---------------------------------
The Soviets could do that 35 years ago
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
exactly, outcome is bought and paid for and rigged!
just like Colorado GOPe theft of republican voters participation in the state caucuses.............
this is all show! Helps rig and guarantee the retirement of the Wart-Hog
I’m a Chiefs fan so….GO WARTHOG!
The F-16 recently waxed the 35 in air to air. Keep the 16 and the A-10. We know they do what they are supposed to do.
---------------------------------
The Soviets could do that 35 years ago
A lot of our Cold War-post cold war battlefield strategy is based on total air superiority.
We sure do take that for granted.
Imagine US troops being subjected to attacks from the air, and the casualties that would result. Granted, we are damn good at that, and inflict a lot of casualties...but if some other enemy had the means, it makes me shudder to consider it.
Hahahaha...you just photoshopped that up, didn’t you?
The only sensible test is a ground attack comparison.
Since a ‘22 lr could take down an F-35, the A-10 is really the obvious choice (at approximately 1% of the cost and a lot more reliability).
And yes, I was a flight test type at Edwards...back when the A-10 was competing against the A-9. (Yup, dates me.....)
Oh, the F-16 had just won against the F-17 then. The ‘16 still betters the F-35, and the losing F-17 became the Navy’s great F-18.
But the real question is, how will the F-35 perform against Sharks with Frikking Laser Beams?
“I remember A-10s whipping F-16’s in 2v2.”
Indeed true. I flew some F-15s against them back at Edwards in the previous century. You won’t get behind something that can turn on a time...and then points a wall of solid lead, er, depleted uranium at you.
Of course, a good air to air missile will take care of that, but the A-10 is a close air support weapon...and the best there ever was.
Oh those 2v2 games at Edwards were merely messing around....when we had some extra minutes after some FOT (follow on training) in our respective aircraft. It was always interesting putting very dissimilar aircraft together.
Oh, those days..........
It would be more logical to build an improved A-10, and in a sane world, cheaper.
i'd love to take credit for it, but i cannot tell a lie... i stole it
A $400 BILLION screw up.
So you are going to use a tons of millions of dollar F35 for ground support missions instead of the combat-proven, heavily armored Warthog which costs a fraction of the F35?
We only have a few F35s and at their price somewhere over $500 Million (according to some figures I’ve seen - need more cost info here), losing just 2 could cost almost a Billion dollars to replace.
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.
Will it be a fair comparison or will they cook the books for the 35?
Fine time to be thinking about this now.
After how many billions of taxpayer money?
We are rapidly losing any air superiority we have left. The Russians are producing new planes every few years, and in great numbers (even for sales overseas).
The Red Chinese are mass producing fighters, missiles, missile boats, and developing “missile swarm” attack tactics.
The Reds can lose half their force or more, but in the end, they will wipe us out just by using superior numbers. As I have said many times, when you have 1.6 Billion, people, you’ll get all the pilots you need and can lose in order to win with the remainders.
Our leaders are more than stupid. They are traitors!
Active Duty ping.
I have always had some disdain for the training and quality of equipment of the Russians and Chicoms, but one thing I have never discounted is the old adage that quantity has a quality all of its own.
even when the Hog wins, we all know the game is rigged, and it's ripe for slaughter... damn
Exactly. I worked with them all the time (WCT), got a few bubble checks from the jocks. They could fly low, slow and like you said - turn on a dime. Of course, their favorite was to hit the brakes, wait for the overfly and it was “guns, guns”.
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.