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."

18 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. A-10 for the Win by ka9dgx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I expect the A-10 will have a very strong showing, regardless of how they try to cripple it in the tests.

    1. Re:A-10 for the Win by erikscott · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I'll take $20 on the 'hog.

    2. Re:A-10 for the Win by john.r.strohm · · Score: 4, 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".

    3. Re:A-10 for the Win by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which means that it's a swiss army knife against [Crocodile Dundee voice] "this is a knife" aircraft.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re: A-10 for the Win by fche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the A-10 can brrrrrrrt, the F-35 can't even yet.

    5. Re:A-10 for the Win by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. hmmmm by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      then a rigged test as the OP suggested. The A-10 isn't about speed, it is about being able to loiter low and close as it has armor and a huge arsenal of weapons and it is designed to do this for long periods of time. The F-35 doesn't actually have any of those features. In a true support role test the A-10 should completely wipe the floor with the F-35, it would not even be a close contest.

    2. Re:hmmmm by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, 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."

      --
      "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
    3. Re:hmmmm by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "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
  3. Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. pros and cons by raymorris · · 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.

    1. Re:pros and cons by hyades1 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  5. Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    200 years from now, we'll still be paying for it.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  6. Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? by The+Grim+Reefer · · 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.

  7. Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? by 6Yankee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

  8. Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? by sycodon · · Score: 4, 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?"

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  9. Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The A10 isn't a plane. It's a tank they managed to make fly.

    http://www.aircraftresourcecen...