most certainly fly more missions than that one F-35, even if everything else was equal. Of course, everything else is not equal. The A-10 is a superior weapon platform for ground support, hands down.
Rebuilding supply chains = really hard (Score:5, Informative)
Reopen the A-10 production line.
Not really economically feasible. While it is technologically possible, supply chains are fragile things and once they are taken apart it is VERY expensive and difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I speak from personal professional experience. I'm both an industrial engineer and an accountant and I run a manufacturing company. A large part of my job is putting together supply chains. Once you stop production on something complex like an aircraft there is SO much tribal knowledge lost that it would be FAR cheaper in most cases to start from scratch.
For the programmers out there the analogy would that it is like trying to duplicate an entire operating system with huge amounts of source code missing, none of the build tools, and the original programming team scattered to the four winds. Yeah you can do it but it's easier and cheaper to start over most of the time.
Even with the cost of retooling and reopening the A-10's production line, we could probably build five of these for the cost of a single F-35. Ignoring the cost of tooling and opening the production line, we can build ten or eleven A-10's for the cost of an F-35.
I think we could come up with something brand new but very similar for a LOT less money than trying to redo the A10. Plus we could probably update for lessons learned in the last 30+ years presuming the A10 continues to make tactical/strategic sense. If they kept the A10's philosophy of being tough and inexpensive then it might make sense. Although honestly I think the Army should be given control of their own CAS even for fixed wing aircraft. (Yes I know they reasons why this won't happen)
On the other hand as good as the A-10 reportedly is, there is always the danger of trying to fight the last war. Surface to Air missiles have improved substantially and the A10 reportedly isn't much use in contested airspace. The A10 is apparently very good at what it was designed for but it's unclear (to me anyway) how long that will continue to be the case. Maybe it will be like the B52 and it will serve for 50+ years but then again, maybe not. I don't pretend to know.
Re: (Score:3)
The A-10 was not designed for Desert warfare, it was designed as a multi-theater air support platform. Sure, it works well in deserts. It also happens to work well in heavy forest, snow covered terrain, jungles, marshes, hills and low mountains, etc...
Whether or not we have another WW should not change the defense capabilities we have (offensive weapons count). Air Support is a huge area to have the best coverage in. We spend billions on Helicopters for this exact reason. The A10 is a niche weapon whic
Re: (Score:3)
"Different Doctrine" - that's what they tried in the beginning with the Phantom (I think it was) where dogfights were considered to be something of the past, hence no need for cannons on it. That was quickly discovered to be a huge mistake where the opposition flying MIGs were chewing them off at a good pace until they revised the doctrine.
Expect major BIAS (Score:5, Interesting)
Airforce has been trying to kill the A-10 for years. Recently they tried to mothball them all and replace them with the defunct F-16 until the F-35 was ready ... congress killed that idea. The troops love the A-10 and the higher ups hate it ... do not expect a fair analysis.
Re: (Score:3)
The A-10 flat out works. And its cheap. All units should be shifted to the Army... it's the grunts on the ground that appreciate air cover that works (and doesn't accidentally kill them).
Re: (Score:3)
The Department of the Navy isn't going to give up it's Warthogs without a fight. We like to kick our brothers in the Corps around sometimes, but they're our brothers, and we want out A-10's so that we can properly support them.
Re: (Score:3)
I know if I was a grunt on the ground, I'd damn well rather have an A-10 covering me than an F-35.
Or better yet, FOUR A-10s rather than ONE F-35, since that is at least the running cost difference between them...
The cost of the planes is trivial compared to the 30 year cost to fly and maintain them.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the corporations that are going to hire them for multi-million dollar consulting and lobbying jobs when they retire hate the A-10. It doesn't make them money like the F-35. The F-35 bleeds cash like the stuck pig it flies like. Plus, with only one engine it'll litter the ground everywhere with wreckage so they can make even more money replacing them. I think we should shoot the guys that came up with the idea of another single engine warcraft. The fuckers don't ever learn from their mistakes. T
Re:Expect major BIAS (Score:4, Insightful)
What we SHOULD HAVE done, is to revamp that A-10 production lines, and just improved every system aboard, then called it the A-12. Maybe increase the engine power a few percent. Update ALL the electronics - radars, navigation, computing, everything. Install larger fuel tanks, since one of the more legitimate complaints is the A-10's somewhat limited range.
In short, we should have just rebuilt the A-10. The basic engineering was done long ago, and done right. The airframe is solid, so we should stick with it. Maybe structural members can benefit from the addition of carbon fiber? Do it. Maybe computer models show that the precise placement of structural members can be improved? Do it. Maybe some of those wires can be replaced with more efficient fiber optics? Do it. We're looking for improvements, so build them in. When all is said and done, we'll have an updated A-10, and everyone is happy.
There are no production lines to revamp (Score:3)
What we SHOULD HAVE done, is to revamp that A-10 production lines
What production lines? The A10 ceased production in 1984. There are no production lines to revamp. To get production started again you'd basically be starting over almost from scratch. Most/all the tooling is long gone. The assembly lines and supply chains are gone. The tribal knowledge from the team that built them is scattered to the winds and the original design engineers mostly retired or dead by now. There are drawings but I assure you that after 30 years there is a lot of missing information.
CSB time (Score:4, Interesting)
That was the first and only time I ever saw an A-10 in action.
Re:CSB time (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to break it to you dude, but that guy was either misinformed or pulling your leg;
The GAU-8/A [wikipedia.org] ammunition is linkless, reducing weight and avoiding a great deal of potential for jamming. The feed system is double-ended, allowing the spent casings to be recycled back into the ammunition drum,[12] instead of ejected from the aircraft, which would require considerable force to eliminate potential airframe damage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CSB time (Score:4, Informative)
Given that Air Force brass hate the A-10... (Score:3)
...and love shiny new, big-budget fighter planes [jerrypournelle.com], I can only assume that the test will be rigged to show the F-35 in the best light possible.
Ask yourself: How many Air Force brass made their bones flying A-10s (or cargo planes, or refueling tankers) and the answer is going to be pretty close to zero.
watch the test conditions carefully (Score:5, Interesting)
Guarantee that you'll see a test which
-features some contrived anti-air defense that is somehow not good enough to defeat the F-35s rudimentary stealth but is good enough to be a credible thread to the A-10
-doesn't require the aircraft providing CAS to loiter, expend large amounts of ordinance, use the main gun extensively, fly low/slow or do anything the F-35 sucks at
-requires the CAS airfraft to sprint around at higher speeds than the A-10 is capable of
-reconstitutes the CAS mission to consist of dropping a small amount of ordinance from high altitude with no loiter
The F-35 will win, and the pork will continue to flow to the hundreds of congressional districts that get money from the F-35. The A-10 doesn't funnel billions of dollars to congressional districts- all it does is save the lives of troops. For that reason alone, it will be thrown in the trash and replaced with a useless but lucrative pile of garbage.
Re: (Score:3)
some contrived anti-air defense that is somehow not good enough to defeat the F-35s rudimentary stealth but is good enough to be a credible thread to the A-10
Four Warthogs were shot down by SAMs during the first Gulf War. I'd like to think that the "rudimentary stealth" being developed today might perhaps be good enough to deal with technology from a quarter-century ago.
A silly test (Score:4)
The A-10 is obviously superior for close support. It was expressly designed for that purpose while the F35 is this insane jack of all trades plane that sucks at everything apparently.
They say in the article "the A-10 wins if nothing shoots back"... bullshit... the fucking thing can take a punch and keep flying. The F35 has a glass jaw.
When they say shoot back maybe they're talking about a serious anti aircraft missile... okay. But why are you doing close support in that kind of environment in the first place? US doctrine says you get air superiority before you advance your ground forces. Which includes pacifying ground based AA.
Then you listen to them talk about the amazing new helmet that the F35 uses... okay but there's no reason the A-10 couldn't use that as well. The A10 has been upgraded many times to take advantage of new technologies. Why not give it that new sensor package and helmet at well?
My issue with the F35 is that its trying to be everything to everyone and generally succeeds so far as I can tell at nothing. That's bullshit.
Now, I'm just as sad as everyone else that we dumped all this money into a shitty plane but buying them anyway when we know they're bad isn't going to make the situation any better. It will just get people killed.
We had a similar situation with the Phantom in Vietnam. Shitty shitty plane. It was fast and carried a lot of missiles... but it couldn't maneuver and if things got tight and close the stupid thing couldn't even fire because the missiles have a minimum range and they don't work if the enemy is close to the ground.
So an enemy Mig would just take the fight to deck and then turn harder to get behind the phantom... and then shoot it in the ass.
There was nothing the phantoms could do about that besides hitting the thrusters and flying away.
The f35 can't even do that.
I believe someone that tested it said:
"It can't fight
It can't hide
It can't run"
Which basically means its a flying fucking turkey. The phantom at least could run away.
Given planes should be specialized for given tasks and do that specific task.
Re: (Score:3)
When they say shoot back maybe they're talking about a serious anti aircraft missile... okay. But why are you doing close support in that kind of environment in the first place? US doctrine says you get air superiority before you advance your ground forces. Which includes pacifying ground based AA.
Unfortunately, you might well need air support before you can find every asshole hiding in a crack between two rocks with a truck-mounted SAM.
Re: (Score:3)
It actually didn't suck. The US Shermans did quite well in general. The casuality rate for US tank crews in WW2 was something between 3 and 5 percent for the whole war. There was no safer combat position in the US military then in a Sherman.
The British had much higher casualties with the same tank because unlike the Americans, the Brits didn't like to wear helmets in the tanks. So their losses were closer to 10~15 percent and that was mostly head wounds.
The tank the US mostly came up against was the Panzer
Little ol' lady from Pasadena (Score:5, Funny)
They keep lowering the bar. Next it will square up against a drunk guy with cataracts in a weathered Cessna.
Pointless propaganda exercise (Score:4, Interesting)
The Chair Force has been trying to kill the A-10 since it was born; why would ANYONE believe that this test won't be designed to play to the F-35 strengths and A-10 weaknesses?
The tests will likely be engineered carefully:
- transit speed: likely they'll have a number of targets far apart, to point to the A-10 slow top speed. What they WON'T have is targets that are camouflaged or hard to find (like real life) because that would require loitering and slow passes.
- few targets: sure, the F35 can probably put 2 or 4 guided bombs in a precise 2' circle. But it can't carry anywhere near the payload of the A10 (nor retain it's vaunted stealthiness if it carries external stores) to deal with target after target after target.
- There may a single gun-specific target that the F35 can cheerfully spatter with it's 4 seconds' worth of ammunition. The A10s 30+ seconds of ammunition will not be needed.
- Ground fire - not sure how they're going to test that, but that's a critical value of the A10, it was built to fly over (and survive) the most intensive Cold-War Soviet Armor Wave attacks. Iraqi ground fire proved this time and again that the A-10 was astonishingly rugged.
- Air to Air combat: unlikely they'll give the A-10 a couple of Sidewinders it would carry in uncertain airspace, but in any case, they'll have a "strike" by some Red Force aggressors to "prove" the A-10 can't hold it's own in air-to-air (never mind that in actual deployment, they should be being covered by...F-35s)
- Replaceability: The A10 in 2015 dollars is just under $20 million. The F35 is $100 million. Maybe have FIVE A-10s simultaneously completing courses while 1 F-35 has to cover them all as well? Yeah, ha ha ha, that's not going to happen.
This will just be a Potemkin USAF test to "prove" the F-35 is as capable as they say.
Tell you what: let the ARMY design the test. Then we'll see.
Re: (Score:3)
>Tell you what: let the ARMY design the test. Then we'll see.
But.. But.. that would be like the customer getting what they asked for. That cannot be allowed in the military any more than it can be allowed outside...
Re: (Score:3)
Oh hell yes. Let the Army design the test! I wish. The army troops love that ugly ass bird because when it shows up the enemy gets shattered. Of course, the enemy laughing themselves silly at at the F-35 might be useful as well.
Re:Pointless propaganda exercise (Score:5, Interesting)
The AK-47 Test (Score:3)
Take an F-35 and an A-10, put them on the tarmac, and empty a clip from an AK-47 into each broadside from 100 yards. Start a timer and have crews commence repairs, wartime maintenance rules, first jet to lift off for the next sortie wins.
My money says the A-10 could be turned in less than 2 hours. The F-35 would probably be a write off.
For extra credit, evaluate each jet for flyability without repair (engine power, flight control authority, fuel, etc..).
The F-35 in the CAS role is like a ballerina in a heavyweight fight - everything will be great until the first punch lands, then it is all over.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing about multirole aircraft is you take a good airframe and kit it out differently for different things.
The 737 for example, good passenger jet, cargo plane, military transporter, large jet trainer and maratime patrol aircraft. But it's never kitted out for all five at the same time because that would be pretty silly.
Re: (Score:3)
As I understand it, "kitting out" the F-35 is limited by the fact that anything mounted externally compromises the stealth characteristics it needs to survive.