Slashdot Mirror
F-35 To Face Off Against A-10 In CAS Test
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."
It's a little late for testing with several of these deployed in Europe. Seems more like a marketing/PR stunt.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I expect the A-10 will have a very strong showing, regardless of how they try to cripple it in the tests.
sounds like a comparison that the F-35 can't win. It is more expensive to fly, can't hang around for long period's like the A-10 and is relatively fragile by comparison. The only way I see the F-35 coming out on top is with some very carefully crafted scenarios to favour it and some creative weightings on victory conditions.
the actual enemies we have now use twitter and guerilla tactics. This is just war theater to keep feeding tax money to the the socialist weapons manufacturers.
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.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br