You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
F-35 vs. A-10 Matchup Isn't 'Silly' After All
2015-08-31
[Investor's Business Daily] A matchup between Lockheed Martin's F-35 vs. the older A-10 Warthog isn't so "silly" after all. The Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation said late Thursday that it would run tests to evaluate how the F-35 stacks up in close-air support vs. the A-10, according to Defense News. The tests will use the latest upgrade of the 3F software for the F-35 and take place in 2018.

Lockheed shares fell 0.9% to 203.61 in late-afternoon trade in the stock market today.

The announcement comes after Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the press Monday that he wasn't aware of any tests between the two planes and said a matchup "would be a silly exercise."

He said the planes were expected to perform different functions: The F-35 can survive in high-threat, close-air support environments with its advanced stealth and other high-tech features, while the A-10 can't.

But Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, said the tests would help the Pentagon understand the differences between the close-air support provided by the two planes and identify any gaps in the F-35's abilities.

The F-35 hasn't done well against older jets in prior tests. According to a report earlier this year in the military blog War Is Boring, an older General Dynamics (NYSE:GD) F-16 outmaneuvered the expensive F-35 in an air combat test in January.

But the F-35 Joint Program Office has said the report was misleading and didn't use the F-35's updated software.

The Air Force is looking to retire the A-10 fleet to save money and meet constricted budget requirements. But if the F-35 can't provide the close-air support needed, the Air Force might need to invest in a follow-on jet.
Posted by:Besoeker

#14  ..and yes, they've gone back to being the 'Soviets'.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-08-31 22:20  

#13  By your argument Thing, the Army should also give up the attack helicopter as well due to the lethality of the low level support environment created by the Soviets.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-08-31 22:19  

#12  What I'm trying to say is, the plane isn't as bad as y'all think, for all the reasons I talked about the first time around with that website's half-truths that y'all accepted as gospel, and the Russians have been spending the last thirty years working on missiles designed to kill the A-10.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2015-08-31 21:36  

#11  How would the F-35 fare in a hail of flying lead?

Well, I dunno, have we tested the A-10 against the "Tungusta" missile? If we fly them in Syria, sooner or later, we're going to the hard way.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2015-08-31 21:30  

#10  I think this contest is stupid even if y'all are using it to continue to tell me all the usual commie lies about the F-35 being useless for the tasks it was designed for (basically, interdiction). I don't think the answer to all the tests y'all are pretending weren't rigged and full of half-truths isn't to come up with some rigged ones of our own.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2015-08-31 21:20  

#9  As I understand it, the major benefit of the F-35 is not supposed to be dogfighting or actual close ground support, but beyond visual range engagements where the pilot never even sees the enemy up close.
So why don't we just hang all that gear on a drone, as the pilot is basically out of the loop anyway? (Aside from that the airdales want a shiny new toy.)
Posted by: ed in texas   2015-08-31 18:46  

#8   The F-35 can survive in high-threat, close-air support environments with its advanced stealth and other high-tech features

It has a real, functional, practical cloaking device which render it invisible to the eye...

I'm not military but I don't think 'Close Air Support' means > 3 miles away...
Posted by: CrazyFool   2015-08-31 17:04  

#7  Any bets the powerful people that only want the F-35 around will have their thumb firmly on the scales?
Posted by: DarthVader   2015-08-31 16:06  

#6  In other mindless misapplications of technology.

I hope no one in giverment sees this photo.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-08-31 15:52  

#5  Stealth doesn't help you much when your mission is to fly low and slow, while spitting 30mm death and dropping bombs.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia    2015-08-31 15:45  

#4  The F-35 can survive in high-threat, close-air support environments with its advanced stealth and other high-tech features, while the A-10 can't.

How would the F-35 fare in a hail of flying lead?
Posted by: Pappy   2015-08-31 15:39  

#3  Notice how they wait a year for the test to give the POS F-35 time to get some "kinks" out.
Posted by: newc   2015-08-31 15:29  

#2  The A10 is an aircraft in which the real end user (ground troops aka the Army) had a lot of input of what they wanted in the design and operation. How much has the F35 had? Now that's a matchup I'd like to see.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-08-31 15:29  

#1  cross-index results by cost and I just don't see how it can be close. You'd get a lot of A10s for the cost of one F-35.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2015-08-31 15:15  

00:00