"Why The F-35 Cannot Replace The A-10" Topic

"The U.S. Congress's recent decision to extend the service life of the A-10 Thunderbolt II reveals resistance to current thinking at the Pentagon.

A more powerful China and an increasingly assertive Russia have focused defense planners' attention on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. But even as insurgencies continue in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the Pentagon seems intent on using the USAF's version, the F-35A, to replace one of its most capable flying tools of counterinsurgency, the A-10C. Although an aging aircraft, the A-10 provides a more cost-effective and doctrinally suitable solution for fighting guerrillas. As the Air Force has lacked aircraft specific to counterinsurgency—other than its gunships—since the Vietnam War, now might be time to dedicate the A-10 to such missions…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Time to revisit the Key West Agreement

Actually – why couldn't the Marines take the A-10? They can fly fixed wing assets, even land based, because they are technically Navy…

The US Air Force has never wanted, liked, or felt like they needed the A10. They should just call them helicoptors and give them to the Army. Then the Air Force can fly its toys around and let the Army kill targets below 30000 feet.

For the life of me I cannot comprehend how the Air Force can say, with a straight face, that the F-35 can provide the same level of Close Air Support as the A-10. Their latest attempted end run around Congress is to withhold necessary servicing of A-10s to degrade the fleet, never mind that will lead to losses of planes and pilots. The entire F-35 Program is corrupt in every sense of the word and needs to be reined in if not ended soonest. They are not just talking about dumping the A-10 but virtually the entire fleet of combat aircraft, F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, all to be sacrificed to fund the gaping bottomless pit that is the F-35. In a just world the Air Force big shots that want this thing so bad should have to fly it in combat.

There was a carrier, two seater version of the A-10. Perfect for Marines.

Great meme Tango, love it.

"In a just world the Air Force big shots that want this thing so bad should have to fly it in combat."

I don't think they will have time. Only so much time to spend the bribes on Caribbean islands.

The US Air Force only wanted a strategic air force so they only built heavy bombers. It got so bad that the Air Force had to go to the British to get the Canberra as a medium bomber. Given their chance all tactical aircraft would be scraped.

The US Army should be allowed to build up the tactical air force so that they do not have to hope that the Air Force remembers that mission.

Not sure why everyone complains about the F-35. I mean it has cost one trillion dollars to date on development but still cannot fire its cannons. I do not see how the public could consider that a failure.

In the Army or Marines that would be like replacing the M1 with a new model that can only fire HEAT rounds and is slower than the current model and may not have at least the same armor protection.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Actually – why couldn't the Marines take the A-10? They can fly fixed wing assets, even land based, because they are technically Navy…

A10s aren't carrier-compatible.

There was a carrier, two seater version of the A-10. Perfect for Marines.

No, the two-seater was not carrier-compatible. The nosewheel is offset to the right which makes it unable to attach to the catapult.

The two-seater was for night and bad weather, but they found out that the A10 drivers could navigate just fine without a backseater.

Thanks, didn't know that.

Thanks…

Amicalement
Armand

I have a vague recollection that they tried to sell A10's, including some twin seaters, to Australia at one stage. Does anyone remember this? Is this correct?