Posted on 04/27/2016 3:58:00 PM PDT by Chode
WASHINGTON – A showdown might soon settle one of the U.S. military’s biggest air power controversies.
The high-tech and expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will face off in upcoming testing with the Air Force’s aging close-air-support stalwart, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the director of the Defense Department operational test and evaluation office said Tuesday.
The battlefield comparison “makes common sense” and will pit the two airframes against each other in a variety of war scenarios this year, Michael Gilmore said during Senate testimony.
The department is in the midst of developing the F-35 – the most expensive procurement program in its history – to take over the A-10’s four-decade-old role of supporting ground forces with its titanium armor and powerful nose cannon. But the move is opposed by infantry troops and members of Congress who believe the A-10 is uniquely capable of saving lives on the battlefield.
“To me, comparison testing just makes common sense,” Gilmore said. “If you’re spending a lot of money to get improved capability, that’s the easiest way to demonstrate it is to do a rigorous comparison test.”
The F-35 is being touted as the most advanced fighter jet in the world, a jack of all trades intended to take over a variety of roles from other aircraft, including the A-10 and the F-16 fighter jet. The Marine Corps declared its variant of the aircraft combat-ready last summer and the Air Force plans to complete its testing this year.
But its 15-year procurement quest has been riddled with delays, scandals and technical glitches. The F-35 program office is now trying to overcome a problem with the aircraft’s software system that caused the radar to blink out and require rebooting during flight.
The program, including production and maintenance, could ultimately cost taxpayers about $1.4 trillion and, despite promises of air dominance, the F-35 remains untested in real combat – especially the type typically waged by the 1970s-era Warthog.
The A-10, on the other hand, is now deployed in the war against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria and has built a devoted following among combat veterans. But the airframe is aging and the Air Force now plans to retire the Warthog and unshoulder the costs of upkeep by 2022.
Gilmore said the two aircraft will face off on close air support and combat search and rescue, as well as other missions.
“We’re going to do it under all the circumstances that we see CAS [close air support] conducted, including under high-threat conditions in which we expect F-35 will have an advantage and other conditions requiring loitering on the target, low-altitude operations and so-forth,” Gilmore told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
On paper, the F-35 faces some apparent challenges because it does not carry the firepower of the Gatling-style nose cannon or the ability to fly over targets for a long period of time compared to the Warthog.
“There are a lot of arguments that ensues over which aircraft might have the advantage, the A-10 or the F-35, but that is what the comparison test is meant to show us,” Gilmore said.
The controversy over whether the two aircraft will have similar capabilities became murkier in March when Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh testified to the Senate committee that the F-35 would not replace the A-10.
During the hearing Tuesday, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said the general’s earlier testimony appeared to contradict statements on the fighter jet program’s website and its longtime aim to take over the Warthog responsibilities.
The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer denied any contradiction.
“Both statements are correct. We will in fact replace the A-10s with F-35s, that is the plan,” said Frank Kendall, under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
But Kendall said there should be no expectation that the F-35 will perform in the same way as the A-10 on the battlefield.
“The A-10 was designed to be low and slow and close to the targets it was engaging, relatively speaking,” he said. “We will not use the F-35 in the same way as the A-10, so it will perform the mission very differently.”
tritten.travis@stripes.com Twitter: @Travis_Tritten
will an F-35’s weapons sound like somebody is opening Satan’s fly?
“...A SMART Air Force has three types of aircraft, fighter to fighter, fighter to ground and ground attack only
Under Obama, the world “SMART” has been obliterated from our military planning and leaders.”
MM is behind the times.
Under the leadership [sic] of the fighter pilotry, USAF has been busily turning itself into that three-airframe handmaiden of the backward-gazing, lumpen-traditionalist US Army that MM so worships, since 1992. The rest of USAF candidly derides the Langley Mafia as the overbearing egomaniac nitwits who don’t know their own job, and can’t follow their own rules.
Any modern military that restricts air power to the two-dimensional linear battlefield envisioned by Hudson High grads will eventually lose. Ideas that sprang from the minds of William Mitchell, Giulio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard, and Ferdinand Graf von Zeppelin have yet to be tried.
I managed Mitchell Hall at Lackland AFB for a short time while awaiting appointment to another civil service job.
One time I was going through the attic and noticed a statue of Billy Mitchell. It was painted gold and he had wings like an angel. It was such an oddball thing that it was obvious why it was in the attic and not on display.
I agree. Why they never made an A-10 Thunderbolt III is puzzling.
Then, put ONE F-35 up against that number of A-10s.
AC-130 variants operate only at night due to vulnerability to most ground weapons.
Meanwhile back in the USSR, the A10’s counterpart, the old SU-25 gets upgraded to SU-25SM3
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3425400/posts
“Thus, the Soviet-era Frogfoot is likely to serve well into the 21st Century even while its American counterpart, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog, is phased out of U.S. Air Force service by 2022.”
Agreed. But I don't think that is the point of this exercise.
They want to design tests that the A-10 can't win and the F-35 can't lose in order for them to be able to say, "See? We told you the A-10 is no longer useful. Now give us another $500 million."
What other reason would there be to hold these types of trials if not to drive another nail in the 'Hog's coffin?
Svartalfiar wrote:
The only competition the A10 will be allowed to win (to make it seem fair!) will be loiter time. No way they can fake a F35 win on that one.
Wanna bet? Have a crap ton of KC135 tankers parked over head for quick refueling.
Yes, that is basically what I said in my first post.
They will often show up at dusk and I can hear them circling this area for hours. Every now and then they will fly in the daytime. This one was circling and going in and out of clouds. Patches of blue and patches of clouds. It really was surprising how quickly they could disappear.
I hope this “showdown” is honest and without a pre-planned conclusion. It seems like comparing an apple to an overpriced 3 course meal made by 3 chefs who hate each other.
” ... One time I was going through the attic and noticed a statue of Billy Mitchell. It was painted gold and he had wings like an angel. It was such an oddball thing that it was obvious why it was in the attic and not on display.”
Statues of early airpower proponents are rare. Interesting contrast to USMA/West Point, where there are a number of statues of historical figures.
When Strategic Air Command stood down in 1992, all manner of chaos ensured in custody and positioning of organizational awards, trophies, keepsakes, and other public memorabilia (charges were threatened in one situation). Things grew rapidly worse when the SAC Museum (long an occupant of the east end of a disused WWII vintage runway, hard against the city of Bellevue) pulled up stakes and moved to a more complete facility some 25 miles southwest near Ashland) - on pain of confiscation of historical assets.
Bad blood was scented, though no non-rhetorical blood actually got spilled (that I heard of). Probably near-miraculous, in retrospect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.