Air Force Says F-35 Glitches Mean the A-10 Will Keep Flying 'Indefinitely' (jalopnik.com)

The A-10 aircraft "is just too effective to get rid of," wrote one defense blogger -- especially in light of ongoing issues with the F-35. schwit1 quotes Jalopnik: Strategists have feared that the jet will be axed in favor of funding the F-35, but the U.S. Air Force recently confirmed that it plans to keep the A-10 flying "indefinitely." While the Air Force is theoretically supposed to be diverting the A-10's operating expenses to feed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the people in charge are now planning to keep the plane running...

Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski told AviationWeek in a interview, "Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely." While the beancounters and product planners are trying to push the A-10 off the board, Materiel Command is going to keep on keeping the planes in peak condition, which will give the A-10 it's best chance of proving its worth over and over again. And it seems to be working -- the A-10 posted a 5% increase in its availability rate from 2014 to 2015, and the Air Force seems to keep postponing its demise.
In Congress one representative has even suggested an operational testing "fly-off" between the two aircraft -- a jet-vs-jet competition to determine whether any more A-10s get retired.

Comments

Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

And spend the money on something useful instead.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's already been spent.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the parent fell for the sunk cost fallacy - I think he was saying we should avoid it by tanking the F35 project and starting anew.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luvirini]

No. A lot of money has been spent but a lot more will still be spent in future.

On one hand one should not count the sunk cost when thinking of what is the best strategy to go forward, but on the other hand one should remember that in a complex project things often seem very broken just before they are fixed and it is very hard to say from outside how close to being fixed things are.

As example the f-16 was plagued by huge problems with it's fly by wire system early on (they even made a movie about one of the accidents) and there were also claimed to be a failed project, but then the things were fixed and it has been fairly reliable since then and served very well for 40 years or so now.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

One F-35 is five A-10's, in production.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

On one hand one should not count the sunk cost when thinking of what is the best strategy to go forward

Uhh, wrong. You should ABSOLUTELY factor in the sunk cost, especially if it reveals the fact that you've spent waaaaay too much and should scrap the project and start over.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

" especially if it reveals the fact that you've spent waaaaay too much and should scrap the project and start over. " This strategy destroys your gains made at great expense, leaving just the expense.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Tablizer]

As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.

Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.

Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[AK Marc]

You assume gains have been made.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[spire3661]

"On one hand one should not count the sunk cost when thinking of what is the best strategy "

This maxim certainly applies to private enterprise with your own capital on the line. Im not so sure it should be so readily applied when you are spending someone else's money.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

There's really no question that the 35 does some things very well. The problem is it doesn't do everything very well, and they were promising it would replace many things that did several specific things very well. Gains HAVE been made.

The question is one of cost/benefit. Not "is there a benefit" - there is.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[93 Escort Wagon]

Sunk cost is sunk cost. How much you spent on a project in the past is irrelevant at this point in time.

What matters is finding the most advantageous way to proceed, given where you are at now. That may mean following through on a big, bloated sunk expenditure, or it may mean completely scrapping it. But it's got nothing to do with the money which has been spent already.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[amiga3D]

The F-16 is a lawn dart and the F-35 is the new lawn dart. The 16 has a horrible safety record. Look at this year alone! Hell, 5 bit the dust in the month of July! Single engine war planes are idiocy at it's supremacy. When you lose an engine in an F-15 or F-18 you go home. When you lose one in an F-16 or F-35 you grab the ejection handle. With all the complicated software and fly by wire systems software glitches are a killer in a war plane which are inherently dangerous due to extreme performance and it doesn't help that most of the pilots are young and cocky but relying on a single engine insures a high rate of loss. I think it's past time to scrap the F-35 and quit throwing good money after bad. We're to the point now anyway where the pilot is holding the weapon system back. They've got autonomous systems working up now and they are the future. Let's quit wasting money of yesterdays technology especially when it's yesterdays bad technology.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[aliquis]

Uhh, wrong. You should ABSOLUTELY factor in the sunk cost, especially if it reveals the fact that you've spent waaaaay too much and should scrap the project and start over.

That won't give your money back.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Sunk costs doesnt mean tou payed the loan off yet.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luvirini]

It is the same thing regardless of whose money you spend.

First you define what you want to accomplish and then you select the way to get that that costs least amount of money from now onward.

Of course things like when you want the thing to be ready and such play a role too.

You should never consider what has been spent on something up to this point except as part of the future cost, as often use of existing equipment from spent money means a lower future cost, but not always by any means.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Joce640k]

One A10 is worth five F35s in current operational practice.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[hey!]

I think some of it's already been spent.

There, fixed that for you. If it had all been spent then the program would be history.

IIRC as of the beginning of this year we'd purchased about 171 F35s out of a planned.2443, leaving 2,272 to go. At a hundred million dollars apiece that's a lot of simolians left to shovel into the furnace. Then there's a trillion dollars in operation and maintenance costs coming down the pike too.

So going ahead with the F35 is going to be gawdawfully expensive. But it turns out extricating ourselves would probably be shockingly expensive too -- the F35 program was designed so that cancellation would be a Congressional poison pill. There'd be job losses in a majority of member districts, and the Marines would end up with nine amphibious assault ships with no ground assault jets that can fly off them but their old subsonic Harriers. But if they did choose to swallow that pill, that'd leave us locked in the tender embrace of Boeing.

So cancel or continue, there's a lot more left to pay.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

"Starting over" on a manned fighter is a ridiculous idea. If we really wanted to be building a "next generation" fighter, we'd be building a semi-autonomous UAV that could do hi-G turns and accelerations that a manned fighter could never dream of, meanwhile costing approximately 1/8 per unit. While the A-10 is an awesome up-close-and-personal troop killer that's already debugged and in production, the F-35 as a next-next-gen P-51/Messerschmitt-killer is a defence department contractor boondoggle of epic proportions that should be killed like the overpriced Thanksgiving turkey that it is.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Opportunist]

The F-35 is useful! It was supposed to be a pork barrel project and it fulfills this role absolutely perfectly, what the hell is your problem?

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[sphealey]

= = = Sunk costs doesnt mean tou payed the loan off yet. = = =

That's a point that I've seen some otherwise very smart economic/business analysts misunderstand. If you're $2 billion into a project and your analysis determines that the best course of action is to terminate it, then doing so is optimal. But unless you also file for bankruptcy your organization is still on the hook to repay the $2 billion of bonds that you issued to finance the project.

sPh

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[spire3661]

You are ignoring politics. These things arent made by one person, but by large groups of people, and funded by multitudes more. Politics doesn't give a shit about sunk cost fallacy, it wants efficient results.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Tablizer]

As example the f-16 was plagued by huge problems with it's fly by wire system early on... and there were also claimed to be a failed project, but then the things were fixed

But fly-by-wire was new tech that takes time to tune. The F-35 is plagued by trying to be too many different kinds of planes. It's not based on one or few revolutionary ideas; it's based on trying to satisfy too many diff requirements via compromises and bloat. You can fix new tech, but you cannot fix a bag of bad design trade-offs.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[nojayuk]

The A-10 isn't in production, the last airframe came off the production line in 1984, over thirty years ago.

There's a porky programme ongoing for Boeing to re-wing some of them since they're falling apart, having been built cheaply to fly and die over the West German countryside against Soviet armour and air defences in an all-out war. Luckily they've not had to face a real air defence network for the past ten years or so but even against the Iraqis severely degraded systems a bunch of them were lost in 2003.

A-10s are not actually very effective in the CAS role, being a single-seater where the pilot has to fly the plane in rough air close to the ground while also identifying targets and delivering fire. The number of blue-on-blue incidents listed against A-10s reflects this time-management problem. They also have to come within reach of ground-based anti-artillery guns to use their Big Stupid Gun rather than standing off and killing the enemy with ranged weapons. Before anyone points out how rugged they are ("titanium bathtub!") remember that significant damage is a mission kill, they have to get out if they get chewed up and leave the ground-pounders to their own devices.

A-10s are surprisingly slow (slower than some WWII strike/CAS piston-engined aircraft!) which means they have to operate from full-sized air bases close to the front line to provide a quick-response CAS capability which in turn require defence from attacks, supply, logistics etc. Any of the really capable CAS aircraft existing today and the future F-35 have speed and range on their side as well as carrier capability which is less logistically intensive. They aren't also sitting ducks in case they operate against anything more dangerous than Bushmen with spears.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[RickRussellTX]

Your organization is on the hook to pay back the money whether you continue or not.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment illustrates how nostalgia and romanticism for a platform which has kept some individuals alive will be glorified to the disadvantage of a platform which has not yet had an opportunity to save lives.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[ShanghaiBill]

The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.

Yes, it should be ignored for accounting, but it should not be ignored for accountability. The F-35 program has been a disaster, for mostly predictable, and predicted, reasons. It was a "kitchen sink" boondoggle, designed to be everything for everyone. It is even designed to take off vertically, like a helicopter, which inflated the cost and compromises its ability to do almost everything else. It was designed to fight "yesterday's war", while the future is obviously unmanned drones. But the USAF top brass are pilots, so they simply put on their blinders and ignore the future, so they can get the new toys and wear those snazzy leather flight jackets.

A lot of people should lose their jobs for this fiasco. But more importantly, we need to learn some lessons about project management and strategic planning, so things like this don't continue to recur.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Billly Gates]

As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.

Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.

Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.

What's wrong with geting at least some ROI even if it is not ideal? That is lost money that people worked hard for and it may not be ideal but, at least that option should be weighed.

Also, the emotional/logical argument is excessive spending on the latest go gadgets got you into this mess with the sunken cost right? Perhaps, that is not the solution but the problem!

If the sunken costs were dumped chasing the latest and greatest then the answer is stop doing the very things with greater sunken costs later but re-analyze why?

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Kjella]

On one hand one should not count the sunk cost when thinking of what is the best strategy to go forward, but on the other hand one should remember that in a complex project things often seem very broken just before they are fixed and it is very hard to say from outside how close to being fixed things are.

The real problem is often that the revised estimate is just as much bullshit as the original estimate. There's a saying that the first 90% of the project take the first 90% of the time, then the last 10% take the other 90% of the time. So you approve a $100M project, $60M is sunk but the revised estimate is now $130M. Well -30 is better than -60 to scrap and write it off. But when you get to 100 million the estimate is 150, when you get to 130 it's 170 and the project finally lands at 180. Guess what you've now been throwing so much good money after bad that you've lost more than if you'd just stopped the project in the first place but the deeper you go the deeper you're committed to keep pouring money into it.

I see that when you write code too, you start with like 0.1 pre-alpha and you breeze through versions until like 0.7-0.8 and then it's like all those little things here and there and documentation and testing and refactoring and UI and config settings and kinda unclear points you skipped because you did the work that obvious how you'd do it and you realize damn there's actually a lot of work even though it was mostly working and so 0.9 and 0.95 and the version just before the big 1.0 is like 0.99d or something. It's extremely rare that version 0.8 is actually 80% done.

Yes, occassionally there is that eureka moment where all the parts of the puzzle suddenly starts working together but more often it's "I'm sure the finish line is just over the next hill, I just know it. I just need a little bit more time to work this out". I really do make an effort to give estimates where I can, but sometimes it really also is so that I don't know what the solution will be until I've found it. Double that when they want estimates on how long it'll take me to find and fix a problem when really I got no idea where it is, what the scope is and how ugly it'd be change and the estimates won't get better by pestering me with them.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Billly Gates]

I find nothing wrong with forcing yourself to use what you have after the sunken cost. You already paid for it then use it even if you might not like it as you will lose more money if you provide a 0 return on investment.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[justthinkit]

Dual engine is antilock brakes.
Single engine is airbags.

In the event of a road hazard, antilock brakes avoid the hard and write off the nothing while airbags lead to the write-off of everything. So manufacturers continue to grow the number of airbags, while insurance companies pay you to have ABS.

Imagine how many engines the jet manufacturer wants...

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[phantomfive]

A lot of people should lose their jobs for this fiasco.

You can thank Donald Rumsfeld for that. Yes, another fiasco that leads directly back to that genius.
And military courses on acquisition are already using it as a case-study.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

The Marines desperately need the F-35. Hell, for the first time in history they'll get fancy new high-tech equipment instead of somebody's leftovers.

The Air Force and Navy could use a few of them, but nothing like the 1000's planned. They would probably best be served with a mix of UASs, some F-35s, and two-seat multirole aircraft. Whoever decided that the F-35 would be single seat (and single engine) should have their brain melted so they know how a future F-35 pilot will feel. The current plan to have F-35 pilots in control of drones, while flying, is beyond insane.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Most common case of planes going down is engine failure. Most engine failures are caused by errors made during maintenance. A plane with two engines have twice the probability to get hit by sloppy maintenance. Finally, as a coup de grace to your little bullshit rant, if you lose one engine, losing the second one is quite high, and usually a matter of a short time.

"If you lose an engine you go home", my ass. You fervently look for the closest place to land, and pray you don't lose the next engine too. There are reasons for going for two engines, but safety is really grasping for straws.

As for your droning about drones, I'm not even going to bother with it, it's quite clear you're talking out of your ass to the same degree as with your rant about engines, and not susceptible to reason anyway.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[sjames]

That may not even be feasible. If you have a billion in sunk costs and it will cost another 3 to make it at all useful but you can also choose plan B for a forward going cost of 2 billion (it doesn't matter how much, if any, you've spent on plan B so far), then take plan B and come out a billion dollars better off. If you can part plan A out and use the more successful parts, fine and dandy.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[meerling]

Agreed, the warthog still flies.
It would be funny to watch a competition between the two on the A-10s role as close support. I wonder how many of their F35s would even complete the test.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

And spend the money on something useful instead.

As the UK Government has been conned into spending money on this boondoggle, can we have some A-10s?, oh, and can we have some of our Harriers back to fly off the white elephant carrier we built for the F-35s?

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[slarabee]

1. Are they cheap or are they old? You point out the last airframes came off the production lines 30 years ago then say they were built cheaply. I do not think still being operational decades later, especially considering their operational tempo over most of this time, is indicative of cheap.

2. Pork wing program or falling apart? If they are 'falling apart' then I do not think a program to remediate that would be considered pork.

3. A bunch were lost in 2003? Please enumerate. I know of only one combat loss of an A-10 in Iraq since 2003.

4. The A-10 has a slightly lower rate of blue-on-blue incidents than other aircraft performing close air support. In any case, the numbers of friendly fire incidents by aircraft of any type are astonishingly low compared to the number of sorties flown. Statistically minimal.

5. What WWII CAS aircraft exceeded the A-10 in speed? The big CAS birds of that war, Junkers 87 and the II-2 were both a couple hundred miles per hour slower. The P-47 was at least in the same ball park as the A-10.

6. How often is a CAS mission called for and time from base is a factor? Fine, in that case send a Strike Eagle. For all the other times, that loitering plane is ready to go no matter if it is sub or supersonic.

7. A-10 was designed to not need full size airbases. Strong gear. High engines. Soft tires. They are made to work from short, damaged and improvised fields.

So what are the really capable CAS aircraft existing today?

Why do grunts and marines commonly differ with you?

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Sunk cost is sunk cost. How much you spent on a project in the past is irrelevant at this point in time.

With all due respect, that's just not true. Any competent financial analyst or project manager will agree that what you've spent on a project in the past is entirely relevant moving forward, especially when the project's overall viability is in question.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Hylandr]

And this is how Russia bankrupted itself and collapsed. We are sadly next if we don't start managing our money better.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Uhh, wrong. You should ABSOLUTELY factor in the sunk cost, especially if it reveals the fact that you've spent waaaaay too much and should scrap the project and start over.

That won't give your money back.

Correct, but it may prevent you from flushing more money down a rat hole.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[ColdWetDog]

There are, however, a number of other aircraft that are suitable for close support. If you look at this this table, the venerable B-52 can drop more close support weaponry at lower cost than anything else in the inventory and the F-16 is a close second. Several turboprop planes are also being used.

And of course there are helicopters and perhaps eventually UAVs.

The F35 is really a stupid concept for CAS. Expensive to own and maintain. Not particularly well armored.

The whole premise of 'one plane to rule them all' has shown itself to be poorly thought out and more of a pipe dream than anything else.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

For comparison purposes, the F-16 has a mishap rate, per 100,000 flight hours of 4.14 (apparently making it the safest single-engine multirole fighter around). The two-engine F-15 has a lower rate, at 2.47; but the F/A-18, also two-engined, has a higher rate, at 4.9. Source. These three aircraft are all from roughly the same era, so teething problems should affect them equally.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[I'm New Around Here]

Your comment would carry more weight if you looked at the record of losses in Iraq. Only a single A-10 was lost in the entire eight years of the Iraq war. It was lost in 2003, but that is as far as your post is relevant. In that same period 129 helicopters and 23 other fixed-wing aircraft were lost, for various reasons. Seems lika a good record for the A-10.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Zak3056]

Are you suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld was the architect of a program that was initiated in 1996? I'll grant that his administration chose the X-35 over the X-32, but I don't know why you think the outcome would have been significantly different.

You know, the funny part is that he was widely criticized for killing a multibillion dollar "last war" defense program (the Crusader artillery vehicle).

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Donald Rumsfeld, but the blind hate you're spewing is exactly the reason that we have people lined up behind the worst two candidates for president in recent memory (arguable, in the history of the republic).

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[phantomfive]

He was the big proponent of the joint-acquisition program: the single plane that is shared across all the services, despite their differing needs.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[sphealey]

Yes, the fact that you still owe on the bonds does not change the forward-looking analysis which ignores sunk cost. So if the forward-looking decision is to abandon, you abandon. Then you figure out how to make your bond payments. For example, I'm paying taxes to pay off bonds for a project that a number of municipal electric utilities bought into that failed; its been 7 years and we only have 23 more years of taxes to go.

sPh

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

" Single engine war planes are idiocy at it's supremacy."

What about using an apostrophe where it doesn't belong? And "supremacy"?

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[nojayuk]

They were built cheap to be flown by ANG pilots over West Germany to get shot down by self-propelled AA guns and short-range missiles deployed with Soviet spearpoint armour brigades. The Big Stupid Gun was designed to chew up personnel carriers and trucks and other targets of opportunity and maybe damage/kill tanks but to use it the pilot had to get within a kilometre or so of the opposition and then fly straight toward them, not a good thing to do against anyone who can shoot back en masse. Times have changed and now there are better CAS weapons in the toolchest -- Maverick, Brimstone etc. which can do this kind of work from tens of kilometres out from any short-range defensive weapon systems that can knock down an attacking aircraft. They need to be deployed by smart platforms like the F-35 although older-generation aircraft like the F-16 can act as ammo mules for them with the F-35's instrumentation and C3 capabilities taking over after launch. The A-10 is too dumb in terms of battlefield networking to be of much use even in this role and besides the single pilot is busy flying the aircraft.

As for fast WWII strike aircraft, the Mosquito and the Typhoon were in the same speed range as the A-10. The F-35, F-15SE and F-18 can be on station in half the time it takes to get an A-10 into position to do some good.

The A-10 needs a full-length runway to operate from unlike the carrier-based F-18 and the F-35. That means several kilometres of airfield perimeter to protect from raids by enemy forces which means lots of troops, logistics etc. A fast CAS/strike aircraft can operate from bases in safe ground far from the enemy and still get to operational areas in time to do some good if needed.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[rwyoder]

When you lose one in an F-16 or F-35 you grab the ejection handle.

Not always: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[jbengt]

If you have a billion in sunk costs and it will cost another 3 to make it at all useful but you can also choose plan B for a forward going cost of 2 billion (it doesn't matter how much, if any, you've spent on plan B so far), then before you take plan B, you should remember that you estimated Plan A to cost only a billion, and chances are Plan B will have the same magnitudes of cost overruns, so maybe you should think twice and stick with Plan A, which by now, you should have a better grip on costs for it than for some new, untested plan. (Depends entirely on the particulars, though)

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

The A-10 can typically loiter in an area for over 2 hours. The F-35 can typically provide CAS for two minutes - if you change the definition of CAS to include long range engagements.

Two A-10s can put ordinance on target every 12 seconds. One can paint the target while the other fires. A-10s can also take a brutal beating. One returned from Desert Storm with 378 holes. All of this is accomplished on a very small budget compared to the F-35.

That being said, the A-10 is not an air superiority jet. Fighters need to secure the skies before the A-10 can get to work. The F-35, if it eventually works, will wipe out enemy aircraft while presenting a minimal radar signature.

This whole debate leads me to believe that congress is comparing apples to oranges for other reasons, such as lining their pockets or those of their constituents.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to consider deployment rate though. And mission successes.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[lgw]

It was designed to fight "yesterday's war", while the future is obviously unmanned drones.

Yes, airframes last a long time, but unmanned drones replacing all armed air roles, even all single-pilot planes, is decades away. We can do some fairly minimal stuff now with drones against low-tech opponents with no EW capability at all, and even then it's not much cheaper.

There are plenty of problems with the F-35, but we certainly need new manned planes, both fighter and bomber, for at least another generation. The inherent disadvantages to a remote-control plane are quite large, and truly autonomous drones - drones that can decide to engage a new target - aren't coming soon.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[uncqual]

Generally agreed. However, past expenditures on a project like the F-35 have some relevance to the extent they have reduced the number of unknowns with continuing the partially completed program vs. scrapping it and starting a brand new one which has not been designed, let alone implemented, yet. A much larger risk adjustment factor should, of course, be added for accounting purposes to the projected cost of the of the "new" program than to the cost of completing the established program -- however, we are notoriously bad at estimating the future cost of large and technologically advanced projects that are paving new ground so that's hard to do with reasonable accuracy.

If one gets the "risk adjustment factor" wrong for new programs, one can easily end up for decades "starting over" spending vast sums of money -- and never get anything to solve the problem you are targeting.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[s.petry]

The F18 is much newer. About the time executives started making all of the engineering decisions.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is basically a hatchet job. The A-10 has a stellar reputation based upon effectiveness and suitability to role. That reputation has saved the A-10 from retirement what, 2 times? 3 times? You would do well to have such a reputation.

The only thing correct in your statements is that "A-10s are surprisingly slow..." That's because they don't need to be. As a CAS aircraft, time on station and the ability to train the Big Gun on targets for more than a millisecond are far more valuable.

As for you dismissive comments about Bushmen with spears, hate to break it to you Sarge, but that's essentially the role that the A-10 has repeatedly been called upon to perform. War with Russia? Very unlikely. War with a much weaker target, perhaps one hard to find? That has happened over and over and over again. Asymmetric warfare has been our lot in life since Korea or Vietnam.

You need weapons systems for the wars you actually fight. Deterrence against the biggest foes? That still falls to the nukes.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

There's really no question that the 35 does some things very well. The problem is it doesn't do everything very well, and they were promising it would replace many things that did several specific things very well. Gains HAVE been made.

The question is one of cost/benefit. Not "is there a benefit" - there is.

It seems the A10 spells out the answer. It wins by not trying to do everything for everyone. Yes, the sunk cost fallacy. Money spent is gone. You have what you have. Use the current state of things (existing F-35's and all that IP) and realistic predictions on costs to meet objectives going forward.

Does any of that mean the F-35 should be scrapped? I really doubt it, but it may not be too late to at least slightly contain the overspending. What bells and wishes can be tossed that make sense, given the current state of things, to toss?

In software the last 5% of the work sometimes is said to take 95% of the time. Now that is mostly poor planning, but not entirely untrue for all of that. Take that pseudo rule and now assume the software is as complex as what is in the F-35, and then assume you also have those security requirements, well now you have the worst of all worlds, and it is not just software.

Don't try to optimize something to do and be everything for everyone. It will fail. Take a lesson from Apple/Android/etc. Make the 85% solution. If you have to keep around some older planes to handle the other 15%, or even build more, then that is the thing to do.

Modularity and such only get you so far. Any good design is a collection of compromises. Trying to do everything well insures that you won't.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Hognoxious]

they have reduced the number of unknowns

The F-35 has known unknowns, but a new project will have unknown unknowns.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Hognoxious]

There's really no question that the 35 does some things very well.

Enriching contractors and providing votes in key districts.

Oops, I misspelled "jobs in economically deprived areas".

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[atticus9]

Not completely ignored, there's the management team to consider.

My impression is that the F-35 wasn't designed to be the best fighter ever, it was designed to be the best project ever - that would give everyone at the table tens of billions of dollars and produce a plane as a by-product. So giving that same group of contractors hundreds of billions more dollars to complete it seems like a poor decision. If they weren't successful with $400 billion (cost-so-far), what's changed that would make it successful at $600 billion, or $800 billion?

I'd scrap the F-35, harvest the technologies for later projects so it's not all wasted, and then start over with a new team that has thorough vetting to be capable of executing a project like this.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[impossiblefork]

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen is a single-engine fighter and has had no crashes in the Swedish air force since we introduced it and no crashes of any kind have been due to engine problems.

Twin-engined fighters can also have weird stall conditions, for example, the first female carrier-based fighter pilot Kara Spears Hultgren crashed and died due to a where the nose also affected over the wing over one of the engine intakes leading to a compressor stall.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[HornWumpus]

In poker you consider things like pot ratio (next bet to pot size). But with project management the question is always 'what is the current value of this half completed effort?' Everybody offering to answer that question has an interest, 99% of answers will be bullshit, remainder being 0.9% horse shit and 0.1% rat shit.

The truth is 'replacement value' is often pretty close to the current sunk cost. Not because the sunk cost was well spent, but because the organization won't do any better next time. Just pitiful.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[HornWumpus]

Optimist.

90% of remaining project will take 90% of budgeted time/money. Learn to live with imperfection.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Hognoxious]

Big Stupid Gun [...] there are better CAS weapons in the toolchest -- Maverick

Look here.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

What are those just outbound of the landing gear pods?

The A-10 needs a full-length runway to operate from

Twaddle. They're designed to take off from a field or a section of Autobahn if necessary.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[I'm New Around Here]

Both numbers are at a very respectable level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[HangingChad]

Or at least spend the money on something that works. An EMB 314 that flies is better than an F-35 on the ground.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[mspohr]

Maybe they could scrap the variations which don't perform well and just produce those which are effective.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[aliquis]

Correct, but it may prevent you from flushing more money down a rat hole.

The military industry must love you.

"But we're almost done ..."
"No! I want a new one!"

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[arglebargle_xiv]

unmanned drones replacing all armed air roles, even all single-pilot planes, is decades away. We can do some fairly minimal stuff now with drones against low-tech opponents with no EW capability at all

Right, because we're constantly fighting other advanced nations in air-to-air combat, but only very rarely have to deal with low-tech opponents with no EW capabilty.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

You're delusional. There hasn't been a dogfight in like 50 years. Dude. You make it sound like the skies are filled with Top Guns erryday. Fighters are useless. It's 2016 man. Seriously. Like. Do you seriously foresee WWIII breaking out soon? WWIII fought with conventional weapons? Fuck. Americans. My god.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Tablizer]

One should weigh R&D costs also; that's part of it. But that's in terms of weighing knowledge and skill, not past expenditures themselves.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Cassini2]

The F/A-18 is flown from ships. It makes a difference when comparing mishaps per 100,000 flight hours.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Zak3056]

[citation needed].

You're blaming Rumsfeld for something that began in the 90s. The program was called the Joint Strike Fighter, and the conventional and STOVL requirements were there from day one.

As I noted above, Rumsfeld killed the Crusader, and he also killed Comanche and tried (and failed) to kill the F-22. You can argue that he could have killed it, but laying the blame for this at his feet is, as I said, just partisan hate.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[lgw]

Yes, you've accurately described the last war. Funny old world though: it keeps changing.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[lgw]

There hasn't been a dogfight in like 50 years. Dude.

You seem confused about the definition of "dogfight". Firing missiles at max range is sort of the opposite of a dogfight. Just so you know.

Do you seriously foresee WWIII breaking out soon?

Large powers haven't fought in a while. But the world isn't stable, and America's military dominance is fading fast. Won't be long before the end of the Pax Americana. We'll see large powers at it again one day, unless human nature magically changes (and heck, if human nature magically changes, maybe communism would work). I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was. US vs Iran is a joke, but Iran armed with a large gift of Russian equipment? Less funny.

Lots of ways the world can change. Best not to over-optimize on fighting the last war.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Kjella]

There's a saying that the first 90% of the project take the first 90% of the time, then the last 10% take the other 90% of the time.

Optimist. 90% of remaining project will take 90% of budgeted time/money. Learn to live with imperfection.

The point was that "first 90%" and "other 90%" add up to 180%, that is to say when you say you're almost done you're actually nowhere close to being really done. Not sure what you're saying, if I can really get 90% of the project done with 90% of the time/money isn't the estimation spot on?

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Noble713]

The F-35 can typically provide CAS for two minutes - if you change the definition of CAS to include long range engagements.

You don't need to change the definition of CAS. The definition is about the need to closely coordinate the execution of the air mission with the forces on the ground. It does not mandate a short distance or low-altitude spatial relationship between the delivery platform and the target. Reference: Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod...

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Gussington]

The F-35 program has been a disaster, for mostly predictable, and predicted, reasons.

Funny isn't it, I distinctly remember a *lot* of respected opinions coming out pre-program saying this would be a lemon, and they have been proven to be right. Where are they now? Can we give them a go in charge instead?

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Alumoi]

I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was

Were you born yesterday? All major powers have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[serviscope_minor]

The F-35, F-15SE and F-18 can be on station in half the time it takes to get an A-10 into position to do some good.

That's true in a head to head race from the same airfield. However, the A10 can operate from forward operating points, since it doesn't need good runways. The takeoff roll is 1,200m, and you can prepare an ad-hoc runway of that size without excessive trouble.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[JeffOwl]

The subject is more complex than you imagine. The F-16 and F-15 both use the same engine. If you compare engine flight hours for the latest engine, the -229 I think, the F-15 has had more ENGINE RELATED class A mishaps than the F-16. If the F-16 had the same ENGINE mishap rate as the F-15 they should have lost 5 air frames / lives in a period where engine problems cost them zero. That's right none. So it is much more complex than just making the assumption that two is better than one. Think about it this way, two engines have twice the possibility of catching fire in the air or catastrophic failure with enough collateral damage that the plane can't be landed.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[hallkbrdz]

Exactly. There is NO excuse why a plane has to cost this much money - none, other than greed.

Stop wasting MY tax money.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the future is NOT 'obviously' unmanned drones. Show me a country that relies on those and I'll show you a nation that's one defeat from disaster. The US drone program is a technological mess, but you wouldn't know that because you just run around stating the 'obvious'.

That said, yesterday's war is exactly what we should be worried about. We have great airframes and awesome everything else right now--but instead of building improved designs with modern avionics we have to do a clean sheet design all the time because using existing ones doesn't make defense contractors rich. The yesterday's war scenario is simply this: I don't care how many aircraft an F22 can shoot down if we have less than 100 of them in the whole world. It's too easy to be where they aren't, in greater numbers.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them perform well. Thats the cost of being a jack-of-all-trades.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[nojayuk]

And those forward operating bases need to be protected from enemy raids so adding hundreds of troops, vehicles, fuel, logistics etc. to the front lines. The backfield bases operating planes like the F-15SE are usually already in place in friendly territory or on carriers and they can do the same job or better than the A-10 without the frontline logistical load.

Basically the A-10 is an older weapons system in a world which has moved forward. The F-35 is a sniper picking off targets from beyond light AA range (MANPADs, heavy machine guns and rapid-fire cannon) while the A-10 conducts hand-to-hand combat with the enemy if it tries to use its Big Stupid Gun. It's not like it can fly without the BSG either, the entire airframe is built around it. Other aircraft can carry guns with similar capabilities in terms of rate of fire in conformal packs or underwing if the mission requires it but they don't HAVE to cart them around if they're not needed.

The A-10 is stiffy-inducing like battleships. They're obsolete like battleships and a waste of manpower and effort like battleships. There are folks who think battleships should be in the armoury today, for no real reason other than the stiffy they induce. The A-10 is a flying battleship, basically.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[arth1]

You're delusional. There hasn't been a dogfight in like 50 years.

But intercepting and cutting off foreign planes happen weekly. You're not dog-fighting, but you're maneuvering close, showing that they won't get anywhere near your country, and that you could take them down.

There's also low-tech heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles where your radar footprint won't help, and flares work best in combination with agility.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luis_a_espinal]

I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was

Were you born yesterday? All major powers have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2.

Nothing of the scale seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I grew up in the cold war, right in the middle of one of those proxy wars. There has been nothing approaching any of that shit since 1989.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luis_a_espinal]

As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.

Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.

Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.

What's wrong with geting at least some ROI even if it is not ideal? That is lost money that people worked hard for and it may not be ideal but, at least that option should be weighed.

Also, the emotional/logical argument is excessive spending on the latest go gadgets got you into this mess with the sunken cost right? Perhaps, that is not the solution but the problem!

If the sunken costs were dumped chasing the latest and greatest then the answer is stop doing the very things with greater sunken costs later but re-analyze why?

Agreed. We should not scrap everything. The whole/final product might be shit, but there is a lot of tech and know-how developed along the way. It would be stupid to think that there is no value left to extract (though I do think we should just stop working in this joint-acquisition boondoggle.)

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luis_a_espinal]

You assume gains have been made.

Are you suggesting that there is nothing of significant value in terms of technology and know-how in the F-35 program? Nothing, nothing at all? Or that if there is something, the ROI is just not enough to warrant salvage?

Please pray tell with citations.

* Now, I'm not suggesting to keep going forward with the F-35, but the notion that everything is a waste (or without value), it simply defies logic.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

while presenting a minimal radar signature.

Switching to infrared...

Bright light. Bright light. Someone turn down the contrast on this thing.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[bravecanadian]

The F-35 is useful! It was supposed to be a pork barrel project and it fulfills this role absolutely perfectly, what the hell is your problem?

This is funny but absolutely true. The US military is the biggest make-work project in the history of mankind and a great proving ground for socialist policies. :)

Shame they don't make useful stuff, though.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[operagost]

Heck, the Warthog would probably win in a dogfight.

I'm not even sure I'm kidding.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Other aircraft can carry guns with similar capabilities in terms of rate of fire in conformal packs or underwing if the mission requires it but they don't HAVE to cart them around if they're not needed.

Pod-mounted guns are notoriously inaccurate. To the point that they won't be carried, since they can't hit anything. Witness the ill-fated A-16.

So if you want a gun that can hit something, you have to put it inside the plane. Same lesson was learned with the F-4 in Vietnam.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[myth24601]

At the very least, the F-35C model and possibly the Navy F-35B models should be ditched and let the A model be focused on the attack role. A new aircraft for STOVL could be developed to fill the close air support role that the Harrier has been in up to now.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[HornWumpus]

You only get 90% of the 10% done with an additional 90% of schedule.

The remaining 1% will also take 90% of schedule to get 90% done.

Repeat until good enough, or until feature creep makes the remainders irrelevant.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[serviscope_minor]

And those forward operating bases need to be protected from enemy raids so adding hundreds of troops, vehicles, fuel, logistics etc. to the front lines.

Well, yes, but if you think A-10s are slow, then you'll think that infantry goes at a snails pace. Remember the A-10 is not operating in a vacuum, it's operating as an infantry support vehicle. Those bases are already there.

The backfield bases operating planes like the F-15SE are usually already in place in friendly territory or on carriers and they can do the same job or better than the A-10 without the frontline logistical load.

The F15 can't spend as long noodling around waiting for something to happen as the A10. You're looking

Basically the A-10 is an older weapons system in a world which has moved forward.

Depends on who you're fighting. Probably not going to use it going up against Russia's best. However, not all enemies are equal.

The A-10 is stiffy-inducing like battleships.

Except it's not. The Battleship was designed primarily for engaging other ships in a slugging match. Turns out that aircraft carriers are much more effective at that and what obsoleted battleships was they couldn't get within range. On the other hand the A10 is designed to support infantry slugging it out with other infantary which is something that still happens.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[budgenator]

A-10s are surprisingly slow (slower than some WWII strike/CAS piston-engined aircraft!) which means they have to operate from full-sized air bases close to the front line ...

All of the examples below are limited to the vicinity of 0.8 Mach, like any subsonic aircraft. Portions of airflow over the craft are likely to enter into the supersonic range, so while the F35 is theroeticaly twice as fast, it's not going to be twice as fast down in the weeds where a lot of down and dirty CAS happens. That's where low stall speed and high power to weight ratios for acceleration trump Max velocity.

Beside the A10 isn't slower than WWII strike/CAS piston-engined aircraft, it's the same. It's Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h) means it's pretty easy to get up in the air and back down on shorter runways.

North American P-51 Mustang,
Maximum speed: 437 mph (380 kn, 703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Range: 1,650 mi (1,434 nmi, 2,755 km) with external tanks
Wing loading: 39 lb/sqft (192 kg/m)
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)

(P-47D-30 Thunderbolt)
Maximum speed: 433 mph at 29,000 ft
Range: 800 mi combat,
Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
Loaded weight: 12,731 lb (5,774.48 kg)
Wing loading: 42.43 lb/ft2 (207 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.204 hp/lb (335 W/kg)

  Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II,
Maximum speed: 437 mph (380 kn, 703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
  Range: 800 mi
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
Wing loading: 39 lb/sqft (192 kg/m)
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[budgenator]

I'm not seeing the point in your BSG argument,
F35, Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds
A10, Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger rotary cannon with 1,174 rounds (capacity 1,350 rd)
To me the 5mm difference isn't enough to consider and 1/10 the ammo makes the F35 cannon stupider then the A10's cannon.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they could, and perhaps it would be wise to go that route. It won't change the fact that, for the variants that would remain, the design is needlessly complex and expensive because it was designed to meet all of these diverse purposes. It would have been more cost effective to design and build separate replacements for the Harrier, F-16, F/A-18, and A-10 (three of which don't really need to be replaced at this point, anyway).

Perhaps there will be some eventual economies of scale that will reduce the cost of maintenance, but it's hard to imagine those reductions would be enough to offset the difference between a purpose-designed plane and a plane that must be built to a wide variety of purposes. Just as it's hard to imagine that a jack-of-all-trades plane could perform any role as well as a purpose-built aircraft.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Enigma2175]

Uhh, wrong. You should ABSOLUTELY factor in the sunk cost, especially if it reveals the fact that you've spent waaaaay too much and should scrap the project and start over.

That won't give your money back.

Correct, but it may prevent you from flushing more money down a rat hole.

The problem is, that most times it won't. The reasons you are over budget without a complete product haven't changed, so if you attempt to "start from scratch" you are likely to make the same mistakes and assumptions as before and likely end up in the same situation (after spending a bunch MORE money). I have seen it happen time after time, it's not the product's fault that the project failed, it was the people involved. In the case of the F-35, if the project were scrapped now we would likely end up building several different models of plane to replace it at a much greater cost.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-35 is just a front for the government to funnel money into various black projects that they do not want on the books.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

>A-10s are not actually very effective in the CAS role...
    That's relative. Because everything on the planet can be 'improved', nothing is ever 'as effective' or efficient as it can be, (to an armchair accountant). But it is effective, and that is empirical not relative. It is effective.

>They also have to come within reach of ground-based anti-artillery guns to use their Big Stupid Gun rather than standing off and killing the enemy with ranged weapons.
    My oh my, such nasty language about the gun. Bias much? Anyway, you misunderstand how they are used. This is not American Football where some hero runs down the middle of the field, solo, while opponents try to smash him :) This plane is used in conjunction with ground forces and other air power, as a coordinated up-close (on purpose) run against enemy soldiers & hardware. It is a flying shotgun and used as such. The generals don't get is confused with other equipment, they know how to assign it. No missions ever call for it to fly suicidaly into AA guns. I mean really what comic books are you reading?

>A-10s are surprisingly slow...
    You goofball, they CAN go slower than other planes, (which is their attribute), and they can ALSO go fast. My car can go slow. Does it mean it can never go fast? Must be a rusted jalopy in disguise, hmm I never knew.

Dude, you are a total sourpuss and REALLY need some classes. Even as a troll you're weak sauce.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine how many engines the jet manufacturer wants...

Modern commercial liners can fly on one engine, but have three or four for redundancy, so that should tell you something...

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Always maddening when one of the highest moderated posts is one of the most idiotic. There is nothing wrong with single engine fighters and the F16 has an excellent record. Yet there it is sitting at 5, Insightful because people are dumb as fuck.

I remember why I stopped coming here. Factually accurate posts like yours are am extreme rarity on /. these days. Thank you.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

The A-10 is slow, yes. That is a feature, not a bug, when it comes to CAS. It allows the plane to have straight wings, which in turn allow it to be one of the most highly maneuverable aircraft around. It allows it to fly lower. It allows for better targeting. Some of that stuff can be done remotely, but a lot of it is better handled in the moment by someone who can see what's going on on the ground, not someone tens of kilometres away relying on intelligence as it comes in.

Needing a full length runway isn't really an issue at all. Close air support is land based, anyway. For every case where ability to fly from a carrier is necessary because securing an airfield is not possible, there are going to be hundreds of cases where ability to fly from an airfield is necessary because there is no ocean nearby.

As for runway length, keep in mind it's not the Navy or Marine version that is designed for CAS - that's the F-35A. It's going to be limited to the same runways as the A-10 (though the A-10 can almost certainly land on shorter runways due to its slow flying capability).

And that's without getting into the fact that the F-35A costs 80million/unit more than the A-10.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

The design is the same age as the F-16. The two engaged in a fly-off, YF-16 versus YF-17, and the USAF chose the YF-16, while the USN chose an updated version of the YF-17 (updated for carrier operations) that was designated F-18.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many took a hit and didn't go down? I'm no expert beyond reading the fun facts in the model instructions over 20 years ago but I seem to recall some stat about it being able to stay in the air with a surprisingly high percentage of its wings actually gone. Always sounded like marketing gimmick stat to me but that survival rate compared to the helicopters makes me wonder.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

>They were built cheap to be flown by ANG pilots over West Germany to get shot down
    Incorrect, they were built to NOT get shot down ;)

Having spoken to (at the time) East German air defense guys, the A-10 was their bane. They did not know how to thwart it other than HEAVY fire.
Did modern air defense suddenly switch to throwing rocks? I think having some defense against AA to be worth inheriting in any CAS design.

Although you seem to be of 'seasoned' knowledge, you argue like a child. Something tells me you never served or seen these things.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Tablizer]

No, the future is NOT 'obviously' unmanned drones

I'd qualify that. It's pretty obvious that drones can be cheaper and more plentiful than manned jets (MJ), and not subject g-force limits like humans are.

However, the jammed signal issue has to be dealt with. If we don't take advantage of drone abilities, other countries will, and potentially overwhelm us IF we are not able to successfully jam them.

Since battle with new tech is hard to predict, it would be militarily smart to hedge our bets and have both.

It's nice to have a good share of both drones and MJ, but it ain't cheep. I suspect the quantity of MJ's will become stagnant in the air-forces of most countries, while drones increase, and that budgets will be split about 50/50 between drones and MJ's. This means numerically more drones since they are roughly 1/5 the cost of an MJ.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

To add to the stats you're presenting, we fly about 4 times as many F-16s as F-15s. So the (lack of) failure rate on the F-16 is even more impressive.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure it's fair to compare F-16 losses to F-18/F-15's:
They made almost twice as many F-16's than F-15's and F-18's combined. And F-16's are ubiquitous throughout the entire globe, and operated by crews of widely varying skills and maintenance budgets. While F-18's and F-15's are primarily operated by skilled and wealthy US and NATO forces.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[cwsumner]

Keep in mind that a -lot- of respected people say -anything- that's new will fail, because they know that the words will be forgotten if it succeeds and remembered if it does fail. It gets them a fake reputation for predicting the future, but that doesn't make it a good idea to listen to them. 8-)

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[david_thornley]

Relevant in what way? We've spent all this, so we're [going to keep going, because we're not wasting all that money]/[going to quit, because there's no way the project will break even]? Sunk cost does not tell you what the best use of your money is going forward. It is very relevant to the overall success, and needs to be considered in retrospectives.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[david_thornley]

Good chance, actually, if the F-35 driver is stupid enough to get slow and close.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[painandgreed]

Nothing of the scale seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I grew up in the cold war, right in the middle of one of those proxy wars. There has been nothing approaching any of that shit since 1989.

Don't worry. Russia is looking to change that. They've been missing the respect they got when they were fighting proxy wars with the US and NATO.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[cthulhu11]

As if Nutrasweet wasn't enough harm â¦

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[rtb61]

They have learned from M$, if it works properly who will buy the upgrade. All you need to do is spend enough on advertising to blame the end users. You know, did not contract it out to them, end user programming error, the missile program caused the problems, you did not use the rght fuel additives, that's not a bug that a feature and the best of them all (although it is not an M$ one - yet), the Russians did it and if they did not do it, then definitely the Chinese did it. Never forget, if you do not buy f-35s the terrorists win (M$ did actually do that one, tsk, tsk, tsk) or if you do not buy f-35s regime change via the war industry controlled main stream media (M$ did that via lobbyists buy our stuff or else we will campaign against you).

F-35 designed not to work on purpose, paid for upgrades and eventually replacement, HA, HA, HA.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[shutdown -p now]

Only because there are few wars between powers that can afford large fighter (as opposed to bomber / CAS) fleets. But when it does happen, dogfights happen. Pretty much every time it gets serious between India and Pakistan, for example. Iran-Iraq war saw quite a few, and US shot down quite a few Iraqi planes in dogfights during Desert Storm.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[amiga3D]

Look at the safety records for single engine war fighters. They are horrible. Come back with facts instead of bullshit.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[amiga3D]

The F-18 is a carrier aircraft. That explains a lot of it's problems. The F-16 was actually much worse it's first decade but lately it's only been dismal.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[amiga3D]

I can't understand why people defend the safety record of the F-16 and the F-105 before it when they obviously have miserable stats. Redundancy is everything in a weapon system. You're the dumb fuck.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[bhiestand]

...the blind hate you're spewing is exactly the reason that we have people lined up behind the worst two candidates for president in recent memory (arguable, in the history of the republic).

Sure, but let's be completely open here, lest we fall victim to false equivalence.

Prior to Trump securing the nomination, Hillary Clinton may have been the worst candidate in the history of the Republic. But if every candidate for the next two centuries is worse than Hillary Clinton, they will all still likely be better than Donald Trump.

This is literally a choice between the second most disliked candidate in history and the candidate who makes her look warm and friendly.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but the extra costs of the engine are nontrivial. You have to look at operational concerns to make that choice. Take the F16 - Canada declined it because with their size, they need dual-engine jets so they picked the CF-18. The Dutch and Belgians don't have that issue at all, and fly the F16 knowing that they'd lose a few. That was still cheaper.

And yes, the F16 is end of life. Can't really be surprised if you start seeing increased failures.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. The F-117 has a similar mishap rate (4.07 vs 4.9), and is entirely land-based, but the aerodynamic design was compromised for the sake of stealth, and without the benefit of modern simulation-aided design. The AV-8B (the Harrier) has a huge mishap rate of 11.44, because vertical take-off/landing is hard. One of the more dangerous fighters - the F-102, a 1950s-era single-engine aircraft - had a mishap rate of 13.69.

In the broader scheme of things, the F-16's mishap rate doesn't seem especially bad: compared to the F-15, having a single engine is about as dangerous as operating from carriers (F/A-18) or sacrificing aerodynamics for stealth (F-117), and less bad than being VTOL (AV-8B) or an older design (F-102).

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

You are essentially appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Try making an actual argument next time.

And something to think about. Two scenarios:

1) We have what is basically the current situation with the F-35 including all the money spent on it.

2) No money has been spent on the F-35, the development was funded by a mysterious benefactor (who can be 100% trusted), and then gifted all the work (design, prototypes, engineers, everything) done up to this point to the US government to do whatever it wants with it.

Now situation 1 and 2 are identical in every respect except for the sunk cost. Going forward, would you be:
a) more likely to continue funding 1 than 2.
b) equally likely to continue funding 1 and 2
c) less likely to continue funding 1 than 2

If you chose b then you surely agree that what has been spent in the past is irrelevant. If you chose a or c can you please give us your reasoning?

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[stoatwblr]

"Yes, airframes last a long time"

Actually. They don't. Not on fighters. The strains of hard takeoffs and landings, along with high-G manoeuvers cause them to wear out far more quickly than you might think.

Yes, if you fly them gently they'll last for decades. Pull 9G turns repeatedly and after a couple of years the wings will fall off.

Drone pilots may not pass out in high-rate turns but there are still practical limits to their operations unless you want to be shelling out for new aircraft all the time.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[stoatwblr]

"Keep in mind that a -lot- of respected people say -anything- that's new will fail"

The most respected people who pointed out why it would fail have been proven right.

It's a single engine, stubby winged, tubby bodied sloth with not-particularly-good stealth that's not helped by having to open the bomb bay doors to keep cool.

The attrition rate on the things will be high in any airforce without supplementary air superiority fighters (IE, everyone except the USAF and its F22) because it wasn't designed for air-superiority tasks - and the F22 comes with its own set of shortcomings.

The amount of GDP the USA is spending on its military is coming at cost of maintenance of national infrastructure, healthcare, education and welfare. It's remarkably similar to what was happening in the Soviet Union in the runup to its implosion in 1989. Time will tell whether your country manages to avoid a similar devastating economic collapse.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[stoatwblr]

Look at the F111B project. It was a lemon, but lessons from it resulted in the F14 and F15, which were pretty useful aircraft.

The other lesson from the F111B project was how to avoid getting your program shut down.

Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

BRRRRRRRT!

Re:Let me be the first to say

[infolation]

A-10 Warthog. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mother****er in the room, accept no substitute.

Re:Let me be the first to say

[camperdave]

Obligatory Music Video

"Just too effective to get rid of ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The Air Force must be outsourcing development to Apple and Microsoft.

Re: "Just too effective to get rid of ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's anything like the UK, defence companies charge interns £6000/six months to get commercial real time systems experience

Maybe both have their place.

[MrKrillls]

The Warhog is so different that I can't imaging that they really can share the same mission profile. So, when they do get the F-35 up to specs, we'll have two very different high performance tools.

In the short run, a problem. In the long run we'll do well.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[JBMcB]

That's the problem - the F-35 was supposed to do *everything* - air superiority, close air support, attack, amphibious assault - and it wound up doing nothing particularly well. So, yeah, it has a different operational envelope than the A-10, and that's the problem. It isn't as good as an A-10 for ground attack, it isn't as good as an F-16 for air superiority, and it isn't as good as an F/A 18 in STOL situations.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[luvirini]

The thing is, the US airforce has been trying to get rid of the role that Warthog was designed to fill because ground support is not glamorous.

So over the years they have tried to say that a fighter is as good as a dedicated ground attack craft in ground attack and the ground attack craft role should be scrapped and further that no new ground attack aircraft should be designed. Thus they are trying to push the f-35 into that role now as "It is as good as a dedicated aircraft"

This has resulted in the Warthog soldiering on as the fighters have not been able to fill the role...

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[minstrelmike]

Looking at the "mission profile," it appears as if all the military building programs are trying to be all things to all soldiers. We still use B-52 bombers because the new bombers don't work. And frankly, if we want bombers that drop shitloads of ordnance, they need to be big. And that means they'll probably be slow.

And 40 of them won't be invisible. Maybe radar won't see them but citizens with smartphones certainly will.

And our current fleet of slow-moving loud B-52s still strike fear into the populace. If we want a similar show of force, maybe we just need updated versions of the B-52, not a brand-new one full of super-duper (and unproven) hi-tech. We don't need a yuuuuuuuge bomber that's bigger and faster and shinier and has VTOL capabilities. But we do need bobmers that can actually fly and drop bombs.
(And we already have attack helicopters so what's with the military's VTOL fetish?)

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[luvirini]

This. (and compared to f-22 the air superiority deficit is even more pronounced)

And combine it with the fact that it's big selling point the stealth capability is problematic in field repair conditions so would likely be compromised in field use.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[luvirini]

>(And we already have attack helicopters so what's with the military's VTOL fetish?)

It is mostly the marines that want VTOL so they can fly off their helicopter carriers and possible improvised bases.

The marines managed to buy Harriers earlier on despite everyone else saying "No no no!!!".

So the f-35 planners decided that they could also fill the marine tick box in their "This is why you should buy this plane" checklist by creating the monster known as F-35B.

Re: Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

The A-10 is so effective that we replaced it with Reaper a decade ago. A-10 is still here because certain congresscritters told the Air Force to reopen the jobs line at Hill AFB. Nothing more.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[spire3661]

"citizens with smartphones certainly will. "

That kind of just blew my mind a bit to realize where we are with tech. Completely ubiquitous computer penetration. If a human is present, odds are good that they have a computer, a camera and a means to transmit, or at least store. Not to mention the ability to edit in-the-field on even the cheapest pocket computers. Livin in the future.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[AK Marc]

Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficienlty similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy. "Air strikes", as we learned in Vietnam, don't care who they hit, they just hit the target area. So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10. If they know they can call in support, they try to engage the enemy first. Get them into a defensive group. Close and moving. Then the A-10 mows them down. With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.

A-10 works with corrdinated ground and air attack. Most other air support is mutually exclusive with ground support (except on massive fields of engagement we haven't seen in 50 years).

Re: Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the new bombers do work. The ones that were built anyway. I won't say that unbuilt designs did. But even the B-58 worked.

The thing is, circumstances around them changed. And the design decisons to make say, a high-altitude supersonic bomber lead to a lot of choices that compromise low-level flight. Not so bad when you just want to climb to heights, but bad when you end up flying there.

Similarly, in the case of the B-2, the collapse of the Soviet Union put the thought of having a large fleet of stealth bombers on the backburner. And more than half the B-52s were chopped up in Nuclear Arms reduction treaties. Whether or not any successor is made is beyond me.

Re: Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wins hearts and minds like a drone strike on your village.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Loki_1929]

The F-22 clears the skies of everything that flies. There isn't another jet even on the drawing board that competes with it in the air, but it also costs a fortune to fly it and since we screwed ourselves out of production (it'd take years to restart production on them), you don't want to risk them any longer than you have to. So against most adversaries with marginally effective air forces, you send F-15s all day. Against China or Russia, you send F-22s, force them to ground everything they care about keeping, and then fill the skies with F-15s to clear out everything they don't care as much about. After that, you just need effective ground attack and/or close-in air support options (depending on your decision to send ground troops).

This obsession with the F-35 is remarkably foolish. Remarkable for the fact that nobody with a decision capacity seems to comprehend the simple premise of using a mixture of high-end and low-end, role-specific equipment to do all the jobs that need doing as effectively as possible. Nothing beats the A-10 at doing what the A-10 does and it's cheap as Hell. Nothing beats the F-22 at doing what the F-22 does, but it's expensive as Hell. Once the expensive stuff has made operations reasonably safe by clearing the greatest threats, you pull it and start pumping the cheap-but-hugely-effective alternatives into the field. The only gap I see in the US Air Force's existing lineup is a long range, high-stealth, high speed ground strike aircraft capable of flying right into downtown Moscow and dropping a JDAM down Putin's chimney (or more likely, into hardened C&C centers).

Put that in development and start churning out more A-10s, F-15s, and other similarly effective tools. Nobody will be able to match the top-end tech and nobody will be able to overwhelm it with sheer numbers (e.g. WWII).

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[NotAPK]

"There isn't another jet even on the drawing board that competes with it in the air,"

What are you basing this on?

I thought the Russian Su-35 was perfectly comparable to the F22. It's also in production and being marketed to other countries. Of course it's hard to compare on specifications alone, but this comparison discusses various aspects, though being a US site ultimately states that the F22 would come out on top.

Now please don't misunderstand me, the very last thing we need is an actual showdown over Syria between these planes, so please be careful about who you vote for!

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only gap I see in the US Air Force's existing lineup is a long range, high-stealth, high speed ground strike aircraft capable of flying right into downtown Moscow and dropping a JDAM down Putin's chimney

That would have been the FB-22 - a stretched version of the F-22 with greater payload and fuel capacity, comparable to a stealthy F-111 - until it was cancelled.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[William Baric]

Against Russia, F-22 will be shot down by S-400.

Re: Maybe both have their place.

[Bluefirebird]

The A-10 shares more in common with the Super Tucano than with the F-35.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the Russian Su-35 was perfectly comparable to the F22.

No. The Su-35 is a close match for later versions of the F-15: the Su-35 has a maneouverability advantage, while the F-15 has better radar. The F-22 is stealthy, similarly maneouverable, and has an even larger advantage in radar and avionics. The F-35, however, is substantially less stealthy than the F-22, and doesn't have the speed or range to be a true air superiority fighter.

The worry, with the Su-35, is that Russia could build too many of them to be dealt with by the limited inventory of F-22s, and the US would have to send F-15s or F-35s against them.

I disagree with the GP's comment, however: the Sukhoi PAK FA is, if not quite a match for the F-22, at least in the same league, and is well beyond the drawing board (there are flying prototypes).

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[lgw]

That article is pretty bad - a lot of hype and self-contradiction.

What matters today, where the F-22 dominates, is the range you can get missile lock-on vs your opponent (assuming you have modern performance in general). The F-22 is excellent in that narrow aspect of stealth - it can get missiles off and turn away before anything else can get close enough to lunch missiles. It's very very good at that one goal.

The Su-35 is a more-modern F-15 or F/A-18 with better performance. It doesn't outperform the F-22, and it's not in the same league in the ratio of sensor quality to sensor profile.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[hairyfeet]

Yep they apparently didn't learn from history and went and created the F-111 all over again, a plane that was supposed to "do it all" and ended up sucking at everything.

And is anybody else getting the feeling we are becoming the Germans in WWII? While everybody else is building on top of already proven designs and ending up with planes they can afford to make en masse we are going the "wonder weapon" route, sinking our fortune into these techno turkeys that are supposed to just dominate but always end up 1.- Costing so much you can't afford to build them in large numbers, 2.- Have constant issues cutting down on available flight time, 3.- Expensive as hell to maintain, and 4.- Cost of replacement so high that both training and combat time is cut way down for fear of losing them.

From the looks of it while our actually useful planes get ancient with no real replacements in sight all the USAF wants is future air museum pieces that are really cool to look at but too costly to use, that is if the thing isn't broken down and will actually be able to fly when they need it.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Hognoxious]

The thing is, the US airforce has been trying to get rid of the role that Warthog was designed to fill because ground support is not glamorous.

And at the same time they strongly opposed the army having its own fixed-wing craft. I've never understood that. If they don't want to piss they should get off the pot.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Noble713]

Against China or Russia, you send F-22s, force them to ground everything they care about keeping, and then fill the skies with F-15s to clear out everything they don't care as much about.

In China's case, at least....that's not how the fight would go down. Basically they can throw a bunch of obsolete aircraft, converted into drones, into the air. You *HAVE* to engage them (at long range you can't tell if they are armed combat aircraft or basically big dumb cruise missiles, but either way you can't let them prosecute missions). The Chinese don't have to shoot down a single F-22, they just have to force the Combat Air Patrol to burn up the entire stockpile of AIM-120 AMRAAMs in theater. Once that is achieved, *THEN* they start putting all their good aircraft into the fight. I'm at work now so I don't have the relevant articles bookmarked (one stated they have converted HUNDREDS of Q-5s and the like to drones), but I think there was also a RAND study of how air superiority over the Taiwan Strait would play out, and it was basically the same assessment: the US can't keep enough combat power in the sky (partly due to basing, air refueling, weapons stocks, etc...) for our qualitative superiority to be sufficient. Against any other opponent, including Russia, I agree with your assessment: sweep the skies with F-22s and then maintain superiority with Teen Series birds. I'm a big fan of the F-15 Strike Eagle in particular.

The only gap I see in the US Air Force's existing lineup is a long range, high-stealth, high speed ground strike aircraft

Some people have theorized this is actually what the Chinese J-20's role is: basically a stealthy F-111 strike aircraft, rather than an air superiority plane.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Scot Seese]

Didn't we learn our lesson? Hell, even a $49 combo toaster oven waffler clock radio coffee maker sold at Sears in 1977 would teach you that "all in one" systems usually perform each role with mediocre quality at best, and excels at none of them.

The F-35 is a giant flying compromise whose most powerful defense system is the anti-cancellation sensor that blows manufacturing subcontract chaff across tens of states and dozens of different congressional districts making a program scale-down or cancellation kill shot nearly impossible.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an interesting angle. The difference I'd highlight is that Germany's superweapons were desperation schemes. The USA's is pure pork.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[k6mfw]

... the F-35 was supposed to do *everything* ...

Reminds me what test pilot and astronaut Michael Collins wrote in his book in 1960s the F111 was intended to be multi-purpose. He used car analogy, "Dad was to use it for commuting to work, mom use it to take the children to school and go shopping, also will be used to deliver concrete, and on the weekends it was a Formula One racer." And this was more than half century ago.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Noble713]

We still use B-52 bombers because the new bombers don't work.

The new bombers work, they are just more expensive to operate.

(And we already have attack helicopters so what's with the military's VTOL fetish?)

You can't escort V-22 Ospreys with attack helicopters because the helicopters are too slow. Why do Ospreys need escort? Well they can't escort themselves because they designed the damn things with no weapons. Helis are also potentially too slow to prosecute time-sensitive targets.

You can't shape the battlespace by prosecuting targets in the Deep Area with attack helicopters because helis don't have the range, or the speed. And the Deep Area is also likely to have more robust enemy air defense assets, which would be a death sentence for rotary wing aircraft. That's exactly what the MEF Force Fires officer (a LtCol) said to me when I picked his brain on using compound helicopters for our aviation support.

Attack helicopters also have a narrower range of available ordnance. Good luck dropping a JDAM on an underground C2 bunker from an AH-1 Cobra.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Noble713]

Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficiently similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy.

The A-10 was purpose-designed for engaging hordes of Soviet tanks in Europe, and they were expected to take horrendous losses in the process (well, everything was if the Cold War went hot). With the proliferation of precision-guided munitions, close air support has evolved, and it has to given the tech advances in air-defense systems. Even A-10s are rarely prosecuting missions with low and slow gun runs. I have a thread I've bookmarked on F-16.net with amplifying information but I'm not at home to pull up the link for you.

So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10.

These problems with poorly-targeted air support requests are being addressed with the growth of digital close air support technology: http://www.darpa.mil/program/p... If anything, CAS tactics have adapted to PGMs, not to the A-10 platform. Something like 80% of CAS missions are flown by F-16s dropping PGMs.

With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.

Citation needed. Seriously, if you have a scholarly article with data to support this assertion I want to read it, for some of my own related research.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the S-400 will be trashed by hypersonic cruise missiles before anybody realizes what happened.

You're an idiot; we've already gamed this and solved that problem.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Noble713]

I think shoehorning the Marine VTOL requirement into the same platform is the cause of 80% of the F-35's problems and limitations. We really should have our own dedicated aircraft, because our requirements are so different. But hey, nobody ever wants to fund our Service appropriately..... Foxtrot Alpha had a decent article about how the whole "we need VTOL!!!" thing is probably overrated, and as another poster mentioned, the likelihood that we'll be able to properly maintain an F-35 in general, let alone its stealth characteristics, at an austere airfield, is near-zero.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[lgw]

Maybe It can get lock-on at some range, depending on how the F-22 maneuvers, but what range? From the ideal angle, it won't get that lock on, but it's hard to know how far the F-22 falls from that ideal as it presents various profiles.

  A truck with a hot radar is an easy target, of course. Maybe the S-400 can shoot down the cruise missiles coming for it, but how many appropriate missiles will it carry. Maybe Morpheus can protect it, if the Russians ever actually deploy that system.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[camperdave]

What matters today, where the F-22 dominates, is the range you can get missile lock-on vs your opponent...

Surely that's a function of the missile, not the aircraft.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[camperdave]

Yep they apparently didn't learn from history and went and created the F-111 all over again, a plane that was supposed to "do it all" and ended up sucking at everything.

Just like the Space Shuttle.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

"What matters today, where the F-22 dominates, is the range you can get missile lock-on vs your opponent (assuming you have modern performance in general)."

Yes, that has been US air power doctrine since around the Korean War. The problem is that the US has not actually fought in a war since where this has been true.
ROE require confirmation requirements that prohibit BVR engagement.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficienlty similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy. "Air strikes", as we learned in Vietnam, don't care who they hit, they just hit the target area."

And those tactics worked so poorly in Vietnam, they developed the A-10. Those that don't learn their lessons from history...

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

If A-10 is cheap as hell then why are "the beancounters [...] trying to push the A-10 off the board"?

Unless the beancounters are corrupted (ie. they are counting the beans of the contractors) I can not understand why would they want A-10 retired?

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Against Russia, F-22 will be shot down by S-400.

Go ahead - just try convincing the crew sitting in the van running the SAM system put down their vodka and turn on that emitter.

Shooting down airliners is one thing, having crews with the discipline, training, and competence to survive exposing themselves in an environment that's deadly is another.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd argue the German WWII route would be making such a huge variety of overspecialized aircraft it becomes impossible to support them logistically.

That being said having a one-aircraft-fits-all approach is just as daft. As with most things there is a happy medium between the extremes.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[segedunum]

The F-22 clears the skies of everything that flies. There isn't another jet even on the drawing board that competes with it in the air...

A lot of people get seriously deluded with the F-22 hype and Lockheed's marketing material.

1. The F-22 hasn't been proven anywhere for anything. To describe it as the above is very wishful thinking.
2. Even if it proved to be the greatest plane ever there isn't enough of them to make any difference whatsoever.
3. The ones that they do have can't be kept in the air long enough to do anything.

In short it is a very expensive waste of space.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[angel'o'sphere]

No, the "lock" is a function of the craft.
The "flight range" is a function of the missile.

The parent wants to make the point that if both sides had the same missile one side can see and lock the other one up, while the other can't.

Imagine a target lock as some "bar code that is painted on you" ... one radar/sensor system is strong enough to paint a code on the target that the missile can lock on to. The other sensor system can't. Partly because of lack of the sensors/radar and partly because you are stealth-ed.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just...no. The F-35 is a VTOL version of an F-4. It has lost to an F-16 in A2A, it loses to F-15's (early models, not the enlarged strike), and F-18's. The F-35 is very heavy for a single engine, and while it has great straight line speed it's turning isn't spectacular.

Perhaps you are thinking of the (twin engine) F-22, which IS very bad-ass in the air and shares an engine core with the F-35? I believe strategic plan is to let the F-22 establish air superiority, then the F-35 and others come in for air to ground and maintaining the open skies for less well defended aircraft (JWACs, AC-130s, helos, etc.)

The F-35 is miles better than the AV-8B (Harrier), which means Amphibious assault ships can actually maintain their own air defense without a carrier (since the subsonic, high-wing AV-8B in a dogfight is like a overweight bulldog.) It can also match the AV-8B ground assault as it uses the same cannon in USMC variants and includes better targeting, stealth, and supersonic speed.

In my opinion, I wish they would have build the B first, then debated the need for the A and C later. I also know some of the reasons why this didn't happen (USMC doesn't have enough acquisition dollars to design a plane like this, esp at the same time as the V-22. I also think the USAF started the program once the F-22 went over budget as a risk control measure). Hindsight is 20/20...

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[inhuman_4]

Except this isn't true true at all. The F-35 is a strike fighter, hence the name Joint Strike Fighter. The original steathly strike fighter, the F-117, has been retied for years. Without the F-35 the USAF does not have the ability to perform deep strikes like what was done over Baghdad in 1991, unless you want to risk a B-2 nuclear bomber. This is the F-35's primary mission. The other requirements were added to ensure it wouldn't be a one trick pony.

We don't build specialize aircraft like the A-10 anymore because they are a waste of money. It's the same reason why we don't build separate fighters and interceptors, or bombers, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers. Single use platforms are expensive and a huge drain on the logical train for something that many not even find a use in a conflict. For example in a hypothetical war with China, what does the A-10 do? Nothing its useless. The practice of building specialized planes for these roles went out of fashion last generation, replaced with a Hi/Lo mix of high performance air superiority, and multi-role fighters: F-15 and F-16; F-14 and F-18; F-22 and F-35; Su-27 and Mig-29.

Modern fighters are more than capable of handling multiple roles adequately. Just take a look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The F-18 and F-16 conducted more CAS each missions than the A-10. This idea that the F-35 will replace the A-10 in the CAS role is a misunderstanding. The A-10 has largely been replaced already. The A-10 is going to be replaced by whatever the next airplane is not because this new airplane will be better, but because the A-10 a is a one trick pony that doesn't bring anything unique to the table.

The reason we get all these anti-F35 FUD articles is because most new systems get trashed by the media. People said the F-15 was too big to be a dog fighter, the F-16 was named the lawn dart. The F-117, B-2, and F-22 are all a waste of money because stealth doesn't work, or because the Russian have some magic new thing that "defeats" stealth. Hell, Pierre Spray even suggested that the M1 Abrams wasn't as good as the M60 Patton. Go back far enough and people though the whole idea of naval air warfare was a joke, airplanes can't sink ships. It doesn't help the that John McCain is the chair of the Committee on Armed Services and his home state happens to host the biggest A-10 base, a base that will be closed down when the A-10 is put to rest.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[lgw]

Generally, a missile fired from beyond visual range will depend on the aircraft's (or launcher's) radar to get it close to the target, where terminal guidance will usually be sensors built into the missile itself.

For shorter range missiles, pretty much every combination is out there, but it's common to use the aircraft's radar for initial targeting in more sophisticated missiles.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[lgw]

Yes, that has been US air power doctrine since around the Korean War. The problem is that the US has not actually fought in a war since where this has been true.
ROE require confirmation requirements that prohibit BVR engagement.

Not sure where you're getting that. F-15s had BFR kills in Desert Storm. In any case, the hotter the war, the less restrictive the ROE.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

>and since we screwed ourselves out of production

    You bring blueprints China. We manufacture everything, low price. We give you good deal!
We throw in Bluetooth adapter iPhone so can text and fly. Wave of the future!

( If GPS act up in S. China Sea, not our fault. Promise it only Bermuda triangle effect ).

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, we have four times as many F-22s as there are Su-35s.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[budgenator]

What matters today, where the F-22 dominates, is the range you can get missile lock-on vs your opponent...

Surely that's a function of the missile, not the aircraft.

Not necessarily, you have to know where to point the missile for it to get the lock. The plane with the ability to see the opponent's radar cross section at the greatest distance has an advantage.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[budgenator]

Citation needed. Seriously, if you have a scholarly article with data to support this assertion I want to read it, for some of my own related research.

We tried to get one of those Scholarly Pukes to collect the data for an article, but every time we got them up to 400m of a 100Kg bomb going off, they'd curl up into a fetal position and whine for their mothers. Don't get me wrong, those DARPA dudes come up with some really good ideas and make them reality, but for every good idea, there are 49 bad ideas. The more scholarly articles with supporting data an idea for Grunts has, the more likely it is to be bad.

You may honestly think that your persistent CAS utilizing PGMs is a great idea, but we know it's a grandiose plan concocted by POGs and when the shit hits the fan, the REMFs are going to be more worried about exceeding their budget by shoot expensive ordinance than they will be about saving our sorry asses.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[budgenator]

People like to be masters of their own destiny, the Navy bugged out on the Marines during the Guadalcanal Campaign and withdrew with the supplies and air support the Marines needed, therefore the Marine will never completely trust the Navy again. The Marines having the CAS capability to self-support forces the Navy into the position of competing with the Marines to provide air support.

Your going to see the same thing between the Military and the State Dept of the Benghazi fiasco, the Military will never completely trust the State Dept again; they left men behind and lied about it.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

does it? wasn't it's performance disappointing verses the Rafale and Typhoon? and even the Swedes?

I think theres more hype for the F-22 than against it

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually a really good question, one I hadn't considered, and on first flush pretty accurate.

Thanks, you've given me something to ponder.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Loki_1929]

More importantly, you have to know there's an enemy flying against you before you even know that you want to point a missile somewhere. For most pilots in combat with an F-22, the first indication they're going to have that there's an F-22 in the area is when there's a missile headed their way. Not exactly a favorable way to begin that engagement.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Loki_1929]

In China's case, at least....that's not how the fight would go down. Basically they can throw a bunch of obsolete aircraft, converted into drones, into the air. You *HAVE* to engage them (at long range you can't tell if they are armed combat aircraft or basically big dumb cruise missiles, but either way you can't let them prosecute missions).

So many issues I have with this. First of all, yes you can tell the difference between airplanes and cruise missiles. The thermal signatures, radar return indicators, speed, vector, etc make that much trivial. Secondly, if you put drones in the sky against any reasonably modern adversary (and that includes drones the US would field even against lesser powers like Iran, but certainly drones fielded by anyone against the US), C&C of those guys is going to change hands 20 times a minute. Drones with any remote control capability are useless. Drones without any remote control are incredibly dangerous - as much to whoever fields them as they are to whoever they're fielded against. Once you send them up, all you can do is hope for the best. And if you're going that route, it better be part of a zerg-rush power projection play over someone else's homeland because otherwise you're likely going to cause more damage to your own people than your enemy. And you don't have to engage them unless they're an actual threat. If they're just flying around in an area you aren't working to control, you just let them fly around burning fuel while you hit the targets you need to hit and shoot them down if you happen to have spare assets available. But again, drones are effectively useless unless and until someone gets A.I. that's leaps and bounds ahead of anything anyone has shown publicly to date. This thing isn't fighting parking tickets for people or helping them find a good movie to watch; it's flying combat sorties and needing to accurately distinguish friend from foe and fly and fight reasonably well to maintain cost-effectiveness.

The Chinese don't have to shoot down a single F-22, they just have to force the Combat Air Patrol to burn up the entire stockpile of AIM-120 AMRAAMs in theater. Once that is achieved, *THEN* they start putting all their good aircraft into the fight.

Block 1 CAC FC-1 Xiaolong (the cheapest version)'s unit cost is $25 Million. AIM-120C costs $350,000. China's military budget is $146 Billion US. Budget for only the US Air Force is $170 Billion US. So a $350,000 missile shooting down $25 Million aircraft; how's that going to work out in their favor? You think they can field more aircraft and build them quicker than the US can field AMRAAMs? You don't actually believe that, right?

...but I think there was also a RAND study of how air superiority over the Taiwan Strait would play out, and it was basically the same assessment: the US can't keep enough combat power in the sky (partly due to basing, air refueling, weapons stocks, etc...) for our qualitative superiority to be sufficient.

Taiwan would be a smoldering death pit if combat broke out, but if the US committed to winning an all-out conventional war against China, the first thing they'd do is wipe out the Chinese navy with subs while hitting air fields, munitions manufacturing sites, softer C&C targets, etc with long range cruise missiles, then pull all the carrier strike groups into the region (not all together because you don't want to risk nuclear attacks taking out more than one at a time) including the ones on standby to start building sustainable power projection from the coast inland, B-2s escorted by F-22s would pound the Hell out of everything the cruise missiles can't tackle, and within a few months, China's forces wouldn't be able to peak out from behind a rock without ordinance blasting them and the rock into the next life.

We can't protect Taiwan any more than we can protect South Korea. But we'd dismantle the conventional military of any foe on

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Noble713]

So many issues I have with this. First of all, yes you can tell the difference between airplanes and cruise missiles.

Clearly I wasn't specific enough about the concept. Take a Nanchang Q-5 or Chengdu J-7. Refit it is as a flying fully-autonomous drone, with a pre-programmed flight mission. The Chinese have already done this. It's very similar to how the US uses old F-4 Phantoms as flying target drones. This will still have the thermal and radar signature of the 3rd-generation aircraft frame. If you pick one up on radar, you have no idea if it's:
A. A human-piloted obsolete fighter on a Combat Air Patrol.
B. An unmanned, unarmed, dummy target.
C. An unmanned, unarmed fighter flying towards your airbase to kamikaze itself into your aircraft shelters.

Drones with any remote control capability are useless. Drones without any remote control are incredibly dangerous - as much to whoever fields them as they are to whoever they're fielded against. Once you send them up, all you can do is hope for the best.

And in China's case, "hope for the best" is either someone shoots it down (preferably wasting a BVR missile) or they fly on their merry way and either a) hit something valuable on the enemy's turf or b) reveal a gap in the enemy's CAP.

And if you're going that route, it better be part of a zerg-rush power projection play over someone else's homeland because otherwise you're likely going to cause more damage to your own people than your enemy

China would most likely employ them in an A2/AD strategy over the Taiwan Straits and the waters around the Senkakus/Okinawa. They're not going to be falling on Chinese cities....and even if they did, this is China we are talking about. Not exactly the most casualty-averse government, and one with a pretty tight grip on the media so they can spin drones falling out of the sky all kinds of ways.

And you don't have to engage them unless they're an actual threat.

See above. How are you going to assess if an autonomous Q-5/J-7 is a threat? Fly close enough to peek into the cockpit and notice there's no pilot?

So a $350,000 missile shooting down $25 Million aircraft; how's that going to work out in their favor?

Q-5, J-7, and J-8 airframes are already paid for. A US QF-4 conversion costs $800,000: (http://www.fencecheck.com/content/index.php?title=The_Final_Mission:_The_USAF%92s_QF-4_Target_Drones). Given the general purchasing power advantage in China I wouldn't be surprised if their conversions cost half that. And the cost-exchange ratio is largely irrelevant if the air campaign lasts days or weeks, and they achieve their operational and strategic objectives in the process.

while hitting air fields, munitions manufacturing sites, softer C&C targets, etc with long range cruise missiles

I haven't seen a Joint Target List for mainland China, but I'm intimately familiar with the Korean Theater. If you expect to significantly degrade the C2 and aviation capability of a country the size of the US, and one equipped with a far more advanced (albeit less dense) IADS than North Korea.....well, that's wishful thinking, to say the least.

then pull all the carrier strike groups into the region (not all together because you don't want to risk nuclear attacks taking out more than one at a time) including the ones on standby to start building sustainable power projection from the coast inland

The combat radius of carrier strike fighters is ~500nm. The combat radius of a JH-7A is 890nm. If you expect to project power inland you'll be well within range of anti-ship strikes, not to mention DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles (assuming they work as designed).

B-2s escorted by F-22s would pound the Hell out of everything the cruise missiles can't tackle

Where do you plan on flying F-

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Magius_AR]

That's the problem - the F-35 was supposed to do *everything* - air superiority, close air support, attack, amphibious assault - and it wound up doing nothing particularly well

What's this remind me of? Oh yeah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

It was designed to strafe tanks, but modern tanks will survive its shitty popgun, and it's vulnerable to SAM. IOW it can't be used against an enemy with an air force and it can't fly low enough to use its gun.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[MightyYar]

That'll really hurt us when we go to war with the Soviet Union rather than the people we've been fighting for the last 35 years.

Anyway, if the other side still has an air force, you can't exactly have an effective armored ground campaign.

Re: A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

You have so much misinformation in that post I am deeply conviced you are an f35 engineer shitposting in it's defense.

Re: A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Type44Q]

It was designed to strafe enemy troops when it was originally developed during 'Nam (Warthog); it was later that it was optimized for anti-armor (Thunderbolt II).

Re: A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit, armored divisions weren't much use in the fucking jungle. And anyway the A-10 program prototypes didn't show up until the early 70s. So it really didn't have much to do with the war in Vietnam and they already had close air support in the theater anyway.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

But think about it, now we have the opportunity of seeing A10 flying with environmentally safe engines and directed energy weapons, i.e. lasers attached to its head.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[smooth wombat]

but modern tanks will survive its shitty popgun,

The A-10 has weapons other than its 30 mm gun. Hellfire and Maverick missiles do wonders against every tank on today's battlefield.

This article from 5 years ago is a long discussion from people who appear to know what they are talking about regarding this subject. The overall consensus: while the A-10 may not be able to destroy a MBT with only its gun, that gun can render a tank inoperable (track hits), sufficiently damage components and cause other havoc which will make any tanker nervous. When combined with its under wing stores, tanks and their supporting vehicles and infantry would be toast.

Further, this article goes into a deeper discussion about penetration capability of the 30 mm gun vs armor, what tank (specifically the T-90) has what armor as well as factual incidents of tanks being hit by such rounds or other tanks.

Again, depending on where you hit a tank, the A-10 can immobilize it, damage it to the point it's essentially useless or, if lucky, can destroy it with only its gun.

The other thing to consider is loiter time. The Warthog can stay over a battle area substantially longer (up to 3 hours) than any other aircraft, especially the F-35. That is great for seeking out targets of opportunity or even acting as a spotter for ground troops/tanks.

IOW it can't be used against an enemy with an air force and it can't fly low enough to use its gun.

A) that is why we achieve air superiority. However, how that is supposed to be done with the F-35 is still unclear since that is the role the F-15 and F-16 are designed and used for. Technically the F-14 as well but its role can vary.

B) the warthog is designed to fly low. Yes, it can dive if necessary but its primary course of attack is at a low, shallow angle. You don't want a slow(er) flying aircraft to be high in the air. You want it to swoop in, lay waste to its target then get out. By flying low you present a very small window of opportunity for opposing troops on the ground to target it as well as make it more difficult for radar to pick it up and track.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Lisandro]

A "shitty popgun" firing 200 kilojoules rounds. You won't find a lot of tanks surviving a strafe of those.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[istartedi]

My first thought in rebuttal was that they could attach a few JDAMs to the thing; but as usual the question has been raised and discussed elsewhere. Long story short, if they can't take it out with the gun, they'll put some missiles on 'er.

IMHO, it seems like an awful lot of modern warfare these days is just a matter of getting the missiles close enough and then releasing them. F-35 is a boondoggle, an anachronism before it even got off the drawing board. The replacement for the A-10 *and* the F-35 is dudes sitting behind a screen somewhere in Nebraska, making the call and entering codes into drones. We're already doing that. We'll just do more of it.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

" but modern tanks will survive its shitty popgun " = You are a willful victim of shitty information.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Opportunist]

The A-10 is perfect for the current kind of wars we're fighting for one single reason: It's cheap and cheap to maintain.

Can't be used against modern tanks? No problem, terrorists have obsolete equipment. Vulnerable to SAM fire? No problem, all they have is shoulder mounted and it can deal with this. Can't be used against an enemy with an air force? No problem either, terrorists have no air force.

Yes, this is going to be a problem when facing an enemy of equal size. But for spanking towelheads? Perfect tool.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that standard anti-tank rounds (APFSDS) for tank guns have muzzle energies of 5-10 MJ ... no, 200 kJ is far from a sure kill. The A-10 relies on hitting the thinner top/rear armour, and firing enough rounds that one of them will find a weak spot - but this is probably insufficient for modern tanks, which are better-armoured than their predecessors. The A-10's GAU-8 cannon nowadays is suitable for efficiently dispatching lighter armoured vehicles (BMPs, etc.); the AGM-65 Maverick missile, of which the A-10 can carry at least six, is the preferred weapon for destroying tanks.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Billly Gates]

That'll really hurt us when we go to war with the Soviet Union rather than the people we've been fighting for the last 35 years.

Anyway, if the other side still has an air force, you can't exactly have an effective armored ground campaign.

Hmmm I would say that the next war won't be hitting storage silos in some middle eastern country with bombs with a country with little SAM defenses, but rather Russia itself!

You all have been watching the news? If we went to war or had a skirmish with China in the south seas over those islands how would these A-10's handle Russian/Chinese SAM and Mig jets? I would guess very very bad and would be a great exercise in target practice for the enemy.

The F35 or a modern plane could evade the radars for Russian SAM sites and out maneuver the MIG jets.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Lisandro]

Keep in mind armors in modern tanks are mostly intended to ensure the survival of the crew. You might now be able to make a tank go boom (a.k.a "k-kill") with a GAU-8 run, but you can sure as hell end up disabling it.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[phantomfive]

Any drone that is not fully autonomous can be jammed.

Re: A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're an engineer because you can't tell its from it's. It's means it is.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[SuricouRaven]

You can't go to war with Russia. Everyone gets nuked, and both sides know it.

Instead you go to war with the latest in a line of smalltime dictators, who Russia then covertly funds and supplies with weapons, while you do exactly the same to some local militia groups and declare them freedom fighters.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[MightyYar]

If conflict with Russia ever gets to the point where A-10s are necessary on Russian soil, we're already glowing and the suitability of the A-10 would not be a significant problem.

Since A-10s need a forward base, the presumption is that you have the enemy air force taken care of before they even enter the air. They wouldn't do well at all against a Mig of any variety. If there are Migs flying around, you aren't setting up a forward air base. F35s are important for that initial phase of setting up air superiority.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[istartedi]

That's a good point. There's the arms vs. armor race where it looks like arms are winning. In the signal vs. jamming race, I don't know if it looks like there's a clear winner yet. It seems like spread-spectrum would help defeat jammers, followed by the fact that any single-point jammer creates a signal that you just home in on and blow up. So then let's say you distribute jammers everywhere (including hospitals and places of worship, bastards!) and jam all frequencies. Bummer. It does seem like some degree of autonomy is required; but as long as you have clear coms to base you should be OK. So then maybe the ultimate scenario becomes sending orders from Nebraska to a base overseas, and then the missile launches there and uses intel about the target to guide itself the rest of the way. Or perhaps we could just live in peace. Nah... crazy talk.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. The hull armour may hold, but even if you just disable the tracks, the tank is no longer a danger to anything that stays out of its range (and is a sitting duck for friendly ground forces).

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Scot Seese]

There's no reason for people to think so digitally about this. Systems degradation can be important.

They: Cover tank in reactive armor to defeat or diminish missiles.

You: 1 second hose tank with 30mm DU, the wingman 5 seconds behind you takes the missile shot. Your burst rips all the crap off the outside of their tank, the missile penetrates and destroys it. A few thousand dollars worth of ballistic ammo defeats or diminishes their half million dollar deterrence system, allowing your $70,000 Hellfire missile to killshot the tank.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Iran steal a US drone by spoofing GPS?

Jamming is a moderate concern.... but some small degree of autonomy (enough to leave the jamming area) is all that is needed.... but spoofing and hijacking.... those can be outright deadly...

Simple solution put the antenna on the top of the plane and point it up, send signals down from satellites.... we still need to have space superiority to avoid satellite jamming and hijacking... but you've moved the bar up from just being able to have a radio and make some noise to being able to put a rocket into orbit and deploy a satellite....

And in a hot war against an enemy that can take down satellites, you can bet they will take down satellites, disrupting communications will be how we win or loose a total war against a technologically advanced enemy.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[MightyYar]

That was my point... I was using sarcasm, but that was my point. We aren't likely to get into a full-blown war with anyone who has an air force that isn't bested by the wing of a single US aircraft carrier. I think it is still prudent to have an effective deterrent force against a China or Russia, but it would be silly to focus exclusively on that.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

> Technically the F-14 as well but its role can vary.

the what? the F14 you say?

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is great until T-90's friends, Tunguska and similar weapons start popgunning against A-10, which is somewhat immobile target in the sky for their tracking system. But yeah, for lonely tanks A-10 is a very dangerous beast

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't drone operators just fly above the battle zone to deliver comms signals to the drone? I'd think jamming that receiver from hospitals and places of worship will be hard.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Drethon]

I read one article a while back that suggested an A-10 could fire at a shallow angle and bounce rounds up in the unprotected underside of a tank. Not sure if that proved practical or not.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[K. S. Kyosuke]

On the other hand, jamming can be made very difficult with highly directional communication (spatial rejection of jamming signals) and with wide band frequency hopping for command channels (spectral rejection of jamming signals). Perhaps you might end up with a system that is only jammable with a megawatt-scale jammer from ten miles away. Then it becomes an issue of practicality and cost for the defender. And that's without considering the possibility of laser-based communication with a satellite.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Anonymous Coward]

A fighter in the CAS isn't going to be fighting MiGs or dealing with SAMs to begin with. They don't come out until A) you have air superiority, and B) you have troops on the ground conducting operations in the area. SAMs and MiGs would already be neutralized before that comes to be. And if were to get into anything involving the South China Sea, it would be a naval conflict. We'd have two full Carrier groups on the scene within hours, and there would be no ground troops to support.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[david_thornley]

In Normandy, Allied close-support aircraft were mostly unable to destroy German tanks. Many more tanks were lost by the crews feeling horribly exposed and jumping out of the tank than were actually destroyed. The air forces were very good at chewing up the soft vehicles the Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions depended on.

Cost matters

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Cost of an A-10: ~$18.8 million

Cost of an F-35: ~109 million

Cost of an F-35 not being able to support ground troops adequately: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost of an A-10: ~$18.8 million

Cost of an F-35: ~109 million

Cost of an F-35 not being able to support ground troops adequately: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Ah, I see you are a graduate of the RIAA/MPAA school of cost estimation ;-)

Re:Cost matters

[amiga3D]

He certainly places too much value on human life.

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought American Gripen sounded like a pretty good idea.
Just get a bunch of them to fill the gap until the problems with F-35 have been done away with.
It would also put some pressure on the F-35 program, showing that it would be possible to shut down the program if they never get their shit together.

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Even if the f-35 worked perfectly, it is not a replacement for the A-10, because it is waaaaaaaay too expensive. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, the DoD has never heard that expression.

Re:Cost matters

[Ol Olsoc]

Cost of an A-10: ~$18.8 million

Cost of an F-35: ~109 million

Cost of an F-35 not being able to support ground troops adequately: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000

The problem is that the A10 is simply a much better plane than the F35. I doubt that the one size fits all aspect of the 35 will allow it to ever have competency in any of it's planned missions.

http://www.motherjones.com/moj...

Weirdly enough, they admit that the A10 cannot be touched by the F35 in close support roles. So soldiers, no more proficient close support for you. Collateral damage I suppose. Since when do we march forward into a brave new future purposely giving up in a area that is exactly what we need today?

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the DoD has never heard that expression.

Unfortunately, the US Air Force has never heard that expression.

From what I've read, everyone else at the DoD is okee-dokee with the A-10.

Re:Cost matters

[whoever57]

Cost of an A-10: ~$18.8 million

Acquisition cost of an A10: ~ zero. They aren't building any more. Yes, there will be upgrades, but even the upgrades are not going to cost as much as the cost to build a new jet.

What about running costs? The cost to fly an F35 for one hour is much, much higher than that of an A10.

Re:Cost matters

[NotAPK]

Or just buy some Rafales off the rack. Very capable, and very cheap. Heck, the USAF development component would be to buya fleet of them and make them all autonomous. Not just cheap, but would allow the development effort to focus on one thing (automation, AI, secure comms) rather than struggling to make the plane also fly and shoot.

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Overvaluing human life is also the reason NASA is avoiding human space flight programs now. Remember the big debate on whether a manned mission to repair Hubble was worth it? Critics put the safety of astronauts at such a high price tag, it is an impossible threshold to meet to send up anybody again to space.

That said, failing to support ground troops adequately is not just a human life cost. The cost of losing the battle, all the equipment, and possibly the war makes that a big number. (Still, that number has too many zeros.)

Re:Cost matters

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The problem is that the A10 is simply a much better plane than the F35. I doubt that the one size fits all aspect of the 35 will allow it to ever have competency in any of it's planned missions.

Exactly. The F-35 is a jack-of-all-trades, and apparently a master of none.

Re:Cost matters

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Cost of an A-10: ~$18.8 million

Acquisition cost of an A10: ~ zero. They aren't building any more. Yes, there will be upgrades, but even the upgrades are not going to cost as much as the cost to build a new jet.

What about running costs? The cost to fly an F35 for one hour is much, much higher than that of an A10.

I agree completely, and you're making my point for me. Did you perhaps misread what I wrote?

Re:Cost matters

[athe!st]

You mean like India just did for $240 million each?

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

The agreement is bigger than just the aircraft. The basic cost of each aircraft is about 91 million euros.

Re:Cost matters

[whoever57]

Not every reply has to dispute the parent.

Re:Cost matters

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Not every reply has to dispute the parent.

I wasn't sure, which is why I asked.

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying a COTS airframe and turning it in to a Swarm would be too logical for our defense thinking or budgets.

Better to spend the money on hundred year old dogfighting machine tactics that will cause us to lose the next war.

Re:Cost matters

[amiga3D]

No risk, no gain.

Wrong.

[Qbertino]

It was designed to strafe tanks, but modern tanks will survive its shitty popgun, and it's vulnerable to SAM. IOW it can't be used against an enemy with an air force and it can't fly low enough to use its gun.

It's "shitty popgun" as you call it is just about the most powerful fully automatic firearm on the planet and has been ever since. At least as far as airbourne fully-automatics go. It might be that some soviet tank with active armour can survive a first attack run or a fully armoured Leo2 can surfive even a little longer, but thats not the point.

Todays enemies are ISIS troupers in modified Toyota Trucks and Bulldozers, they don't have Leo2s. For that type of enemy the A10 is more than a perfect match. And the most important thing: It's actually finished. We have quite a few of those sitting there and ready to fly and kill stuff. Can't say that of the F35 or the Jaeger90, ... errrrm sorry, "Eurofighter" it's now called.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

And russia developing more nuclear payload delivery platforms. Let's not all act like russia is some placated has-been threat...

Re: Wrong.

[Hylandr]

So they have claimed.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

they just needs to deploy it once (maybe twice) and there will be no hot war between the superpowers for 50-70 years

Re:Wrong.

[BigFootApe]

Most armor is concentrated on the front aspect of the tank with lesser amounts on the flanks and rear. Top armor is generally the most weak and also the most available target from the air.

Re:Wrong.

[serviscope_minor]

It's "shitty popgun" as you call it is just about the most powerful fully automatic firearm on the planet and has been ever since. At least as far as airbourne fully-automatics go.

Does not seem all that likely.

It's of course debatable precisely what "most powerful" is. The Italians, for example have a CWIS based on dual, fast Bofors L/70 guns. 1/3 of the aggregate rate of fire, but more powerful rounds. Modern naval guns like the Zumwalt's 155mm gun, and the Bofors 57mm are fully automatic.

Even when it comes to airbourne guns, again, it depends on how you define "most powerful". It certainly has a higher rate of fire, but it can't match the per-shot destructive power would match the old 50 calibre 57mm Ordnance QF 6 pounder. That thing could fling shells 4 times the weight with 20% more muzzle velocity or 10 times the weight with 90% of the muzzle velocity.

It might be that some soviet tank with active armour can survive a first attack run or a fully armoured Leo2 can surfive even a little longer, but thats not the point.

There doesn't seem to be vast amounts of information about how they'd fare against a modern main battle tank. Those things can survived direct hits from MBT guns. They've been known to make fairly short work of smaller vehicles like modern APCs and armoured recon vehicles.

I doubt the GAU-8 would be able to make it through a heavily armoured section of a modern tank, so effectiveness depends on where you hit it really. But like you said, that's not really the entire point. Any fool can drop a great big bomb on the enemy, but it's got pretty much the most powerful thing with intert ammunition which is good when you want to get in really really close.

Military logic

[mspohr]

Of course, we all know how this will turn out... Both plane programs will continue forever.
We need to keep sending money to defense contractors... lots of money and it doesn't really matter if things work or not. They have a blank check to spend as much as they want and they bribe Congress to keep the money flowing.
We can't appear to be "soft on defense".

Re:Military logic

[budgenator]

Of course, we all know how this will turn out... Both plane programs will continue forever.
We need to keep sending money to defense contractors... lots of money and it doesn't really matter if things work or not. They have a blank check to spend as much as they want and they bribe Congress to keep the money flowing.
We can't appear to be "soft on defense".

It's not like the money is going to stop, at least with defense contractor we have a chance to buy some stock and get some dividends back.

Re:Military logic

[mspohr]

Rich people make lots of money from "defense". It's just another way of transferring public money to the rich.
If you're not rich already, you might be able to afford a few shares of stock and get a few crumbs thrown your way.

The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Lisandro]

...but, for my life, i can't figure how they want to replace the A-10 with it. There's simply no way a F-35 can fill in for CAS roles.

If the airforce wants a cheap close air support aircraft, they should really evaluate the Super Tucano. At $10 milion a pop they can write an entire fleet off as losses in the F-35 program.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they already? It's the poor countries' A-10. It's even slower than the A-10, can't carry as much, less armored, and less endurance.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but, for my life, i can't figure how they want to replace the A-10 with it. There's simply no way a F-35 can fill in for CAS roles.

If the airforce wants a cheap close air support aircraft

Thing is, the Airforce doesn't really want a close air support aircraft. It's the Army and Marines that want/need something that can root around down in the weeds effectively. If it weren't for speed (slow as the 'hog is, it beats helicopters) and loiter time, helicopters would be OK (just make one that can carry the GAU-8, be fast and have endurance - I'm sure that must be trivial these days...;-)

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

A weapon platform only has greater than zero value if it actually shows up for the battle.

The Super Tucano is not expected to compete on a per sortie basis. The big advantage is that its runway requirements are so trivial that there are 20X as many existing airports that can service it, and it would be easy to build a new air strip right where you need it with a mere couple weeks of effort. A supersonic jet that has to fly 300 miles is not usefully faster than a turboprop flying 20 miles. Furthermore, the maintenance is so much easier that it spends very little time in the hangar.

The Super Tucano wins by being quicker to gas up and have sitting on the runway waiting for orders, faster to show up where you need it, and superior turn around time to be heading back to battle with the next load.

A F-35 or an A-10 is a wonderful tool to have on hand if you are choosing the time and place of the battle. In practically every other scenario that US forces are likely to meet, the Super Tucano where bring more ordnance to where its needed when it is needed.

Consider the Benghazi consulate attack. It would have cost peanuts to keep a Super Tucano gassed up and ready in Sicily for 24/7, and it could get where it needs to be in an hour. Instead we hemmed and hawed and figured out that a supersonic jet from a NATO base in Spain or North Italy would take several hours to arrive (because of the jets do not have that range without arranging for re-fueling first). Which plane is faster?

IMO the optimal answer is a few Super Tucanos and a few drones operating out of wisely placed dirt runways, a quick jump away from likely battles. The drones can stay in the air longer. The STs bring a big pile of ordnance.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the Army and Marines should figure out how to operate Super Tucanos and turboprop drones out of convenient nearby dirt airstrip. Then they can ignore the Air Force for all the simpler ground support missions.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Noble713]

i can't figure how they want to replace the A-10 with it. There's simply no way a F-35 can fill in for CAS roles.

Why do people keep saying this? Have you ever seen an Air Tasking Order, especially one for a high-intensity conflict scenario? The Marine Corps accomplishes Close Air Support just fine (actually I'd argue we are THE most proficient military force in the world at integrated close air support) and we don't have A-10s at all.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Super Tucano has proved 100 per cent vulnerable to ground weaponry currently available to terrorists and ISIS.

Unlike the A-10 or F-35.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Lisandro]

Don't the marines use helicopters and Harriers for this role?

A F-35 can't fly slow and can't take nearly as much damage as the A-10 can and keep going - this is a byproduct of how it was designed to fulfill several roles and the compromises this involves. The aircraft is vulnerable to light arms fire, runs a single, big engine which is easy to damage, can carry very limited ordinance due to its internal bay arrangement and can load only 220 rounds of 25mm ammo. By any measure it is a poor, poor CAS platform.

Now, don't get me wrong. Like i said, the F-35 might very well be a capable aircraft for other roles. Just not this one. The requirements for a fighter and a close air support vehicle are radically different.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Noble713]

Don't the marines use helicopters and Harriers for this role?

The Corps has 6 squadrons of Harriers.....and *13* squadrons of F-18s. So 2/3rds of our fixed wing assets are multi-role strike fighters flying from Navy carriers.

A F-35 can't fly slow and can't take nearly as much damage as the A-10 can and keep going - this is a byproduct of how it was designed to fulfill several roles and the compromises this involves. The aircraft is vulnerable to light arms fire, runs a single, big engine which is easy to damage, can carry very limited ordinance due to its internal bay arrangement and can load only 220 rounds of 25mm ammo.

All of those things are true, however...

By any measure it is a poor, poor CAS platform.

CAS is not a set of platform specs. It is an operational concept. A B-52 dropping JDAMS danger close to an infantry company is a CAS platform. Trends in digital CAS (submitting and prosecuting air support requests with digital data instead of voice radio and hand-written notes) + precision munitions = a reduced requirement for direct observation by the pilot's Mk. I Eyeball. Which also means you don't need an aircraft flying low, slow, and relying on its armor and gun runs. Improved targeting and marking equipment, both with ground personnel and on aviation platforms, facilitates accurate, higher-altitude delivery of munitions. DARPA and the Marine Corps understand this: http://www.darpa.mil/news-even...

There's a lot of reasons why I think the F-35 is a shitty overall acquisition, but an F-35B with an internal load of Small Diameter Bombs (once they make them actually fit inside the bomb bays), flying fast and stealthy (can't assume we'll have air dominance in the future) to put ordnance precisely on target, in support of an accurate digital air support request....yeah, that's probably the only thing the aircraft will ever get right. Eventually. Still won't be cost-effective though.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[budgenator]

Consider the Benghazi consulate attack. It would have cost peanuts to keep a Super Tucano gassed up and ready in Sicily for 24/7, and it could get where it needs to be in an hour. Instead we hemmed and hawed and figured out that a supersonic jet from a NATO base in Spain or North Italy would take several hours to arrive (because of the jets do not have that range without arranging for re-fueling first). Which plane is faster?

We had assets on the ground with Props spinning waiting for release while Obama and Clinton tried to decide how the rescue personal should be dressed. It had nothing to do with arrival times, beside Sicily was only 20 minutes away.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[budgenator]

I don't disagree but would bust the Key West Agreement and open a whole can of worms

The Navy would be allowed to retain its own combat air arm "...to conduct air operations as necessary for the accomplishment of objectives in a naval campaign..."
        The Army would be allowed to retain aviation assets for reconnaissance and medical evacuation purposes.
        The Air Force would have control of all strategic air assets, and most tactical and logistic functions as well.
Key West Agreement

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Thank you for the reference, budgenator.

As I see it, the Key West Agreement looks like a handshake contract between dinosaurs as the meteor is looming overhead.

In modern combat, we are seeing artillery assets de-emphasized to be replaced by precision bombs dropped from fighters and drones. In many ways, that is a good thing, because our US soldiers are not reducing entire city blocks to gravel in the tradition style of urban combat. But using the AF as provider does not scale if we ever find ourselves in a more demanding situation. If precision bombs are the new artillery, then the generals on the ground should have those assets under their command. They don't need everything, certainly there are important pieces that make more sense owned by the AF, but they should have some useful assets.

What a waste of $

[Anonymous Coward]

What a ****ing waste of money

Re:What a waste of $

[amiga3D]

Just think, Tomahawk cruise missiles are over a million dollars a pop. Fire 400 of them and that's 400 million dollars that's just going to explode and destroy about a billion dollars worth of infrastructure. It's so easy to tear shit up and so hard to build stuff. You're right, what a waste. Imagine if we just quit all this stupid shit and left each other alone how much better off we'd all be. Nah! We're human and being human is to fuck up over and over and over ever since Cain killed Abel.

Re:What a waste of $

[Ol Olsoc]

Just think, Tomahawk cruise missiles are over a million dollars a pop. Fire 400 of them and that's 400 million dollars that's just going to explode and destroy about a billion dollars worth of infrastructure. It's so easy to tear shit up and so hard to build stuff. You're right, what a waste. Imagine if we just quit all this stupid shit and left each other alone how much better off we'd all be. Nah! We're human and being human is to fuck up over and over and over ever since Cain killed Abel.

Killing other humans is one of the core competencies of the human race. We will at some point in the future, gleefully exterminate ourselves.

Re:What a waste of $

[lgw]

"What if they gave a war and nobody came?" asks the hippie.

"What if they gave a war and only one side came?" asks the realist.

In other news...

[davidwr]

... other extremely useful tools will be used "indefinitely," including the number 2 pencil, the paper clip, the ballpoint pen, soap, and the list goes on.

the A-10 Will Keep Flying 'Indefinitely'??

[CubicZirconia]

Surely they'll land occasionally, to give the pilot a toilet break at the very least??

And

[Ol Olsoc]

The Warthog will continue being the great plane it has always been indefinitely.

The 35 is trying to be too many things at once, which means it won't be good at any of them.

Most F-35 hit pieces are garbage

[cfalcon]

Most of the F-35 stories are moderately garbage, usually able to be traced back to someone with an axe to grind. See: any of the stuff about dogfighting tests. Then read a bit more and find out what conditions they were held under, how many OTHER tests are left out (4v4, etc), and check out who wrote the original thing, and which pieces they cherry picked.

The A-10 complaints, however, are not like this. The A-10 is beloved by many whose lives depend on it, and seems to have capabilities that the F-35 does not, at least according to the fiery defenders you find on the net (who I don't see reason to doubt). I will not be surprised if some of the A-10 missions are rightfully replaced by F-35s. I would be surprised if they ALL were, however. The original desire for scrapping the A-10 came from excellent F-35 performance on some air force tests (and a desire to save money long term), but that seems unlikely to apply to every A-10 mission.

When you have a bunch of infantry bitching about something, it is probably worth listening to the bitching. And they seem to love the A-10. I mean, that seems pretty compelling.

Re:Most F-35 hit pieces are garbage

[Solandri]

The problem is the people bitching (the infantry on the ground - Army and Marine Corps) are not the ones deciding (Air Force brass). During WWII, warplanes were run by the U.S. Army Air Corps. Shortly after, a decision was made to separate it out into its own branch - the U.S. Air Force. Unfortunately, that separation removed a crucial feedback element from ground troops to close air support requirements. (The Army eventually got a concession to be allowed to fly its own aircraft for close air support, but only rotary wing craft. They're only allowed to fly fixed-wing aircraft for recon. That's why they have all those helicopter batallions.)

That's the reason the A-10 has been on the chopping block for nearly 20 years now. The USAF brass has been trying to kill it. They want shiny fighter planes, even though their job - their duty - in support of ground troops calls for scrappy brawlers like the A-10. They've been trying to get rid of it so when ground forces call for close air support, they can throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, not our problem, we don't have any assets that can do that." That would free them up to spend all their budget on planes they want to fly, not planes that they need to fly.

If they don't want the A-10, we should just give the A-10 squadrons to the Army. Bypass this whole stupid inter-services turf war.

Re:Most F-35 hit pieces are garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall reading somewhere that the US Army didn't want the A-10. Or rather, they want it but for the Air Force to fly. The Army apparently doesn't want to get into operating fixed wing aircraft, they don't view it as part of their mission or something. I will suggest that perhaps the USMC might want them. There are already many Marine pilots flying jets in support of ground troops, usually as a part of a Navy flight group. There are entire groups... wings?... I don't know, I was a soldier not a sailor... within the USMC dedicated to close air support. They currently operate aircraft like the AV-8, FA-18, MV-22, and a number of helicopters for such roles. It would seem to me that having the USMC operate these aircraft might be the best fit, with one possible issue. The Marines tend to operate from Navy ships and the A-10, as far as I am aware, cannot operate from the deck of a carrier.

We all know what MARINES stands for, right? My Assets Ride In Navy Equipment, Sir! If the A-10 cannot be operated from a carrier or LHD then that can be a problem for transfer to the USMC. If the USMC will only fly aircraft that can be launched and recovered by a carrier then perhaps a carrier can be made to accommodate the A-10. Alternatively the USMC and US Navy could get together and lobby for a proper A-10 replacement that they can fly, not the half assed F-35 but something very much like the A-10 in capability and price.

Just thinking out loud here but maybe a variation on the V-22 might work. Not necessarily a V-22 but a tilt rotor craft. one built to carry a big gun like the A-10 while fast enough to get on target quickly but slow enough to lay down fire on ground targets. It doesn't need stealth, that is what the F-35 and F-22 are for, especially since the A-10 doesn't seem to be particularly stealthy. The AC-130 does something like this but with a much larger crew, also not typically launched from a carrier. The US Navy has experimented with launching and recovering a C-130 from a carrier so it has been done. If they are doing that again then something big has happened.

Re:Most F-35 hit pieces are garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

The original desire for scrapping the A-10 came from the fact the AF hates anything that isn't an "F-" designated plane (see: F-117 being F- instead of A-, despite the fact it's can't really dogfight) and hates playing a supporting role to the army. They also refuse to let the army have the A-10 and operate it as they see fit, because of service rivalry.

Air Force has been watching 'Contact'

[fahrbot-bot]

While the Air Force is theoretically supposed to be diverting the A-10's operating expenses to feed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the people in charge are now planning to keep the plane running...

S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

Re:Air Force has been watching 'Contact'

[Anonymous Coward]

This made me smile. Contact is perhaps my favorite book, and the movie is good too. I love Hadden's character in the movie.

Sell it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sell the F-35 to the enemy.

Canada, out

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad Canada got out of the F-35 program

Re:Canada, out

[NotAPK]

Respect. Australia is still getting shafted...

Re:Canada, out

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia should have gone the Su-35, it was a dumb mistake going the JSF, almost as stupid as the buying of refurbished M1A1's for more than M1A2's it really sucks being a US Ally

The A-10 is a pickup truck

[Brentyl]

It ain't pretty. It ain't fast. It ain't a lot of things. What it *is*, though, is a mechanically-simple, easy-to-maintain aircraft that does exactly what it means to do, does it well, and is not inconvenienced in the slightest.

It can absorb a ridiculous amount of abuse from bad guys, it can loiter on-scene longer than any comparable aircraft, it can get low enough and slow enough to see exactly who to kill (not the good guys, not the civilians), and it does all this with lower operational costs than most other aircraft out there.

I drive a pickup truck. An Audi R8 is much sexier, but for daily operation, not worrying if I get dinged in the parking lot, and getting ish done, I'll stick with the truck.

Re:The A-10 is a pickup truck

[drinkypoo]

The R8 is a bit excessive, but the A8 will get up a severely sketchy driveway. (Or if the ZF slushbox blows, it will back up it... don't ask)

Re:The A-10 is a pickup truck

[Anonymous Coward]

The R8 is a bit excessive, but the A8 will get up a severely sketchy driveway.

And my A-10 err Subaru Outback will put any Audi product to shame in an AWD capacity (as well as Saab and Volvo).

Been there, done that, pulled dumbass Audis out of the ditch.

Re:The A-10 is a pickup truck

[drinkypoo]

And my A-10 err Subaru Outback will put any Audi product to shame in an AWD capacity (as well as Saab and Volvo).

Do you have one of the ones that will go into 4x4 mode? Or a rear limited slip? My 1993 Impreza had the former but not the latter. If you have a rear limited slip then you're ahead of me, but only until I find an Audi V8 to cannibalize for the rear diff. I have a torsen center diff and I'm looking to buy a torsen rear.

Re:The A-10 is a pickup truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! When the A-10 was developed SAMs were the big-bad demon of ground support and no one could expect a tank battalion to have missiles half as advanced. Big, slow, heavy, gun-centric weapons platforms made a lot of sense.
Now every infantry platoon carries a shoulder-fired equivalent -- or ten -- around with them, and tank battalions are ALL armed with better tech than the 1970's SAM bases could dream of.
The A-10 is a great big, slow, flying tank. I'm not saying the F-35 is a fantastic plane, but saying the A-10 is better for "today's war" is insane.

Re:The A-10 is a pickup truck

[Anonymous Coward]

>but saying the A-10 is better for "today's war" is insane.

But alas, in today's war the planes of yesteryear DO incorporate tomorrow's tech. Including tech to thwart such shoulder fired missiles. And these a-10's go in to support ground troops who will also be sending a lot of lead downrange to said soldiers holding personal rockets. They don't get sent out solo to attack every ground target just because it's on the ground. There are a lot of effective ways to do that, (including other planes or no planes at all).

But they will go out with troops. And that's what they're favored for and how they're used.

Re:The A-10 is a pickup truck

[Anonymous Coward]

>and is not inconvenienced in the slightest

I like your wordsmithing.

Intimidation Factor

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fix what isn't broken. The A-10's cannon puts fear in the hearts of anything on the ground. Any Air Force gains instant intimidation factor in having one mothballed in a hanger somewhere let alone a fleet of them. :) The F-35 only intimidates the brass for how much it costs. No one on the ground is afraid of it, certainly not like the A-10.

Count yourselves lucky

[oobayly]

We got rid of our harriers, at least you've still got your A-10s

Re: Count yourselves lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no 'i' in ordnance that goes bang.

The Future!

[JackAxe]

The A-10 is one of my favorite planes. I'm happy they're keeping it in service. It will become very useful in the coming years after TheCloud has destroyed most of humanity and the last of us are fighting against it. :S

Re:The Future!

[Anonymous Coward]

that was a movie, a very bad movie, not a future survival guide...

the Maverick you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, it's a good thing the A-10 carries the Maverick.

That said, I think I'd trust the A-10's gun more when attacking a modern Russian tank with active defenses. Active defense can wipe out an incoming Maverick. With the 30mm shells, dozens arrive each second. The first might do little, but that's like the first pulse of a jackhammer. Dozens or hundreds hitting the same spot will eat through the most advanced armor, and active defenses have no hope of stopping it.

Please cite your source?

[TiggertheMad]

Why would the marines need anything that isn't a ground attack aircraft or a transport? Giving the marines Apaches or a-10s make sense. Giving them transport helicopters to move troops or supplies also makes sense. But why would they need fighters? When are they working in a theater of combat that the Air force or navy isn't maintaining air superiority for them?

Re:Please cite your source?

[Noble713]

See my other response about what we use fixed-wing air support for: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Fixed-wing aircraft operating in the Deep Area will need the ability to defend themselves, and benefit from stealth characteristics to evade engagement by Integrated Air Defense Systems. This is why we need a multi-role strike fighter, preferably with radar stealth.

We don't need Apaches, we have AH-1 Cobras. Apaches aren't navalized so operating them from maritime platforms would be a maintenance nightmare. The AH-1 has quite a bit of parts commonality with our UH-1s too.

When are they working in a theater of combat that the Air force or navy isn't maintaining air superiority for them?

Guadalcanal. Much of the Corps' approach to aviation was shaped by the Navy bugging out from Guadalcanal and leaving us with limited aviation assets.

As an Army Vet

[s.petry]

The F35 does not, nor will it, top the A-10. Fast movers are fine for hit and run jobs, but close air support requires lingering time. The A-10 has plenty of linger and scares the F*$^ out of enemies. If you are ever in combat you want 2 things on the battlefield with you. A-10s and Apaches.

Re:As an Army Vet

[Notabadguy]

The A-10 scares people because BRRRTTT.

The A-10 memes on the internet are priceless. Just google "A-10 Meme."

Re:As an Army Vet

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are ever in combat you want 2 things on the battlefield with you. A-10s and Apaches.

The Russians have a Hind. Your argument is invalid.

Re:As an Army Vet

[Shogun37]

The A-10 and the F-35 are very different aircraft. The A-10 is a close air support platform, and the F-35 is a light bomber with self defense capability. Comparing the two is frankly rather silly. One cannot do the job of the other. See the F-35 for what it is, and it has the capability, once the bugs are worked out, of being a fine aircraft. But it isn't a fighter, or a close support platform.

Re:As an Army Vet

[s.petry]

It's not me claiming that the F35 should replace the A10, that is the DOD and Politicians.

Re:As an Army Vet

[Anonymous Coward]

The A 10 is a specialised ground support tool which will naturally do better at that one task than a multi purpose tool, i.e. the F35. That will only last until the Russians/ Chinese/ Iranians etc supply your opponent with modern anti aircraft missiles at which point your slow, low flying A10s will get shot down. The air force is making rational choices whereas the critics are playing a game of earmarking budgets i.e. stealing taxpayers money and risking other peoples lives. The logical thing to do is keep outspending your opponents. It has worked well for more than 60 years. What's the problem actually? At the moment the A10s are being used to target ISIS with the tacit consent of the Russians/Chinese/Iranians. If they were ever used in Syria to target the Assad faction ( i.e. the RCI proxy) then the missiles would be forth coming and in short order the A10s would start crashing. This is life in the real world, get used to it. The A10 is only useful because it suits Putin, he has a veto over it, so you need a back up.

Good. Now we need to support the USAF in this.

[leftover]

If you pay attention to Washington DC and Pentagon politics at all, you know that some high-ranking AF officers have put their nuts on the table to counter the lobbyists and REMFs touting the F35. The best thing we can do right now is to make a big noise to our "elected representatives" in defense of those AF officers and their bold position. Something along the lines of "Funding the F35 at the expense of the A-10 means letting our ground troops and local civilians die to further enrich wealthy assholes." is a place to start.

Making aforementioned representatives, lobbyists, and REMFs spend a month embedded with our ground forces is an appealing idea but probably a harder sell. Sigh.

But we absolutely can make the point to our congresscritters and we should.

The most effective use our our defense dollars

[Maxo-Texas]

Would be to find ways to double or triple the cost of chinese labor. Chinese labor costs give them a huge advantage. While they technically are spending about 40% what we spend, they may be now getting over 100% of what we get because their labor costs are so low.

The F35 was a noble effort to keep the U.S. a generation ahead of our enemies capability but it's time to drop it and focus on more practical items which we can produce in large numbers if there is a war.

You are looking at the wrong things

[Anonymous Coward]

The real point here is the feeling on the part of the Obama administration that it can eventually swing Arizona to the blue side. Southern Arizona is the home of Davis Monthan AFB where the A-10 cohort is based, along with the center of power for Democrats in the state. Losing the A-10 upends the local pig trough and forces them to juggle other options until they can get enough illegals across the border to tip the electorate. The F-35 stuff is merely noise to distract from the true "follow the money" path from taxpayer to rathole.

By the way, I did flight test for the YA-10 in the 70s at Edwards, and it is a fine plane for the time. It's problems lie with the fact that the Air Force basically doesn't get the credit, and winds up picking up the expenses for air support for the Army, so we have bean counter generals fighting over the pots of money propping up their separate empires, each one coveting the funding of the other.

What is old is new again.

[Anonymous Coward]

The all in one concept is not new. Before WW2 many European nations developed scout/bomber/long range fighter/ combo , as they seen as the solution to all their aircraft needs.

Alas WW2 came along and completely destroyed that concept. Until now.

Re:What is old is new again.

[david_thornley]

Before WWII, available engines were generally not powerful enough for a fighter to carry a decent bombload. The German close-support aircraft was the Ju-87 - an excellent dive bomber, and dead meat if enemy fighters were around. Given bigger engines, fighters could carry good-sized bombloads and then rockets, so we got aircraft like the P-47 and Fw-190. The Typhoon was designed as a fighter but used for ground attack since it had the payload and wasn't a good fighter at altitude.

This is a no-brainer

[Lord Kano]

The A-10 still works and works wonderfully for its intended use. The pilots love it. The mechanics love it. The ground troops love it.

Keep them flying.

LK

Re:This is a no-brainer

[js3]

The A-10 still works and works wonderfully for its intended use. The pilots love it. The mechanics love it. The ground troops love it.

Keep them flying.

LK

A-10 is only useful in uncontested airspace. The F-35 is far more capable than that.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Lord Kano]

We already have planes that are excellent in that role.

Super Hornets and F-22s are still capable of kicking ass and taking names.The money spent on the F-35 would have been better spent improving the air superiority platforms already have that are working well.

The A-10 is still the king of ground support.

I'm all for adopting newer, better tech but it should be better.

LK

Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like procurement require a well functioning government that is accountable to the people. Changes in laws and such, need to be traceable to an elected representative. There must be no hiding behind party or committee or process. Something like Git for Government would be a start.

Let's track every change to every law, but let's not limit things to there. If we are spending a fortune on things like aircraft, then we deserve to know why we are spending so much. Did a particular lawmaker add this or that absurd requirement? Where is the use case for it? What is the case for the additional expense?

Why is that so stupid?

[golodh]

I'm by no means an expert in military aviation, but those who are point out that the A10 lacks survivability in a "high threat environment" (see e.g. http://nationalinterest.org/bl... ).

Meaning it's not a good idea to send it on missions where you don't have air superiority or your adversary has effective anti-aircraft missiles. So it's great against ISIS and such, but against forces properly supplied with Russian or Chinese anti aircraft missiles, your A10's would last approximately 1 mission each.

As far as I can tell, the F35 is supposed to be much more survivable in such an environment. No matter how good a plane is at mud moving, it's of little use if it's easy to kill.

So it's entirely a question of: "what mission and what threat do you have in mind", and adapt your armament to that. You don't decide to keep the A10 just to have something flying. Even if it's cheap.

Keeping the A10 may serve a purpose, but it probably won't be of much use if the adversary is Russia, China, or Iran.

Re:Why is that so stupid?

[Joce640k]

If you're at war with Russia or China then you've got much bigger problems than that to worry about.

Re:Why is that so stupid?

[operagost]

The problem with the A-10 is that it is designed purely for close ground support. So no, if it enters air space contested by modern fighters (without escort), it will lose. But so will the F-35, according to the most recent dogfight simulation!

Re:Why is that so stupid?

[budgenator]

If the quality of Iranian students hasn't increased tremendously from those I've seen at Redstone, the Iranian air defense systems will collapse within hours of the Russian technicians pulling out.

A few books to read

[rbrander]

"The Emergency State"
America's Pursuit of Absolute Security at All Costs
David C. Unger ...goes back to the 30s and the run-up to WW2...and how American never drew down its military spending by much, ever after.
            The relevant point it makes with a lot of history, endless citations, is that the threats America faces - including many posted here - are articulated by working backwards from the size and cost of military, intelligence, and other security budgets that are desired. The Communist threat was merely overestimated, wildly; the threats of "Rogue Nations" that held spending up until Terrorism was elevated from a risk smaller than lightning strikes to existential concern was the real doozy.

"The Pentagon Wars"
Col. James Burton (or enjoy the Carey Elwes/Kelsey Grammar comedy movie - yes, the true story was so stupid they made a comedy of it) ...of special relevance to the F-35, which this book pre-dates, is how the Pentagon brass *hated* the F16 because it did only one thing (dogfight) and did it better than the much more expensive F15, which could do the whole kitchen sink of the time. Makes the point that every new plane since WW2 (F16 excepted) has been twice the weight and twice the cost of the previous one. It has whole chapters on how much the brass have always hated the A10 because it offers little work for AF brass. It's best used providing close air support, which means some Army lieutenant is tasking it with a walkie-talkie, whereas strategic bombing requires vast amounts of planning and strategy, proper work for Air Marshals.

Even if Unger is wrong, and it's rational to expect two wars at once from mid-size opponents (the current justification for the Emergency State), you wouldn't so much prefer to fight 10 MIGs with 10 F-16s as you'd prefer to fight a billion dollars worth of MIGs with a billion dollars worth of F16s (dozens) than a billion dollars worth of F35s (a few).

The A-10 would make a heck of a drone

[Anonymous Coward]

We should hang on to the A-10s just a little longer, and then (when the technology catches up) begin converting some of them to attack drones. They would be far superior to the current predator vehicles.

The A-10 needs to be retired.

[PortHaven]

The thing is nearly half a century old....it needs to be retired.

But we need a replacement. And we need to do it the same as the first one. A good solid design, without enormous costs.

Frankly though, I think the replacement should feature the following.

a) be built around the same cannon round.

b) maintain protective armor

c) incorporate vectored thrust/limited VTOL or slow flight options (akin to the quinjets) to enable the craft to focus it's cannon for prolonged engagement)

d) have a small storage compartment for supply drops. Not large, but it should allow the A-10 replacement to drop supplies to units on the ground ranging from medical supplies, ammo, ordinance weapons, etc.

Re:The A-10 needs to be retired.

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem with that is that Republic-Fairchild who designed not only the Warthog, but the Jug are no more.
If Republic-Fairchild were to be reborn, I would love to see their take on a VTOL/STOL armored fighter suiting the F-35's role.

It might not be pretty, but it would be survivable.

Re:The A-10 needs to be retired.

[Anonymous Coward]

>c) incorporate vectored thrust/limited VTOL or slow flight options (akin to the quinjets) to enable the craft to focus it's cannon for prolonged engagement)

|Not sure if this is viable. The GAU-8 has more recoil than a single A-10 engine has thrust. Even if newer engines double the thrust (while avoid flame out issues due to the gun's exhaust starving them of oxygen), that's still 45 kN of reverse thrust you have to deal with. There's also the fact the gun just can't be fired for a super long time. That makes prolonged engagement kinda pointless.

>d) have a small storage compartment for supply drops. Not large, but it should allow the A-10 replacement to drop supplies to units on the ground ranging from medical supplies, ammo, ordinance weapons, etc.

The A-10 already has 11 hardpoints. Stuff like QuickMeds and the like can easily be delivered using existing plane.

Basically, the only "new" thing you want is engines that likely serve no purpose.

Re:The A-10 needs to be retired.

[PortHaven]

My point is we need to have a craft designed with a similar process as was done with the A-10 Warthog. It should be focused on a single purpose with 3-4 main criteria and built around that..

As opposed to the F-35 which was built by saying, if we could have anything we want...what would we put in....

Re:The A-10 needs to be retired.

[rbrander]

>>The thing is nearly half a century old....it needs to be retired.

Non-sequitur. Can it do the job or not? The sewer taking away wastewater from your street may be much older. It hasn't been replaced because the wastewater is still leaving. But that's speaking of the specific asset; the *design* of your sewer dates to Rome. And then there's your table knife.

Goofballs

[PortHaven]

The F/A-18 is an aircraft carrier jet. That means it is mostly flown from a moving shifting runway platform. It is continuously exposed to moist highly corrosive salt air. The F-16 is exclusively land based and rarely exposed to the environmental conditions of the kind sea based naval aircraft are exposed to.

Granted, the Navy and I believe the National Guard both have land based F/A-18's. But I wager they've gone thru rotations at sea too.

A-10 supported indefinately

[trybywrench]

If the B-52 is still in use surely the A-10 can be kept around too. Both planes are very good at what they do and seem to be pretty easy to keep in the air and ready to fight. It's still amazing to me when I go to air shows and there's an old, but upgraded, B-52 sitting there right next to the shiny F-35 and F-22's. I think the B-52 predates color TV.

Good to replace, but do it with something BETTER

[Anonymous Coward]

not worse.

The A-10s are amazing planes. But they are aging, and their communications systems (at least originally) were laughably low tech. I admit not knowing what has been retrofit in.

So, it would be good, if the air force were to get serious about replacing the planes. but not with the F-35. Asking the F-35 to do the A-10s job is just not going to work.

The A-10 is a specialist plane, designed to do 2 things. (1) stay alive (2) ground support. It's amazing at both these things. It will be good to keep a plane with these features as part of our active air force.

But since they are aging, we should be looking into replacing them. Even if all we do is design a "mark 2" version of the A-10, and get that back into production with some modern communications, etc.

Or design a drone version, so that we can let it linger in hostile territory, supporting the guys on the ground, without worrying if the pilot is gonna die.

but don't ask the F-35 to do this job. It's too different from the rest of the things the F-35 needs to do. You don't saw with a hammer.

Apples, Oranges, and Monopolies

[BrendaEM]

The F-35 is a multi-role stealth fighter that was mostly made to destroy airplanes. The A10 is a non-stealth ground assault fighter with high survivalbility that was mostly made to destroy tanks and destroy transports and for interdiction purposes.

Financially, the F35 was a good idea: have one fighter serve all of NATO in several roll, and still retain the F22 to shoot the rouge f35s down. The problems are: we handed a company a monopoly, and we will eliminate diversity in our fleet. By putting all our our money one company, we put our head through a noose, so expect it not to be comfortable. Instead of taking the best of 2, we should have taken the best 2 of 4 fighters. During the competition, Lockeed-Martin just had to devise a cheaper F22, Boeing had to create a whole new airplane, which they did not do well at.

The A10 is a great plane that we still use a lot. We should ask Fairchild Republic if they can make a modern version, without breaking the bank, or screwing the pooch.

Though, the two planes have different rolls.

one ring to rule them all.

[luis_a_espinal]

Air Force Says F-35 Glitches Mean the A-10 Will Keep Flying 'Indefinitely'

This reminds me of the JTRS program and Boeing GMR in particular. This is all thanks to the joint-acquisition mindset that you must build some all encompassing shit that is to do everything for everyone. This goes again all normal notions of sound engineering.

I suggest you read about JTRS and GMR if you haven't (feast yer eyes and weep at the sheer stupidity of it.): http://arstechnica.com/informa...

Having worked in defense (albeit just for a few years), I can attest this shit is all too common. Another one is putting all types of COTS and cobble them together even when they aren't meant to be.

The notion of limiting scope does not exists. Now, it is all fun and traditional to blame defense contractors. To a point, they are. But the biggest culprit is the DoD itself. It sets up incredibly bizantine requirements, forces contractors to divvy-up work in ways that, when coupled with clearance levels, it makes information sharing nearly impossible and costly. Worst of all, it always leaves the door open to increase the scope of shit. Always.

So it is inevitable that contractors end up with project overruns. Now, contractors are already geared to feast on that shit till they are fat (the law of unintended consequences). But the blame sits squarely with the DoD's way of acquiring shit, and joint-acquisition mentality specifically.

It is always better to build tools with specific purposes and scopes and orchestrate them as needed than trying to build the ultimate kitchen-sink uber-toaster. Not for the DoD, though.

I fear that for a long time we were able to pull some good shit despite all of it just by throwing money on it. But times have changed, and we can barely afford to do that anymore.

Either we wise the fuck up, or someone else is eventually going to eat our lunch.

A-10 replacing F-35 in ground attack.

[BundyGil]

Shows the fallacy of trying to all things with one aircraft. Such thinking always ends up with it unable to fulfill any role effectively. The retaining of the A-10 in a role the F-35 was supposed to fulfill illustrates this so effectively. Two or three aircraft are needed beginning with a F22 style and capable aircraft. Dedicated design for the purpose. Multipurpose ends up a clusterfuck.

Nothing But Political Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This statement is to hide the fact the F-35 was never a potential replacement for the A-10. The A-10 is designed for this role. The F-35 is not. The F-35 can't even begin to assume the same role. It's aerodynamics literally precludes it's use as an A-10 replacement.

All viable replacements for the A-10 will inevitably wind up looking like the A-10 and nothing even close to the F-35.This is true, even in cockpit-less configurations.

To replace the A-10, you need to be able to fly low, be able to fly slow, have engine redundancy, be armored, have a heavy gun, be able to carry a broad array of external fuel tanks, bombs, rockets, and missiles, have a radar designed for ground target acquisition, and provide ground clearance for off field operations. The F-35 isn't even close to satisfying the most basic list of requirements.

All who say the F-35 has even been a viable replacement for the A-10 is either completely ignorant of warfare, invested in the defense industry, or an imbecile. We need to replace the idiots who constantly push the notion that newer is always better. Yes, planes like the A-10 and B-52 can be replaced with something newer, but the improvements are unlikely to come anywhere near the cost of such programs. Money is better spent on modernizations. In fact, massive funds can be saved by modernizing all the turbines used by the Navy, Air Force, and Army. But, of course, no one wants to do that because that would dramatically reduce DoD spending on fossil fuels. The US military, by themselves, uses as much fossil fuels as many nations. Even a 10% savings over decades is the equivalent of some larger nation's GDPs. In comparison, it's idiotic to even be considering an A-10 replacement given the justification for the low hanging fruit. Which in turn is also a blue collar economic boost.