Pentagon to test F-35 against A-10 in 'common sense' war scenario showdown

[NWCorona]

Source: Stars and Stripes

WASHINGTON – A showdown might soon settle one of the U.S. military’s biggest air power controversies.
The high-tech and expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will face off in upcoming testing with the Air Force’s aging close-air-support stalwart, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the director of the Defense Department operational test and evaluation office said Tuesday.

The battlefield comparison “makes common sense” and will pit the two airframes against each other in a variety of war scenarios this year, Michael Gilmore said during Senate testimony.

The department is in the midst of developing the F-35 – the most expensive procurement program in its history – to take over the A-10’s four-decade-old role of supporting ground forces with its titanium armor and powerful nose cannon. But the move is opposed by infantry troops and members of Congress who believe the A-10 is uniquely capable of saving lives on the battlefield.

“To me, comparison testing just makes common sense,” Gilmore said. “If you’re spending a lot of money to get improved capability, that’s the easiest way to demonstrate it is to do a rigorous comparison test.”




Read more: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/pentagon-to-test-f-35-against-a-10-in-common-sense-war-scenario-showdown-1.406393

---

The warthog is gonna smoke the F-35. I didn't even know they finally got the cannon working on that turd.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. They should sell tickets. NT

[jpak]

2. yes they tested the cannon

[NWCorona]

3. Nice video!

Was that the full belt? I remember reading that it had a very limited amount of rounds it can carry.

Thanks for the clip

[jpak]

12. 182 rounds for the F-35 up to 1100 rounds for the A-10

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/

[NWCorona]

16. Yeah that's enough rounds to have on hand lol!

Thanks again!

[ffr]

66. Loiter time over target is ~ 1 hour for the A-10

The $150 million F-35, a couple of runs and he has to head home.

If you and your guys are under heavy fire in a ground battle and you have a choice of having a quick F-35 buzz in, strafe and drop some ground munitions and leave or have a $9 million A-10 with 87% more munitions hang around for an hour destroying everything you put its focus on, I think we all know which one is the ground troops favorite.

[jpak]

69. The Air Force was considering bringing back the OV-10 Bronco or buying the A-29 Super Tucano

for close air support..

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow

[oneshooter]

80. And, if my memory is right, the hang time for a

Vietnam era SkyRaider was 3 hours.
And it had 4ea 20mm in the wings and a 4 ton ordnance load out.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

61. What is that? 3.8 seconds of fire for the '35?

[jpak]

70. It can carry external gun pods - but that would compromise it's stealth geometry

and the F-35 does not have the battle-worthiness of the A-10.

Armored cockpit & tough engines.

yup

[Phlem]

4. So basically, more war.

[NWCorona]

5. I'm just hoping this solidifies the A-10 and keeps it from getting chopped

I'm antiwar but I want the best tools to protect our troops if it comes to that. The warthog is the best close support airframe we have.

[anigbrowl]

43. Like abolishing the military would bring an end to war

As someone from a small country whose military is basically just good for search-and-rescue, the reality is that if you can't put a strong defense others will take advantage of the fact because they can. There are a lot of people int he world who are willing to use force as a first resort, and abandoning your own capability isn't a good way to protect yourself against that.

[Phlem]

47. Don't preach the fucking reality to me. Terrorism. The forever war on a word.

Fortunately for the MIC, terrorism can be ANYTHING.

Who fucking said I wanted to abolish the military.

[anigbrowl]

48. You were saying 'so basically more war'

as if anything military = more war. I said nothing about terrorism; my view is that as long as we have to have a military we ought to ensure it runs properly and doesn't waste too much money.

[Phlem]

50. I said 4 words and you got all of that from 4 words?

Of course I support the military but have you seen the Mic Budget? It's not getting any smaller and we have rampant other problems plaguing the US.

Let's see.....infrastructure would be a good thing to shore up so we can confidently coordinate. We make nothing here anymore. Sucks to have order our circuit boards from other countries to maintain our lifestyle and pretty much all our electronics.

There's more to war than just a shiny new jet.

[TexasBushwhacker]

57. Plus, once they have the shiny new jets

They have to figure out a way to use them = more war. You can't spend hundreds of billions of dollars on shiny new jets and let them gather dust.

[anigbrowl]

71. The entire thread is about testing to see whether we actually need the shiny new jet

We have an ugly old jet that everyone seems to agree is an outstanding piece of military hardware, and the complaints of wastefulness about the F-35 have risen to such a pitch that we're now, finally, talking about putting it to the test and seeing whether it is really any better than the old reliable option before we commit to spending untold billions on deploying a fleet of them at taxpayer expense.

See, what irritates me is not that you're against war (as if I was for it) but that you just dropped into to tell everyone how against war you are without even bothering to address the subject of the discussion. A+ for political posturing, F for recognizing that this story is about limiting the growth of the military-industrlal complex rather than expanding it.

[EX500rider]

58. "..but have you seen the Mic Budget? It's not getting any smaller."

Actually it seems it is:

In billions of dollars:



Defense as a Share of Total Federal Spending

[Phlem]

64. Yeay!

Also let's take a look at that again after the 1st term.

[anigbrowl]

72. Oh you and your facts

Why would you interrupt a perfectly good burst of outrage by pointing out that the facts don't reflect what people are choosing to vent about?

[EX500rider]

77. I know, I am such a wet blanket!

[cliffordu]

6. Ten on the warthog.

[LS_Editor]

10. Definitely. That F-35 is an expensive piece of garbage.

[sarge43]

18. Yup. The Hog will paint the Flying Money Pit black.

It may not be fast, but it can turn on a dime and return nine cents change.

[Journeyman]

7. Just in case we run out of adversaries and decide to go to war with ourselves . . .

Snarky comment aside, this makes a lot of sense from a budgetary standpoint.

[bemildred]

8. I assume cost is not to be part of this comparison? nt

[awoke_in_2003]

63. Cost is why they want to get rid of the A10...

it does its job very well for very little money. Not enough profit in it.

[bemildred]

74. Yep, that's my point, there is no competition on cost. A10 wins hands down.

And cost matters a lot in real wars.

That's why the desperate search for something the F-35 can do better.

[awoke_in_2003]

75. Yep, it is a racket...

for sure. I bet if you asked the ground pounders which one they wanted protecting them, 99% of them (allowing for the possibility of a few idiots) would say the A10.

[Old Crow]

9. I worry that it won't be a fair test.

Without doubt, a lot of senior Pentagon officials want to see the F-35 outperform the A-10, so I question whether the test will be designed fairly. For example, a key strength of the A-10 is survivability: the plane surrounds the pilot with a bathtub of titanium armor and the plane's twin turbofan engines are legendary for continuing to run even after taking direct hits and sucking in shrapnel. I doubt the Pentagon will be willing to expose the F-35 to anything that might harm it, so survivability probably won't even factor into the equation. And how fair is that?

[NWCorona]

13. I agree with you but it would have to be an extremely crooked test

Because the A-10 is a beast. It can stay in the air longer, a lower stall speed and a monster cannon with ample ammo capacity. Plus what you mentioned.

There's nothing more comforting for a pinned down unit than the sound of that plane.

[Old Crow]

23. We'll just have to cross our fingers and hope sanity prevails.

Unfortunately, the USAF and Pentagon have tried to kill the A-10 so many times that at this point it's looking like an obsession. I worry that the only reason such a test is being held is to produce a list of skewed talking points to, yet again, push an agenda for killing the A-10.

I've been so angered by the USAF's treatment of the A-10 that I've often entertained a pipe dream about the Commander in Chief issuing an edict: "Okay, since it's clear the USAF doesn't want the A-10, the best close air support airframe in the U.S. inventory, I'm now transferring the A-10 program--including all of its current funding--to the U.S. Army. The soldiers there appreciate the plane and know its worth. Maybe now the A-10 will be treated fairly."

[NWCorona]

24. Agreed!

If the warthog wasn't so successful in the middle east it would have been pushed out long ago.

[LiberalArkie]

27. I keep reading that some of the number crunchers at DOD do not think anyone can

afford the F-35. Some are thinking that maybe it was one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time".

[GummyBearz]

15. You are likely correct

The ones who make the test will make it to support the outcome they desire. In this case, more F35 funding.

[iandhr]

36. They already tested the F-35 against the F-16 and the F-16 won.

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

[Old Crow]

60. Aha. You mean they've tested the F-35 against the F-16.

I was confused by your post at first because I thought you meant they'd tested the A-10 against the F-16, and I couldn't find any info on such a test. Then I found an article describing the F-35 vs. F-16 test. Interesting read.

[iandhr]

65. Thanks.

I edited my post to make it more clear.

[EX500rider]

62. "They already tested it against the F-16 and the F-16 won."

F-35's internal weapons capability is equal to that of a F-16 loaded wall to wall. Once stealth is no longer a primary issue, a F-35 can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16.

F-16, even with the conformal fuel tank, will need external fuel tanks to achieve the maximum range. F-35 will achieve its maximum range on internal fuel alone, and for a slight range penalty, be loaded up with 18,000lb of nothing but weapons. With F-16, there is a trade off between range and fuel.

F-35 also will out-accelerate any fighter in the US inventory, except for the F-22 and a clean F-16 Block 50. F-35 is designed for the transonic regime while practically every other fighter designed (except for F-22) is designed for operating at subsonic speeds. They only visit the supersonic performance range and only briefly.

F-35 does away with stealth coatings like on the F-22, B-2 and F-117. The stealth coating is instead baked directly into the skin of the aircraft in a stealth mat. There has been extensive durability studies of the F-35's skin to see how ordinary wear and tear and damage would do to the stealth signature, and to see how long the skin can last. Lockheed Martin, to make a point of how durable the skin is to wear and tear, actually has a piece of the stealth mat used as a floor mat at one of their labs and they occasionally pull it up and conduct tests to see how it fares. It can be argued that the F-22, B-2 and F-117 stealth coatings represent the first generation of stealth coatings. F-35's approach to stealth coatings represent the second generation of stealth coatings.

The biggest change with F-35's maintenance model is the switch from 'maintenance per schedule' to 'maintenance on demand'. The aircraft has a built in maintenance tracking system that can flag maintainers to fix problems as required while the jet is returning from a mission (say, as the aircraft is landing, the computer will uplink to the maintainer's computer systems and tell them that the F-35 returning right now is expected to require a oil change when it lands). ALIS will also capture data on the entire F-35 fleet and allows for pre-positioning of spare parts where they are needed and when using just-in-time logistics.

All the above from a very long thread about the F-22/F-35/F-16/A-10 on Airliners.net

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/146799/

[jpak]

67. I post this without comment

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/01/norwegian-f-35-pilot-counters-controversial-dogfighting-report/81170580/

[ffr]

68. $9M A-10 v. $150M F-35

F-35 has 13% of the munitions capacity of the A-10
A-10 loiter over target time is ~ one hour.
A-10 shoots 30 mm anti-personnel rounds or tank armor piercing rounds, if you want penetration.




The argument for the F-35 is stealth. Having external weapons nullifies the F-35's stealth. So if you're going into a situation where you need to deliver a lot of weapons and you're going to show up on radar anyway, what is the point in sending in a $150 million plane that's less capable of succeeding where a $9 million A-10 strives?

[EX500rider]

76. That really wasn't what that test about at all.

It was a test of the F-35 control law software, not a "dog fight" test:

The F-35 was specifically testing high angle of attack according to the report. It was not dogfighting in the sense that the F-35 pilot could do anything he wanted, but testing potential dogfighting methods using high AoA and large control changes.

Since the F-35 can fly to 50 degrees AoA while the F-16 is limited to between 15-25 depending on Gs being pulled, they were not even testing the full capability of the plane, just a part of the envelope. Because, you know, it was a test flight to see how the plane reacts to high AoA and large control surface deflection. Don't believe me, read the first paragraph of the report.

To make any assumptions or extrapolations of performance of the F-35 based upon ONE test to say the F-35 can't dogfight is utter stupidity. Without knowing anything else about the maneuvering envelope, you don't know anywhere near enough to claim anything. And of course, it was a test flight. The test aircraft lacked much of the avionics suite of a production F-35. When you further take the test pilot's remarks out of context, a-la David Axe, it makes no sense whatsoever.

What the test pilot said, was at high AoA, the fighter needed more pitch control and also recommended the changing the blended regime for high AoA to more than 30 degrees. He also recommended a bunch of changes to the control laws to make the aircraft more responsive, since that was the purpose of the test to begin with.

Finally, he said there was no benefit to utilizing that flight regime, which is a no-brainer, since any time you enter high AoA, you are bleeding significant amounts of energy. The F-16 is limited to 15-25 degrees AoA, even less depending on what's hanging off the wings.

He did note that there was plenty of stability and maneuverability, but the control laws delayed the response he was expecting. Of course, the obvious answer is to change the control laws but that is just too much to process for most people I guess.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/168313/1/#1

[simmonsj811]

49. Just give it to the army and the jar heads

[Johnyawl]

56. There is no way the AF command will let this be a fair test...

...They want desperately to close out the A-10 and funnel the money into the F-35, they don't give a shit what the infantry wants; they don't give a shit about the infantry at all. And once it replaces the A-10 are they going to want their extremely expensive high-tech fighter giving close ground support? fuck no!

[Cassiopeia]

11. 'common sense' war scenario

Words that should never be strung together in the same sentence.

[msongs]

14. desperately searching for justification for Bernie's favorite MIC boondoggle nt

[NWCorona]

20. I'm thinking it's a way to finally put the nail in the F-35

It's nice that you want to bring Bernie into this. The fact that he lobbied the plane to be in VT has no standing on the green lighting of the F-35. I'd take his support of this plane over Hillary's judgement in regards to the use military force.

That said I do differ from Bernie on the F-35

[brush]

33. Wouldn't that be something if they're setting up that F-35 dog of plane for failure.

[NWCorona]

35. This plane has had standing orders cancelled left and right.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to save face.

[brush]

39. They ought to stop spending good money after bad

Even they have to know by now that plane is a failure.

[NWCorona]

41. Agreed and I think this test will finally put an end to this plane.

Hopefully.

[iandhr]

37. Not just Bernie...

... the parts of the F-35 are made in 46 states.

So that means 91 other Senators as well.

[Phlem]

52. It's common knowledge that the Mic exploits politicians. How?

If there's a work force in said politicians state that depends on military contracts, said politician is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If he doesn't vote for said contract, the established business will take it elsewhere and say it's the politicians fault for the job losses.

You pick.

[Plucketeer]

17. Irony is

The company that developed and built the A-10 no longer exists. Just IMAGINE how much cheaper it would be to build brand new A-10s with state-of-the-art electronics and maybe newer engines! Every time there's been a plane developed to "do it all", it's been a miserable flop. When WILL we (the taxpayer) learn???

It's time for a political revolution!

[NWCorona]

21. True but the A-10 just had an avionics update that was brought it very up to date.

A new modern A-10 would be incredible!

[Plucketeer]

25. Not that this is relevant, but...

I used to work for Lockheed Field Service in the 60s. We completely re-wired a bunch of ANG F-84 Fs and then they promptly retired them to the boneyard!

[NWCorona]

26. Doesn't surprise me at all and I definitely have that in the back of my mind

But they can't use outdated avionics as an excuse.

[paleotn]

78. don't change the engines!

...they're tough as hell. Battlefield tested. And the rest ain't bad either. Some upgrades here and there, but the basic platform is the best there is when it comes to close air support. Best of all, she brings her pilots home, shot to hell or not.

?t=99

[TipTok]

19. I'll take an A-10 any day...

BRRRRT is the sound of my world getting a little bit safer / better / happier / funnier.

[NWCorona]

22. Truth!

[Old Crow]

31. LOL! That was great. (N/T)

[LiberalArkie]

28. Oh. and one of my friends made mention one day was that the A-10 did not need any ammo

as just the sound of it coming in on a run was enough to make the other side stop and run for cover.

[House of Roberts]

29. How many A-10s can you buy with the cost of one F-35?

That's how many should be used in the 'test' against one F-35.

I'd love a job building parts for new A-10s, if the services determined they should have more of them.

[EX500rider]

59. "How many A-10s can you buy with the cost of one F-35?"

None?

Fairchild Aircraft went out of business in 2003 and the assembly line is long gone.

[Mosby]

30. This seems like a strange comparison

Why don't they test the f-35 against the f-22?

or even the f-15 or f-18

[NWCorona]

32. They have and it lost terribly

One of the roles the F-35 is supposed to play is close air support for ground troops so I can understand why they are conducting this test.

The F-35 will lose miserably in any fair test.

[brush]

34. It would lose spectacularly.

[NobodyHere]

54. Air to air the F-22 would dominate the F-35

However the F-22 costs even more to build and operate than the F-35. The F-22 also isn't designed to attack ground targets.

[Mosby]

55. The F-22 is a multi-role fighter with ground attack capability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

[Ford_Prefect]

38. The F-35 is only about the money at this point. An A-4 Skyhawk could fly rings around it.

Take that both ways:
a. We've spent so much to develop it that they cannot let it go without making a plane that works. There are simply too many senior ranks at stake and too many contracts for them to allow it to fail. The financial and prestige fallout over this would be stunning. This is the V-22 Osprey project times 100.

b. When it goes to production the amount of money delivered to the builder, subcontractors, and supporting industries and services will be an enormous wave of cash setting a new plateau for weapons costs and investment.

They have so compromised the design that it cannot achieve the most basic assignments required. The multiple computerized attack and control systems that are supposed to let it stand off at a safe distance from any attacking aircraft don't work yet. The radar systems that let it target and also fly in darkness and foul weather don't perform correctly when it rains. The exotic helmet system that is intended to enhance targeting and control of the plane barely fits within the confines of the cockpit and has had numerous difficulties related to computer code that simply doesn't work or allow the various systems to coordinate well after years of development. The plane is so overweight and so large that it caused major problems for maneuvering the aircraft in flight.

Not least of all: there have been significant advances in using various radar frequencies to help identify planes based on the version of "stealth" technology the F-35 is built around and depends upon. The current estimate is that by the time significant numbers of the plane are in the field it will be nearly obsolete as a Stealth platform which is the primary purpose for which it was built.

In the past when there have been similar attempts to make one platform accomplish all major tasks the results were the kind of woeful train wreck we have seen with the F-35. When Pigs Fly has taken on a whole new meaning with this one.

The principle irony in this contest is that it will be used to justify eliminating the A-10. At this point in time there are numerous customer nations standing in line to buy all the surplus A-10 aircraft and spare parts they can get. The A-10 has been one of the most successful military weapons platforms ever built. Nothing else comes close to its performance versus cost. The irony of its demise is that it will be removed from service only because the powers behind the F-35 need to pay for it by eliminating other aircraft like the A-10. They also need to remove competing aircraft from the roles the F-35 is due to take up.

[NWCorona]

40. Well said!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

42. The A-10 refurb/export program is dead

Boeing was going to acquire the A-10 fleet for resale, but the Pentagon shut it down last year.

[Ford_Prefect]

45. It seems they don't want anyone else to have them either...Imagine that!

[Ford_Prefect]

44. I wonder just how large a drone has to be to take out the F-35?

That is another competing technology which is never mentioned in the F-35 dialog. One recent theory of drone use involves a cloud of relatively small drones as a means of attack or defense.

[NWCorona]

46. I can't remember what plane it was but China recently retrofitted a whole fleet of jets into drones

One of the biggest drawbacks to drone technology is hacking. We and Isreal lost a few recently from being hacked.

[leveymg]

53. It doesn't have to be any larger than necessary to carry fuel, a computer and a couple AAMs.

That drone would, itself, have a very small signature. I wouldn't want to be the pilot of an F-35.

[leveymg]

51. The only way to realistically test the two is to shoot AA and missiles at them and see who survives

Just looking at cutaways of the airframes, I'd rather have the A-10s armor and armaments. Radar stealth doesn't count for a lot in daylight, low-altitude ground attack mode. It's how well it takes 22 mm rounds, evades SA-7s, and protects the pilot from hits that counts. Does it keep flying?

[paleotn]

79. Bingo. n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

73. ooh more shock 'n' awe! Fucking disgusting! People need necessities, not GD fucking war toys!

[EX500rider]

81. Actually the military needs to upgrade weapons occasionally or you end up...

....like we did in the start of WWII where US pilots were sent up in obsolete planes like the Brewster F2A Buffalo against the Japanese Zero and they got slaughtered.

[Ford_Prefect]

82. You cannot do close air support if you cannot get close to the target. Been true since 1916.

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:51 PM - Edit history (2)

One of the many complaints about current drone warfare is that the aircraft pilots are not close enough to see differences between their targets, that which is not target and the changes taking place in front of them in the field. The F-35 depends entirely on stand-off weapons systems, in part to protect the aircraft, which present the same problems as the drones have so often demonstrated. It cannot safely fly slow enough, or low enough, or stay long enough to perform the accurate kind of support work the A-10 does exceptionally well, over and over again.

But Kendall said there should be no expectation that the F-35 will perform in the same way as the A-10 on the battlefield.

“The A-10 was designed to be low and slow and close to the targets it was engaging, relatively speaking,” he said. “We will not use the F-35 in the same way as the A-10, so it will perform the mission very differently.”

Since we are unlikely to pull troops from the field tomorrow they deserve the best functioning support. Money will be spent on this aspect on the foreseeable future and we do not need to part with so much of it on so obvious a boondoggle as the F-35. One estimate suggested several years ago that the better effort would be to develop more conventional and affordable replacements in each of the roles the F-35 is supposed to be addressing. I have no doubt that there is probably some merit in some of the systems proposed for this aircraft. It seems to me an incredible lack of foresight that to assume that so many cutting edge systems would work flawlessly and in concert without some of them having been proved elsewhere first. We would not build a Hospital or an office block so carelessly. I feel that to date the F-35 has been a tremendously irresponsible waste of money as a project and a severely corrupted procurement system that has produced this phenomenal cost without capable result or deployment end in sight.

We need to fully fund far too many domestic programs to allow this kind of obscene waste of time, tax money and ultimately lives, both in the field and at home.

[Tactical Peek]

83. IFF is a pretty damn high priority for close air support, and the A-10 excels.

According to one listener, he told the pilots that the ground commander, who was most likely sitting in the same room, “has determined that everybody down there is hostile.” He then ordered them to prepare for a bombing or strafing run for the A-10, whose 30mm cannon is capable of firing 4,200 rounds per minute.

The pilots continued to insist that they could see nothing out of the ordinary, reporting “normal patterns of life.” The JTAC had at least a rough means of confirming this situation: like many other aircraft, the A-10 carries a “targeting pod” under one wing, which in daylight transmits video images of the ground below, and infrared images at night. This video feed is displayed on the plane’s instrument panel and is relayed to the JTAC’s array of LCD screens in his operations center, and frequently to other intelligence centers around the globe.

The pilots, who could fly low and slow close to the target and study it through binoculars, had a much more detailed view. Circling above the mud-brick farm building, they affirmed it to be a “bad target.”

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/02/tunnel-vision-2/

Spoiler alert - that incident has no happy ending, but not due to the A-10. Rather in spite of it.
-

[The Second Stone]

84. The F-35 is designed to do it all

so it does everything badly. The A-10 is just ground support. It excels at ground support. The F-22 is an air superiority, and it smokes the F-35 in that role.

The right tool for the right job, not the most expensive tool for pork barrel.