Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

[MD]

A wise man once said "Work smarter, not harder".

Replacing the A-10 for CAS missions means doing it the best way, not the A-10 way. The A-10 flew low & slow because it "had to" in order to detect targets, lineup the shot, etc.

The AV-8B does not do low & slow and the Marines swear by it.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Normal ops CAS was from medium altitude. We only went low if required by the tactical situation, or WX, or target ID etc. There's no reason to place oneself in small arms/automatic weapons range, or MANPAD range, if not necessary. Back then in the A-model, we were carrying dumb bombs/rockets/gun, with no TGP.

In the C-model, with it's sensors and JDAM/LGBs, it is more efficient and effective at medium altitude, and has even less need to come down low, again unless some tactical need or for WX, as with having a TGP, it can work just like a slow F-16 up at altitude, and see the same things on the ground and attack them.

If you imply that the AV-8B has more advance sensors than the A-10A then why the A-10A has no such capability ? Despite modernization ... And if the F-35C is going to replicate how the AV-8B do the job then that is Ok ... But I dought the F-35A will use the same tactics ...

The A-10A isn't around anymore, all have been converted to A-10C, so the AV-8, A-10, and F-16 all have very similar capabilities in terms of TGPs and associated ordnance.

During OIF 2003 : 2 A-10s sustained heavy AAA damage and during Kosovo conflict 1999 : 2 A-10 suffered damage from MANPADS ... Can the F-35A sustain such hits if flying low to provide CAS ??!

Jim Ewald's A-10 was also shot down by a Roland in the OIF initial invasion. In Desert Storm, there were F-16s that took hits and returned to base, one that took a near hit from an SA-3. Conversly, there were A-10s knocked down by a single MANPAD. And vice versa.......there were A-10s that took heavy damage and returned to base, while there were F-16s shot down. It's hard to make the comparison because like anything, it depends. It depends on being hit by what, being hit where, being hit how many times. It all depends.

[SpudmanWP]

It's a combination of SA and speed which endears the AV-8B to the Marine's heart.

On the gun, the F-35 carries the same gun as the AV-8B (less one barrel).

The reason why the A-10 has such a big gun is that it had to be used as it's primary anti-tank weapon. That is no longer the case as the F-35 can use SDB, JDAM, LGB, at IOC and JAGM, JSOW, etc later.

[oldiaf]

Yes it depends on Target , mission , loadout .. But remember in DS only small fragments of all shooter aircrafts were capable of launching smart weapons and that was one of the reasons for many aircrafts to go low altitude and get hit wether returned or not

[SpudmanWP]

So now that CAS can be done by many aircraft from higher up.. why keep the A-10 when other fighters can get there sooner and have better SA?

[MD]

It's a combination of SA and speed which endears the AV-8B to the Marine's heart.

On the gun, the F-35 carries the same gun as the AV-8B (less one barrel).

The reason why the A-10 has such a big gun is that it had to be used as it's primary anti-tank weapon. That is no longer the case as the F-35 can use SDB, JDAM, LGB, at IOC and JAGM, JSOW, etc later.

The AGM, along with the GAU-8 were indeed our primary anti-armor weapons. The Hog was built around that gun; that gun wouldn't fit in the F-35 or any other jet, nor does it need to. As you say, it carries the same size gun the AV-8 does, but its other weapons will be it's primary ordnance.

Yes it depends on Target , mission , loadout .. But remember in DS only small fragments of all shooter aircrafts were capable of launching smart weapons and that was one of the reasons for many aircrafts to go low altitude and get hit wether returned or not

During DS, even the F-16 was still a dumb bomb dropper, as was the A-10. A-10s weren't even LASTE modified, and didn't have CCIP or any computed bombing either.

Like I said before, the tactical situation may dictate going low. That includes system capabilities limitations or if they're inop for whatever reason. Those are exception situations, and not the norm.

In DS, A-10s came in with their (at the time) low-level Fulda Gap tactics, and started taking severe hits. They were quickly pushed up to medium altitude, and had to learn to employ from there effectively (not commonly done at that time).

[delvo]

I believe the F-16 is only limited to 2 GBU-38s per TER. I read here A-10 cannot use TER with GBU-38.

The fact that an A-10 has more built-in hardpoints but not a lot more width means they are closer together. These dual/triple racks are wider than a single bomb or set of SDBs, so they're meant for planes with more space between their hardpoints. Put one on a hardpoint that has others too close beside it, and you defeat the purpose by crowding out those others... and having a bunch of hardpoints close together on the plane in the first place is like already having its own TERs & BRUs built-in anyway.

What hardpoints does the F-35 use? TER for GBU-38s(carrying 3 each) BRU series for 1000 class(2 each) and 4 packs for the SDB?

So far, so photographs seems to have been taken using any. Several diagrams of F-35 potential loads clearly show pairs of bombs on some kind of adapter under the wings, but don't specify which kind. I haven't seen trios of bombs even in a drawing, but there's nothing preventing them from being used; the weight capacity is there, the space between external pylons is there, and the electronic connections are universal. The real question is whether anybody will ever feel like bothering; will they look at an F-35 with just one bomb on each hardpoint and think "this mission needs more bombs but not more planes to carry them"? I suppose they will sometimes, but I bet not usually.

I beleive the F-35 cannot carry 1000 lb class in the internal bay but it can carry 500 lb correct? And how many?

All three versions can do either 500 or 1000 internally on either side (total 1000-2000). Versions A and C can also do 2000 internally on either side (total up to 4000).

(All three would also have enough room inside for two 500# JDAMs on each side (total of four), with the rear bomb's nose below the front bomb's tail, but that would require a specialized bomb rack that nobody's bothering to invent.)

[MD]

The fact that an A-10 has more built-in hardpoints but not a lot more width means they are closer together. These dual/triple racks are wider than a single bomb or set of SDBs, so they're meant for planes with more space between their hardpoints. Put one on a hardpoint that has others too close beside it, and you defeat the purpose by crowding out those others... and having a bunch of hardpoints close together on the plane in the first place is like already having its own TERs & BRUs built-in anyway.

We regularly had TERs on parent mount stations that were next to one another, 4/5 and 7/8 normally. And 3 x Mk82s on each one worked fine. They were tight for preflight, but still doable. The only racks on the Hog that are too close to one another are 5/6/7, which is why Station 6 is normally removed.

[armedupdate]

Correct me if this drawing is wrong

[eloise]

Correct me if this drawing is wrong

There are several mistake :
1) F-35 if necessary can carry at least 6 Aim-9X externally
(if i remember correctly aim-9 will also fit on the dual rack that normally carry Aim-120, which mean F-35 should be able to carry 10 aim-9x externally)
2)F-35 cant carry 4 GBU-38 or GBU-12 internally
3) at the moment there is no double rack for AGM-88, also that missiles have massive wing so the maximum F-35 can carry is 4 AGM-88
4) F-35 can carry maximum 4 AGM-158 JASSM
5) After block 5, F-35 can carry 6 Aim-120 internally

[armedupdate]

Correct me if this drawing is wrong

There are several mistake :
1) F-35 if necessary can carry at least 6 Aim-9X externally
(if i remember correctly aim-9 will also fit on the dual rack that normally carry Aim-120, which mean F-35 should be able to carry 10 aim-9x externally)
2)F-35 cant carry 4 GBU-38 or GBU-12 internally
3) at the moment there is no double rack for AGM-88, also that missiles have massive wing so the maximum F-35 can carry is 4 AGM-88
4) F-35 can carry maximum 4 AGM-158 JASSM
5) After block 5, F-35 can carry 6 Aim-120 internally

1. I don't think internal hardpoints have the capablity to fire them.
2. 2 GBU-38s correct? Also I believe it can carry GBU-12.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2vrnxf
3. I stand corrected.
4. It seems kinda heavy for pylons 2/10.
5. Indeed.

[eloise]

1. I don't think internal hardpoints have the capablity to fire them.
2. 2 GBU-38s correct? Also I believe it can carry GBU-12.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2vrnxf
3. I stand corrected.
4. It seems kinda heavy for pylons 2/10.
5. Indeed.

1) iam talking about external hardpoints
2) yes 2 GBU-38/GBU-12 ( f-35 can also carry JSM or JSOW ER internally)
4) pylon 2/10 are rated for 2500 lbs
JASSM are about 2200 lbs

[Dragon029]

You might also want to see these in regards to the A-10's loadout as well:

[delvo]

It looks like your JDAM and Paveway rows have the F-35 using a BRU or TER, but your SDB row doesn't. For consistency, it would be 1 JDAM/Paveway of any kind or 4 SDB in each external place, with no BRU-55/57/69/TER... or different numbers of JDAM/Paveway by weight and 8 SDB on the inboard external sites for all F-35s and also the outboard ones on F-35A and F-35C, if you are using adapters.

No dual racks are planned for anything internally except AMRAAM and maybe Sidewinder. And even if somebody were to invent the non-existent unique specialized rack for two 500# JDAM internally, it wouldn't work for Paveways with their longer noses. (Of course, some of these other extreme configurations won't ever happen either, but at least they're possible based on gear that actually exists, which the internal dual-GBU-38 doesn't and won't.)

On Sidewinders: I presume the other external points on F-35 could carry the same twin-Sidewinder carrier that an A-10 can carry, but it probably won't be done in real life. Last I heard, there was some kind of rack intended for internal Sidewinders on points 4 & 8. But it was never officially announced when that would be ready or how many of what would thus be carried on the same point. (2 Sidewinders? 3? 4? 1 plus an AMRAAM? 2 plus an AMRAAM?) The idea might even have been canceled by now, but I haven't heard that either. I'd put question marks in those boxes for internal Sidewinders.

No mention of LRASM or B61

There are only two places to put Mavericks on an A-10?!? I did not know that and am in shock.

[MD]

There are only two places to put Mavericks on an A-10?!? I did not know that and am in shock.

In shock? Why? Only stations 3/9 have ever been wired for AGMs. And in my day, we didn't even use LAU-88s due to issues with those racks (since fixed). We only had LAU-117s, so only a max of two AGMs.

There are a few other issues with that last loadout chart for A-10s, such as there were never MERs carried. And even in combat, since Desert Storm, all stores were parent mounted. And no SUU-23 gun pod has ever been operationally carried. No need for it.

Also, no GBU-10 or GBU-8 ever carried. As well as no M117 GP bombs.

No SUU-20 was carried, as BDU-33s were TER mounted. And SUU-30 based munitions were all parent mounted only, as were SUU-64/65 based munition.

[armedupdate]

The two charts that are not mine have some errors.

From what I know the A-10 stations 4/8 are usually were the smart bombs go for the TER which are 3 500 lb type bombs max. Stations 1/11 can only carry AIM-9s as shown in Desert Storm. Stations 2/10 are only for rockets. Stations 3/9 are only for Mavericks, they can carry 3 in a rack, but the newer ones can only have a single rack. The bottom stations can carry Mk82 dumb bombs, Paveways but I don't think it can carry JDAMs.

The F-35 if carrying SDB will probably be using BRU-61 4 packs, not the BRu-69 Multi mission.