Genuinely Bad News About the F-35 and the A-10 (Chickenhawk, No. 17)

The Atlantic ^ | January 22, 2015 | James Fallows

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"The moral is to the physical as three is to one," Napoleon said about the elements of military strength. Two signs that would make Napoleon worry.

First, the background. Two military airplanes are getting a lot of attention: the A-10 "Warthog"—"Honey Badger" would be a better name—a kind of flying tank that has been crucial in "close air support" missions from the first Gulf War onwards; and the F-35 "Lightning II," a still-in-development multi-purpose airplane that has been plagued by technical problems, production delays, and cost overruns.

[skinkinthegrass]

you are very correct..it was prototype.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Did it ever occur to any of you that we might need both?

That would explain why they are replacing one with the other.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

That part of the Air Force exists to support our ground forces,

Which is why they should take it from the Air Force and give it to the Army.

The USAF likes fighters, they tolerate bombers, they never have liked being close air support.

[Temujinshordes]

Concur about pilots. My concern is not pilots, they are warriors. My concern is echelons above that, the staff wienies briefing the decision makers and the allocation of finite resources. It was noted here that perhaps we need both. That would be nice, but budgets are what they are, and the funding priorities are not always directly aligned with those of the guy with his helmet pulled down to the top of his boots with him in between.
Good discussion from all parties.

[Temujinshordes]

It has been said, that quality trumps quantity. But it is also said, that quantity has a quality of its own.

[Antoninus II]

I’d rather have one A-10 and one F-4 in my arsenal than two F-35s.

I'd prefer one A-10 and one F-16...

[BwanaNdege]

What about the Hog Drivers? Don’t they deserve some respect? A vote? THEY love the mission and the jet. And most love their Air Force.

Which group do you think would give more respect and honor to Hog Drivers, Fighter Pilots or grunts in the mud?

Having been both a grunt in the mud and a "hog driver" (though of a far different type of "hog", the Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion) I say the grunts have far, far more respect for A-10 Warthog drivers.

Grunts love anyone who can rain death & destruction from the sky onto their enemy.

[Kenny Bunk]

Consider me the A-10 of posters. I hope.

[Antoninus II]

Hummers, on the other hand are trash with plastic gas tanks, steering pumps and alternators that are built in the prison system and they don't have any room inside at all for anything but also can't fit inside anything.

Armor up a Jeep like they do the Hummers and see just how well it performs. Jeeps offered absolutely NO protection. And a Hummer will go where a Jeep can't...

[Kenny Bunk]

The Hummer performs superbly in the Roll-Over Survival Test.

Question: "Would the battalion rather have 25 1945 Jeeps, or one HumVee?"

[bert]

I would answer one armoured hummer

[Chainmail]

I wasn't being facetious. HMMWVs are ridiculous vehicles. Huge on the outside, cramped on the inside and as a battalion commander, one of my most frustrating challenges was getting my Motor T team to fix the stupid things.

If you are the commander, you are held bolt upright in a thin, hard seat and the vision to your front is all but filled with the fording gear directly in front of you. Your radios are in a stack between you and your driver, so you can't even see him for the most part.

I hated 'em.

[Kenny Bunk]

I would answer one armoured hummer

My problem. Is an armored Hummer as good a battle taxi as the Bradley? Is it supposed to be a good APC? I stand correctable, but it seems to me that it's not so hot in that role. IEDs have been making mincemeat of them and the passengers.

Could be me. I agree that it is an interesting vehicle. But I just do not grok the Hummer's role. IMNVHO, it's neither fish nor fowl, nor good red meat.

[Chainmail]

Actually, the original Hummmer had zero protection until they started loading armor on it and the torched like no tomorrow with that plastic fuel tank.

There were also armored versions of the humble M-38 but its main claim to fame was tremendous reliability, excellent off-road capabilities, and an extremely small profile. Being hard to hit is a very nice quality.

[bert]

yes but...... the comparison was to a jeep

the jeep is totally vulnerable to a whole string of ordinary bad stuff

[Chainmail]

But neither aircraft was designed to delivery CAS - merely adapted to the role. And the Air Force doctrine is to deliver CAS from way up high - outside the envelope of small arms and most MANPADS. Square peg, round hole.

Want CAS delivered the way it should be? Set the Wayback Machine to watch A-4 Scooters delivery the goods way done low. They never missed!

[tanknetter]

Hm, I was unaware of any fighter variant.

YF-12A. Which was a heavy pure interceptor and not a fighter. Designed to carry three AIM-47 Falcon missiles (the precursor to the AIM-54 Phoenix) internally.

[tanknetter]

Yeah..and it's fighter version, the A-12..which would have flown w/the B-57 Hustler.

Actually the YF-12A was intended as a CONUS defense interceptor flying NORAD missions. Launch, head up North really, really fast and pop off AIM-47s at the Soviet bomber streams coming in over the Pole.

You may be thinking of the F-108 Rapier, which was supposed to be both an interceptor and a heavy escort fighter for the XB-70 bomber:



I don't recall the B-58 having a contemporary heavy escort companion fighter, although the F-108 certainly could have served in that role had it entered production and had the Hustler not been withdrawn due to high operational costs.

[tanknetter]

I would short-circuit the bloated procurement process and request the purchase of 80-100 Warthogs

Completely unnecessary.

The A-10C upgrade has all the capabilities it needs for all aspects of its CAS mission, plus many other missions as well.

With the new wings, the aircraft is essentially zero-timed from a fatigue standpoint. And if necessary a huge chunk of the original A-10 production run is sealed up nice and tight in long-term storage/mothballs at AMARG/Davis-Monthan.

[Pelham]

Save the A-10

https://www.facebook.com/savethea10?fref=photo