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.
I had friends who were part of Desert Storm. They swore by the A-10 as a support vehicle....
Interesting. I suppose that means "...except for planes on aircraft carriers."
“I had friends who were part of Desert Storm. They swore by the A-10 as a support vehicle....”
Who doesn’t? Even the Russians admire the A-10. It’s Congress who refuses to provide the funding to keep the A-10 in service. The Air Force is just the whipping boy used to break the bad news sent out by Congress. Also note that the Obama Administration proposed a budget that will cut another third out of the Defense budget in the next ten years. So, the A-10 squadrons are not the first nor the last of the essential military and naval air squadrons who are going to be retired if the Congress enacts that or a comparable budget. If you want to blame someone for what is happening to the A-10 squadrons and many of our other air force, naval, and army squadrons indispensable to our ground forces and other forces; look no father than yourself, your Congressman, your U.S. Senator, and the people presently occupying the White House.
Yep.
An agreement made in another time that has no place in our military structure.
Formed in the demobilization following WWII the newly formed USAF grabbed as much power as it could in a drastically reduced force size.
It was also a time that the newly developed helicopter was viewed as useful only for observation and light medical evac. Kind of similar to beginnings of fixed wing aircraft. A role that the AF was willing to concede to its mother service not envisioning the advances in size, performance, and armaments possible.
The bomber and fighter crowd saw the rotor craft as a sort of flying jeep, too lowly for them.
Technology started significantly changing the game only during the Viet Nam war IIRC.
It’s long past time to re-evaluate and re-assign assests. And because of entrenched power structures within the military that will not voluntariy surrender their ricebowels the change has to come from civilian authority.
Frankly, this is why we still need to design and procure specialty aircraft.
“Interesting. I suppose that means “...except for planes on aircraft carriers.”
The context referred to the disposition of the aircraft formerly under the authority of the Army Air Forces and the other branches of the Army.
“An agreement made in another time that has no place in our military structure.”
Before you go around making a lot of derogatory remarks about the agreements and leaping into all sorts of false conclusions that make you comments look silly, you ought to make yourself acquainted with the full subject, including the fact that the Key West Agreement of 1948 was heavily modified by subsequent agreements in 1954, 1963, and so forth to the present day. That is why the Department of the Navy and the War Department were long ago subordinated to a new Department of Defense. The DoD has been responsible for the further evolution of the combined arms doctrine with the further development of joint services planning, operations, and support. Joint service has been a reality for some decades now and has proven its worth in multifold ways. See this article for just such an example:
thanks
Talk to door gunner post 11
I was responding to door gunner in post 11
Too much f’ng politics in these decisions.
I agree. If the Air Force doesn’t want the A-10, give it to the Army. But the Air Force doesn’t want that either. The decision making, for the most part, in both services is by the warfighters - combat arms for army and pilots for Air Force. Air Force pilots think the A-10 is a joke; it’s not sexy and super fast. They need to step back and remember that the mission is about saving American lives and killing the enemy.
As an ex F-100 Weapons guy, I thank you for that little reminder.
You’re most welcome. An F-100 TFW was my original host. Once had the distinct privilege of a flight in the backseat of the F-100F.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=296
“I agree. If the Air Force doesn’t want the A-10, give it to the Army. But the Air Force doesn’t want that either. The decision making, for the most part, in both services is by the warfighters - combat arms for army and pilots for Air Force. Air Force pilots think the A-10 is a joke; it’s not sexy and super fast. They need to step back and remember that the mission is about saving American lives and killing the enemy.”
Why are you repeating those lies and defaming the Air Force despite all of the evidence to the contrary, including the prior posts in this and the earlier FR articles?
I still maintain that the F-35 cannot fulfill the mission of the A-10. The F-35 is not the be all do all is is promoted to be.
Living up to your FRName, eh...?
Are you a pilot or an anti-air spec?
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.