ummm... it's not head to head one-v-one, it's how well they do in their mission profile The 'Hog wasn't made for air superiority or straight up dog fighting.
ummm... it's not head to head one-v-one, it's how well they do in their mission profile“It could acquire the A-10 and launch radar guided air-to-air missiles from at least 50 miles away.”
Here is the fallacy about the ability to shoot out of sight targets. The military has had that ability for a very long time. But politically most leaders would not allow that for fear of shooting down a civilian target. Therefore the leaders will throw away the one advantage the US would have against most big league adversaries, technical superiority. You can bet no missiles will be launched without visual verification of the target. Now we’re potentially in a dogfight for which the F-35 is not designed.
Yeah the hog is for close air support of the infantry. Which we need. We also need dog fighters. Keep them both. Use right tool for each job.
You are correct, sir. However, history tells us that the last time that enemy aircraft attacked U.S. forces was the Korean War. We have enjoyed air supremacy since. Once you have that, A-10’s can do the prime principle of war better than anyone other machine, namely massing fire at the decisive place and time. And, they do it at a fraction of any aircraft, including the price of rebuilding all of the tools require to build more.
The real question is how do we maintain our air supremacy? The answer does not appear to be the F-35, it seems to be the F-22. My simple Infantry mind believes that we should build more F-22’s and more A-10’s in an upgraded version.
That’s not the test. It’s ability to provide CAS and SAR.
The hog WAS designed for that.
If the AF wants to get rid of the A10, the Army should insist on their transfer...
So could a run of the mill F-16. I think what they mean is, can the F-35 Porkdodo linger over a battlefield and provide CAS the way a 'Hog can. The mission is, provide CAS.
Not that it doesn't happen
I just never hear of it ... and if it DOES occur, I don't think it's enough to support a completely new airframe
From what I see ... the A-10 is the perfect platform to work with/from
Build the same thing with more modern materials, but keep the Hog.
This isn’t A-10 fighting the F-35, it is both planes accomplishing the same missions and seeing which has the advantage. I wonder if the F-35 could even beat the A-1 Spad.
This is about close air support, not dogfighting.
---------------------------------
The Soviets could do that 35 years ago
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.
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.