There are always brass on the political Pentagon insider track of the military who want that crap.
Boots on the ground want something slow and durable enough to hang over the battlefield and do a thorough job.
This must be BS. Ground troops love the A-10.
Bullsh!t
25mm gun with 182 rds for the F-35A or a pod that they say is stealth-ish kinda on the wing for the F-35B.
Giving up the A-10 is like giving up the rifle, imo. You’ve got a great weapon that does a great job, that no other weapon can do. The enemy is scared to death of it. And it’s relatively cheap and durable. It’s crazy to give it up.
It seems to me for most of the low-intensity conflicts the US is involved in, in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Niger, etc...a heavily armored and updated WWII P-51 at $750K a copy would work really well.
And at that price, you could have dozens over them over a battlefield.
Of course, Lockheed Martin wouldn’t like it....
This is the army leadership talking. No one bothered to ask the grunts with boots on the ground.
I call BS!
Speaking with no knowledge whatsoever (not that this ever stops me)… Could some of the advantage of the F35 be obtained by simply updating the electronics aboard the A10 and its weapons?
Right off the bat, the F-35 cannot even begin to withstand the ground-fire that A-10s have to soak up. If this is put into practice, I predict a lot of F-35s will be shot out of the sky.
Accuracy of air-to-ground fire is another thing. The A-10 can go low and slow for hours -- the F-35, not so much. Precision of fire will also be less. So time over the AO will be limited and friendly fire causalities will be greater.
My two cents...
Stupid.
"While [the Army] did not specifically compare the A-10 to the F-35 or say the Army prefers one aircraft over another..."
Definition of click-bait headline.
Nothing better for ground attack than the A-10.
Yeah, put a $100M stealth aircraft in a CAS role. Doesn’t make a lick of sense.
The F-35 is such a screwup they couldn’t even correctly designate it the F-24.
Apparently the Generals at the Pentagon have forgotten about counter battery tactics. Once the enemy fires one artillery or mortar round, the exact location of that weapon will identified in under one minute.
Bad mistake!
No, the CSA wants the F-35. I wonder what the juicy piece of pie will be that he collects in his new retirement job.
1) The A-10 does not have a titanium hull only the cockpit area has a titanium tub.
2) The F-35 could not survive a hit that disables it's engine. When the engine goes down, the plane goes down.
3) All F-35s don't have hover capability, only the F-35B USMC version does. The hover capability isn't very useful in a hot ground support zone where low and slow isn't healthy. However the Marines have learned from the Harrier that VIFFING is a valid air to air combat maneuver.
On the plus side, I think the F-35 is going to evolve into a battlefield management asset much like a JSATRS. It can designate and manage targets for other assets to hit while it is high and relatively safe.
It is much to valuable to be placed in the environment where the A-10 works generally though. Wartogs rule below 250 feet.
This can’t be true.