killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Pentagon to test F-35 against A-10 in 'common sense' war scenario showdown
Let the fanboy'ing commence....
Let the fanboy'ing commence....
Cage Match! A-10 vs. F-35
- Thread starter killbilly
- Start date
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Well, since they have different missions/capabilities I am confused as to how a true/fair performance comparison will be made. Is the F-35 better at close support or as good? Is there really an 'all in one' aircraft' in the F-35? Jack of all trades or master of none? I have no clue. Should be interesting though. When and where is this supposed to take place exactly?
Last edited:
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Location and date not mentioned in the article.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
Behind the school, after the bell.
pressclick
Well-Known Member
Any mention of 'A-10' usually equals a popcorn worthy thread though it's a bit like watching Saw VI at this point.
I like that the A10 can shoot lots of stuff and generally make the Taliban pee in their dresses and hope the F35 will be able to someday do that too.
I like that the A10 can shoot lots of stuff and generally make the Taliban pee in their dresses and hope the F35 will be able to someday do that too.
The answer is, as @Hacker15e can attest to, is.....as usual..."it depends."
It depends what variables are being thrown into the mix. The F-35 does CAS. The A-10 does CAS. They do it in different ways using different methods. Hell, the B-52, B-1, F-15E, F-16, AV-8, F/A-18, MQ-1, MQ-9, AC-130 and even KC-130 "do CAS".
CAS isn't a specific aircraft, it's a mission set. Picture it akin to a toolbox. The toolbox contains the above tools. Depending on everything from geography, situation, weather, threat, and ground commanders intent; one tool in that toolbox (or several) may be better than the other. Or.......one tool may be the only one available.
Sometimes, the best CAS aircraft......is the one that's overhead of you at the moment when you need it, armed, and ready to go to work for you.
But in terms of "which tool is best", again, it depends.
There's been times when the B-52 has been the best CAS platform. Khe Sanh 1968, Tet Offensive. You had literally multiple DIVISIONS of North Vietnamese troops (go look up the manpower of a Division, if you don't know) outside the gates of the USMC base there, laying siege to the place. The sheer amount of NVA troops, and associated anti-aircraft guns they had, made it very dificult for tactical jets such as fighters and attack aircraft to operate, much less do any damage with what they could carry. Several were shot up and shot down. The B-52 however......this was its playground: The same massed troops that made it suicidal for fighter jets to be making ground attack runs, was dinner on a platter for B-52s, which came in at high altitude and carpet bombed the area, killing scores of enemy at a time, and wounding many more. NVA never saw them or heard them coming, until the bombs started exploding.
Granted, doctrinally speaking, this wan't CAS in the classic sense, moreso than it was BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction), in the sense that the B-52s weren't talking to a Forward Air Controller on the ground, but moreso were attacking preplanned target areas. But the effects for the troops on the ground, was the same as CAS, with close fires to them being placed by the BUFFs.
In terms of the F-35, it's not going to do Close Support in the exact way the A-10 or other aircraft do. Because it has more advanced sensors it can use. As a backup, it can revert to old school....the degree of which depending on the experience/background of the pilot as a CAS player. The USMC, which has multiple squadrons of F-35Bs already combat ready, has been formulating their Tactics/Techniques/Procedures for how the F-35B will be used. Being that the USMC are arguably the masters of CAS, as thats their main reason for being, I'm interested and impressed by what they've come up with:
It depends what variables are being thrown into the mix. The F-35 does CAS. The A-10 does CAS. They do it in different ways using different methods. Hell, the B-52, B-1, F-15E, F-16, AV-8, F/A-18, MQ-1, MQ-9, AC-130 and even KC-130 "do CAS".
CAS isn't a specific aircraft, it's a mission set. Picture it akin to a toolbox. The toolbox contains the above tools. Depending on everything from geography, situation, weather, threat, and ground commanders intent; one tool in that toolbox (or several) may be better than the other. Or.......one tool may be the only one available.
Sometimes, the best CAS aircraft......is the one that's overhead of you at the moment when you need it, armed, and ready to go to work for you.
But in terms of "which tool is best", again, it depends.
There's been times when the B-52 has been the best CAS platform. Khe Sanh 1968, Tet Offensive. You had literally multiple DIVISIONS of North Vietnamese troops (go look up the manpower of a Division, if you don't know) outside the gates of the USMC base there, laying siege to the place. The sheer amount of NVA troops, and associated anti-aircraft guns they had, made it very dificult for tactical jets such as fighters and attack aircraft to operate, much less do any damage with what they could carry. Several were shot up and shot down. The B-52 however......this was its playground: The same massed troops that made it suicidal for fighter jets to be making ground attack runs, was dinner on a platter for B-52s, which came in at high altitude and carpet bombed the area, killing scores of enemy at a time, and wounding many more. NVA never saw them or heard them coming, until the bombs started exploding.
Granted, doctrinally speaking, this wan't CAS in the classic sense, moreso than it was BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction), in the sense that the B-52s weren't talking to a Forward Air Controller on the ground, but moreso were attacking preplanned target areas. But the effects for the troops on the ground, was the same as CAS, with close fires to them being placed by the BUFFs.
In terms of the F-35, it's not going to do Close Support in the exact way the A-10 or other aircraft do. Because it has more advanced sensors it can use. As a backup, it can revert to old school....the degree of which depending on the experience/background of the pilot as a CAS player. The USMC, which has multiple squadrons of F-35Bs already combat ready, has been formulating their Tactics/Techniques/Procedures for how the F-35B will be used. Being that the USMC are arguably the masters of CAS, as thats their main reason for being, I'm interested and impressed by what they've come up with:
Last edited:
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
The AF has been beating the drum of "effects-based" vs "platform-based" as long as I've been associated with the AF (since the early 90s).
The point being, the boots on the ground need a weapon effect, not a specific platform to provide that weapon effect nor a specific weapon to provide that effect.
So long as the Air Force enterprise can provide timely, accurate weapons effects which will accomplish what the Ground Commander needs done, then it is none of the GC's business what weapon is used or aircraft/system is used to deliver that weapon.
The problem is, the GC (and this is a mircocosm of Big Army in the bigger picture) isn't an airpower expert, nor does he know the larger air picture. Thus, he isn't in a position to know which weapon is best used in the situation, nor which system is best to deliver it.
This is specifically why we have TACPs and JTACs and JFOs embedded with Army units, to BE that expertise.
Anyone who has worked with a JTAC knows that this is one of the primary tenets of JFIRE and 3-09.3.
The entire A-10 argument rests on people who are enthusiastic about a platform (e.g. fanbois) and ignores the entire effects-based concept.
If the AF weren't able to hold up its end of the bargain in supporting Green Army in operations short of the FSCL, then there'd be a legitimate complaint to make that the AF would have to address. So far as I'm aware, there isn't a specific complaint about a support or capability gap that has been levied, which makes this entire discussion simply Congressional grandstanding and fanboi-ism. It is the same as the F-14 retirement decision...and the same as the F-4 retirement decision....and the EF-111 retirement decision....etc, etc, etc.
I need to make a "Top 10 list of stupidest repetitive sayings/posts by idiot fanboys and basement dwellers on a Save/preserve the A-10 post/thread who have never flown a tactical jet, much less an A-10, or even remotely done anything related to CAS":
Up there with them, and repetitively done ad nauseum, are:
1. "Restart production! Build new ones!" As if it's just that easy. Or affordable.
2. "Give them to the Army/Marines!" Newsflash: the Army and Marines, while liking the A-10, don't want the A-10. Army doesn't want the cost, and expects the AF to provide the service. And it has no shipboard capability for USMC ops.
3. "I love the Brrrrrrrrrt! Just kill yourself when you write that.
4. "The A-10 is the ONLY aircraft that can do CAS! No other aircraft can." Another newsflash: Many aircraft can and have been doing CAS for a very long time now. A-10s can't and won't be everywhere at once. These other aircraft have done yeoman's work in supporting troops on the ground who've needed it.
5. "Fighter jets can't do CAS!" Fighter jets can, have, and still do CAS. In Vietnam, our primary CAS jet for the longest time in the war in the South, was the F-100 Super Sabre. Namely because it wasn't frontline to be sending into North Vietnam anymore. The F-100 units trained exclusively for CAS since they only worked in South Vietnam, and were good at it. Conversely, many USAF F-4 weren't that great at CAS, and that was because their primary mission was normally air-air, then secondarily interdiction air-ground, and thirdly CAS. Whereas USMC F-4 Phantom units were outstanding at CAS, because that's what they do for a living.
6. "CAS can only be done low and slow!!" Wrong. Low and slow is by exception, not by norm. Low and slow brings you down into the AAA threat envelope, which is how you get shot up or shot down. Hence, you only do that if the tactical situation dictates that you need to, and then all bets are off. Otherwise, medium altitude is where its at. That's why all the upgrades the A-10 has received have been ones that have optimized it for employing from medium altitude, such as targeting pods, 1760 bus for JDAM bombs, and Laser Guided bombs. None of these are things you utilize from very low altitude.
7. "The gun is needed for any kind of CAS and is th main weapon!" The gun was our secondary weapon, for most our missions. Our primary weapon for armor/vehicles was the AGM-65 Maverick, and for CAS was dumb bombs/CBU.
8. "Troops will die if the A-10 isn't around!" This one irks me. Are we saying that US troops are inept, incapable, or completely unable to operate, unless there's a squadron of A-10s overhead their position at all times, 24/7? Jeez....give US troops a little more credit than that in terms of fighting ability. Curiously, how much friendly CAS did the North Vietnamese Army have supporting them during the Vietnam War? Oh that's right, none.
9. "Ask ground troops what they want for CAS!" Truth is, it doesn't matter what they think. A standard Army ground troop knows no more about Close Air Support employment, than an AF CAS pilot knows about the best tanks to employ in mechanized Infantry warfare. When the request for support is put in, the ground commander radios or communicates what he wants/needs done. It's up to the CAS experts.....from TACPs to aircrews......to determin the best asset and weapon to apply, based on what's available at the time. It's like a restaurant: the customer orders a meal and what he wants on it. How the dish is actually prepared in order to meet that order, is up to the chef.
10. "The F-35 is a hunk of junk and can't do anything!" The F-35 hasn't had a chance to even prove itself yet, except for operational USMC ones. Even so, the F-111 had severe growing pains and a terrible start in Vietnam in 1968, losing 6 aircraft in night/bad WX to the then-new Terrain Following system. Once those issues were worked out and fixed, the F-111 became our premier all-weather strike-interdiction aircraft, kicking butt over Hanoi/Haiphong in the Christmas bombings of 1972, in Cambodia 1975, Libya 1986, and Desert Storm 1991. I see the F-35 maturing past it's growing pains similarly.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Honestly the only thing I can see making a case for the A-10 is the cost. If you own the skies already then what is the point of sending a $80 million+ aircraft to do a job that a much cheaper aircraft can also accomplish. That said, I imagine there are other aircraft that can do the job cheaper than an aging A-10.
It all depends whats available at a given time. Or the situation at a given time. Apaches were everywhere in both theatres, so oftentimes, they're there to provide the necesary fire support.
The problem is, we need a 5th generation capability that the F-35 gives us. Granted, the acquisitions process that was used for it has been quite costly and not the most efficient way to do it (design while build.....you end up always playing "catch up"). The A-10 would be fine for the low to no threat Afghan scenario, but we have to also maintain the capability to fight larger scenarios against a peer or near-peer adversary. We've been spoiled to a large degree by 15 years of fighting low intensity conflicts and taking few air losses in doing it, none to enemy action (with the exception of one A-10).
Another one I heard today: "F-16s can't do the job, they're too busy hanging around at 20,000' dropping bombs and too scared to come down low and slow where the job is needed and use the gun."
Hmmm.
Maj. Troy "Trojan" Gilbert would disagree with that. But he's not available for comment unfortunately.
Hmmm.
Maj. Troy "Trojan" Gilbert would disagree with that. But he's not available for comment unfortunately.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
I agree. Just saying that it likely wouldn't be wise to get rid of the cheaper options when they can still be used to complete the mission. Obviously it is purely situational as you have mentioned before.
Oh I agree with you. There is a very good use for the A-10 still that we don't yet have a viable replacement for: Rescue support/escort of Combat Search and Rescue operations. While many airframes, as mentioned, do the CAS job; only two do this particular job: the A-10 and the F-16. The F-16 has limitations in speed (too much of it) and loiter time that limits how effectively it can escort and guide helicopter rescue assets beyond enemy lines and to a downed aviator. For how we currently undertake this mission, which isn't too different from how it was done in Vietnam, save for being mostly night now and with more advanced equipment...the A-10 is still prime. Sure, the risk is very high, namely because whatever shot down the original aircraft and put friendly aircrews on the ground, is exactly where the slow A-10s are headed as well as helos behind them. But in CSAR, all risk bets are mostly off. Now, with the much faster V-22 starting to get into the business or rescue as a secondary mission, faster jets may be ore compatible with that. We may be seeing changes in how rescue work is done as we move forward.
phoenix 23684
Well-Known Member
I hate to say this. RPAs are the future of the Air Force. Very inexpensive compared to manned, can stay aloft 24 hours, some variants I heard 40 hours. That's a persistant asset that can provide the support troops need. It is the largest weapons system in the Air Force and I would imagine each new generation will continue to gain more capabilities as the military learns how to best employ it.
alaskadrifter
Landing gear operator
Is loiter time not a big deal?
Depends on the situation.
Nice to have? Yes. Need to have? Not necessarily.
Can almost be six or 1/2 dozen. CAS situation X miles away. Better to get there very fast, employ ordnance early, but not be able to stay for a long time? Or take a longer time getting there because you're slower, but be able to stay longer? All depends.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
There's a flaw here: the CAF only cares about O&M costs and not acquisition costs, and then if we're using OCO, they don't even care about O&M as that gets buried in the supplemental. Once you consider the looming rewinging program, the A-10 isn't as cheap as you'd think. Most of the operational costs are not in jet fuel....