Posted on 04/09/2015 10:24:33 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
It’s wrong to compare the F-35 with any other asset that was designed to perform a specific mission: this is, in simple words, what a U.S. F-35 pilot said in an interview he gave to the Danish website focusing on military topics Krigeren.
Interviewed at Luke Air Force Base, by Christian Sundsdal, Maj. John Wilson, an F-35 pilot with an F-16 background clearly explained something that is quite obvious to everyone: an A-10 Thunderbolt II will always be better in CAS than the F-35 because it was designed to perform that kind of mission. Similarly, an F-22 will always be better than the JSF in air-to-air combat, because it was designed for that role. However, the F-35 is better in all the other missions.
For sure, aircraft designed for a specific role are going to be more effective in that one than other multi-role platforms. The problem in this case is that the F-35 is going to replace these assets, even though many believe this is not cost-effective, and could even cost some human lives as far as CAS missions, with Troops in Contact is concerned.
Furthermore, according to Wilson, once all the limitations are removed and it can carry weapons, the F-35 will be as capable as the F-16 in the CAS role.
According to Wilson, the majority of CAS missions that have been flown in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, were flown by Predators, F-15E Strike Eagles, F-16s and F-18s.
“The A-10s make up a very small percentage [and the fact that] every JTAC or guy on the ground that has been saved, has been saved by an A-10, that’s just not true” Wilson says.
“If the guys on the ground are concerned about that…I’d say they shouldn’t be. They should only be concerned that the pilots of whatever aircraft it is, is properly trained and doing his job, dropping the right bomb, on the right target, at the right time.”
Wilson admits the aircraft is expensive, but he says that maintaining several different types in service is even more costly.
Acive duty ping.
It boggles the mind that anyone would even consider retiring the A-10. Incredible firepower and I don’t buy the narrative it’s ‘too slow’. BS.
Similarly, I think the Navy made (or is making) a mistake by getting rid of the Prowler. Dated to be sure but it still does the job it was made to do.
The A-10 was highly fear by the Russian military and it has proven itself in combat. The F-35 is supposed to be the multi-purpose plane that has been found to fit one one purpose. It’s engines have to be replaced, and the avionics are also not up to par. Like the B-52 BUFF the A-10 Wart Hog
should be around for a long time. Just update the avionics.
There’s something basically wrong with the concept of a quadrillion-dollar jet fighter plane... Somebody wasn’t thinking as hard as he needed to.
Save a endangered species save the A-10 Warthog.
Yes, but like so many things that are designed to do more than one function, they usually perform poorly at all.
I will never forget the military skis. They are a hybrid between a cross country and a down hill. Unless you are one heck of a skier or athlete trying to cross country or downhill on those things was more than a challenge. You can do it, but your work is cut out for you. Think of using your Vise Grips or pliers for everything instead of an appropriate wrench.
Likewise, the A-10 performs well at CAS because that is all it is intended to do. Other aircraft come up short, no matter the training.
The problem is the Air Force wants to play the air to air game all the time. When was the last air to air fight? These seldom occur. Someone will bring up China or Russia, but I do not think they will pose much of an air to air threat. Besides, if you don’t let the pilots fly, as we don’t due to sequestration, they aren’t capable of air to air.
The Air Force pretty much have the long range and short range bombing covered. The fact of the matter is the Air Force has always frowned on the CAS mission but this is the service most in demand.
I am forever puzzled why the Marine Corps did not get a carrier capable version of the A-10 or something like it. I think the Osprey and other VSTOL aircraft have inherit difficulties (expense, maintenance) that a simpler plane could easily fulfill for less.
They can always keep the platform and upgrade everything. I’ve heard nothing but good about that plane.
Why cant they make a stealth version?
This guy should be Secretary of Defense. He sounds like Robert McNamara back in 1961.
We ended up building over 5000 F-4 Phantoms.
Typical Air Farce pilot. Let's hear a Marine pilot say the same answer to the question.
I saw the difference between AF and Marine close air support fifty years ago. The mindset could not be more stark. To the AF, it is all about survivability, to the Marines, it is about protecting the grunts.
Who said beware of the industrial military complex? Was it Ike?
The A 10 is a terrible jet
It’s slow it’s ugly it makes no money for jet manufacture red
It scares the crap out of the enemy ground troops, can blast tanks at low altitude, soars in in a two ship
The retiring generals always like to try to promise their new employer they’ll get rid of her and then some skirmish comes up whither a real job to do and the A 10 gets called on to go out and get shot up and come back in for a landing followed by a good story
I was once told By an F 15 pilot that A 10 pilots are good pilots but to watch out for them, They eat nails. I guess so
I heard Frank Gaffney do a show devoted to saying that, if we don’t get the F-35, we’re doomed.
Frank Gaffney is on the take, isn’t he?
Now that is an interesting point
Knew one of each. Son in law A10 father in law tgat was how they were related to each other Both gone. Wonder how they’d have talked about it
AF knows now grunts. Not personally.
Father in law marine fighter pilot
Later on when flying helos, I still recall being scared shiiteless thinking an A-4 pilot was going to pancake in he pulled out so low on a bomb run. The bottom of his pullout could not have been more than a couple hundred feet above ground.
Because of the shape of it. Those square wings, the boxy shape of the tail, the big jet engines hanging off the side of the fuselage... the shape was just made to return a radar echo. The only way to make that stealthy would be to wrap an F-117 around it. In other words, it's essentially impossible.
Don’t replace the A-10 until there is an A-11.
Ok. Wrap an A-117 around it.
I fail to understand how the shape of it is essential for it’s function. I understand that it’s a tough plane to down, but who is it’s shape not modifiable?
I’ve never understood why they just don’t let the Army fly their own A-10s. They’d do a better job of CAS anyway.
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.