"F-35 vs. A-10 Matchup Isn't 'Silly' After All" Topic

"A matchup between Lockheed Martin's (NYSE:LMT) F-35 vs. the older A-10 Warthog isn't so "silly" after all. The Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation said late Thursday that it would run tests to evaluate how the F-35 stacks up in close-air support vs. the A-10, according to Defense News. The tests will use the latest upgrade of the 3F software for the F-35 and take place in 2018.

Lockheed shares fell 0.9% to 203.61 in late-afternoon trade in the stock market today.

The announcement comes after Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the press Monday that he wasn't aware of any tests between the two planes and said a matchup "would be a silly exercise."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Hmmmm, depends upon how the test(s) are weighted, I suspect.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a bit of bias creep in, in order to just confirm forgone conclusions, and ensure production of very expensive, anemically armed, fragile aircraft.

YouTube link

A bit like this Mako?

Yeah I can this being a "fair test"…*cough cough*

The Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for decades. It doesn't have the new, glittery, spiffy look and feel. The A-10 is an ugly workhorse that does what it was designed to do, ground and pound. Yeah, the tests will be heavily weighed against the A-10.

I wonder how the F-35 will fare against a heavy AAA and SAM environment down in the weeds at 300' of altitude, or less?

I suspect I know the outcome.

I wonder how the F-35 will fare against a heavy AAA and SAM environment down in the weeds at 300' of altitude, or less?

I suspect I know the outcome.

Not just that, I wonder how they will factor in the maintenance time and air frame availability. IF the F35 is anything remotely the hanger queens that the F22 have been to date ("stealth" skin is anything but low maintenance), grunts should be getting used to getting CAS from Apaches and Cobras…

P.S. After server downtime I found the clip I had wanted in the first place: YouTube link

The live fire testing of the Bradley in Pentagon Wars.

Shouldn't the F35 fly a combat mission first, before we start making comparisons?

Details, details………

Perhaps a comparison of maintenance costs, and parts costs per flight hour might also be useful benchmarks.

Then of course there's the airframe cost, for those shot down, or written off. I already know who wins that one – Warthog baby, by a mile, since they're much cheaper!

I wonder how the A-10 will fare against a heavy AAA and SAM environment down in the weeds at 300' of altitude, or less?

I suspect I know the outcome.

Sorry Mako – the A-10 is my favourite aeroplane bar none, but it's dead meat in a heavy AAA/SAM environment, just as Stukas were from 1940 onward.

It is a silly competition between a new a/c and an old one without weighing against the F-35 by considering its "bang for the buck," or lack thereof.

But it's going to be a competition purely on their technical merits without consideration to maintenance requirements and down time/availability, which means the F-35 will "win."

So Gen. Welsh is absolutely right.

'The live fire testing of the Bradley in Pentagon Wars.'

Followed the link on that on a thread and… well, explains why corrupt countries like Russia do better than us!

The Iraqis reportedly had one of the most sophisticated air defenses on the planet, and the A-10s did just fine there, as part of a combined team.

Granted, without upgrades, it really can't do precision bombing from 35,000 feet altitude, but it could if it got them.

How well will that carbon-fiber F-35 fare down in the weeds where the A-10 likes to work.

I also suspect the A-10 could survive a SAM hit at any altitude far better than the F-35, given its very advanced design, e.g. armored bathtub for the pilot, redundant control wires, wide-spread twin engines, robust twin tails, etc., etc.

How many engines does the F-35 have again?

I forget. ;-)

Heavy/large sams don't work wall on targets at less then 3000 ft :) they have no time to turn onto target and Man pad don't have time to aim let alone get a lock at under 1000. unless its a helo they are a bit slow.

The Iraqis had all the kit but sod-all training, yet still managed to down six A-10s AFTER SEAD had done its work for weeks and months previously…

The A-10 losses were mainly down to SAMs – both MANPADS and medium-sized regimental-level Soviet kit such as SA-9 and SA-13.

SAMs fielded today are a heck of a lot more sophisticated than those fielded in 1991, but the A-10 is still the same slow beast it always was, with the RCS of a small moon.

How many engines does the F35 have? The same number as the F-16 and Harrier. Why do you ask?

Do you think anyone's inventory will do very well in a flat out, wide open conventional war? The losses will swing like a pendulum-first light, then heavy, finally horrendous. Then the second surge with stop-gaps, improvisation, rushed tech with only adaptive veteran survivors making the difference. After, new tech with lessons learned will be the final factor-which side gets there first, wins…what's the butchers' bill?

"How many engines does the F35 have? The same number as the F-16 and Harrier. Why do you ask?".

I thought it was obvious.

If someone shoots out your engine on an A-10, you've still got another one to help get you home.

If that happens in an F-35, you're walking home, assuming the ejection goes well.

I'm waiting for the day they strap a 20' container to the F35 and declare it a valid transport aircraft …

Mako,

Yet people seem perfectly happy with one engine in the Harrier and F16…

Shouldn't this be on the A-10 Discussion board?

"I'm waiting for the day they strap a 20' container to the F35 and declare it a valid transport aircraft …"

But to flip that argument around: people here and elsewhere regularly post strawman arguments, criticising the F-35 for not being able to perform tasks for which it was not specifically designed (e.g. being primarily an air supremacy fighter). As I've said many times before, it's only a matter of time before someone criticised it for not being able to carry as much as a C130…

"Yet people seem perfectly happy with one engine in the Harrier and F16…".

Until you're a pilot of one, and the engine quits in an inconvenient location, and you have to hit the silk.

Granted, I, like most people would jump at the chance to fly them anyway, but still, you know when that happens, they really secretly wish they were flying a two-engine bird.

Jemima, the reason people do that is because the USAF/Pentagon brass, and the Lockheed marketing folks keep telling us "it is the best jet ever", in order to justify to the taxpayer the rapidly upward spiraling price tag of it.

Yet doubling the number of engines in a STOVL jet more than doubles the chance of losing it to a mechanical failure while in the hover (as the Russians discovered).