I haven’t heard of any contested airspace in Iraq or Afghanistan. I work with F-16, A-10 and F-15E pilots every day. I know what they drop and how they do it, Not a one of them is happy wih a hundred plus bullets for the F-35.
180 is closer to 200, not “100 plus”, and it’s designated for the air-to-air environment. I’ve spent enough time at ranges all over the US and Europe and never saw anything but the A-10 go to the gun first.
And, It’s a good thing the F-35 isn’t intended for environments like Afghanistan. But, then again, neither was the A-10. Fortunately, somebody in the early 1970s was a bit forward-thinking and it wasn’t The Army, Navy or Marines.
I seem to remember sitting around the hills of Fort Sill, Oklahoma as a young 2LT, calling in F-16s, F-4s and even F-111s. They got their quickly from their bases in Texas and they brought enough ordnance. They also had the systems to deliver their payloads accurately.
Looking FORWARD is what’s given us the technological advantage in almost every current weapons system.
Is every future weapon system to be based on the requirements of Afghanistan?
The point I’ve been trying to make is that it’s OK to keep using a weapon system in a role that fits, but trying to say that system, with it’s clearly definable limitations, should be the model for future systems is a strategic mistake we’ve made before.
What happens when the A-10 finds itself in contested airspace? What happens when the A-10 doesn’t get in-country bases, or even bases in an adjacent nation? It’s a long-ass haul in a slow-ass airplane, who’s biggest selling point to too many is the big-assed gun.
Sure, keep upgrading the A-10 to keep it viable for THOSE missions, where it excels. Just don’t lose sight of its limitations.