F35/A10 Flyoff xontroversy

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 02 Aug 2018, 02:47

IIRC the current test included time of flight, target ID, and target prosecution.

energo · by **energo** » 02 Aug 2018, 22:07

garrya wrote:
By testing only against highly visible targets, the test completely masks the much more restricted view out of the F-35 cockpit as compared to the A-10—along with masking the surprisingly poor video and infrared image resolution of the F-35 helmet’s display compared to the high definition of the A-10’s instrument panel display when it’s coupled to the plane’s sniper and lightening pods

Ironic, because A-10 canopy looks like this

And the A-7? :shock:

From the pilots involved in the A-10/A-7D flyoff in 1974:

Pilot A:
On cockpit visibility, I have absolutely no preference. It is more
than adequate in both airplanes for the ground support role.

Pilot B:
Cockpit visibility. The A-10 has a slight advantage here primarily
in the rear hemisphere. In the A-7, the seat restricts the pilot's move-
ments somewhat and the bulkhead behind the pilot restricts his visi-
bility to the rear significantly.
The A-10 engines restrict visibility to the rear somewhat, but not
as bad as the bulkhead in the A-7.

Pilot C:
On cockpit visibility, the chart states no preference. I felt both
airplanes offered superior visibility for the pilot, a characteristic which
was enhanced by the pilot's ability to maneuver the airplane.

Pilot D:
With regard to cockpit visibility the A-10 has very good visibility.
It has a good bubble canopy.

A-10/A-7 AIRCRAFT FLYOFF EVALUATION BRIEFING
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/sea ... up&seq=268

Gums · by **Gums** » 03 Aug 2018, 03:09

Salute!

Thanks for the great links, Energo.

My personal involvement in the A-10/A-7D travesty 44 years ago was documented in the other thread. F-35 replacing A-10 thread.

As with that debacle, imagine if the F-35 could not use any sensors and only eyeballs. Oh yeah, just like back then, no real bombs on tgt. The A-7D could drive nails with Mk-82's from slant ranges of more than a coupla miles at 15 or 20 degrees dive. But the propaganda was that the Warthog didn't need a computer. Hell no! If you drop from 1,000 feet and in a 20 degree dive, you can get about what the Sluf got at 4,000 feet and 20 degrees and 400 knots.

And then there was navigation. The Hawg was like the A-1 and A-37. DR and pilotage to get there and back.

The HUD? Hawg had a glorified depressable reticle and no flight path vector since it had no inertial!! No autopilot either, making first deployment to Europe interesting.

Oh well. The rules will determine the "winner", and I'll comment later.

Gums sends...

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 03 Aug 2018, 16:15

Gums wrote:S

The HUD? Hawg had a glorified depressable reticle and no flight path vector since it had no inertial!!

Just as an aside, and not meant to detract from Gums' comments... my father worked for GE Control Systems in the '90s in Binghamton, NY. At some point, they got a contract to upgrade the A-10 gunsite. I don't recall the details, and they guy I met in the test lab couldn't answer my questions, but a sh*t ton of math and algorithms went into development of this "new" gunsite / pipper. As best I could tell, the A-10 ended up with a "tracerline" type pipper similar to the Viper at that time. I was told it was a major upgrade to its gunsite. FWIW.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 07 Sep 2018, 04:43

I received the answer to my FOIA request for the eval report.

Looks like we have to wait till late 2019 or early 2020 for the report to Congress.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 08 May 2019, 18:10

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pentago ... e-testing/

Pentagon completes A-10, F-35 CAS Comparative Testing

As anticipated, the F-35 proved to be a valuable CAS asset, according to prepared testimony submitted by Air Force Acquisition Executive Will Roper.

“The F-35, as we expected, has a big advantage in a high-threat scenario where the stealth and sensor fusion really help,” Behler added. “In a lesser threat environment, we were able to put more weapons on the wings of the F-35, so we were able to get much better loads on the aircraft.”

Comparatively, the A-10 performed well with more fuel and more weapons in a low-threat environment.

“One thing that can’t be overlooked is that there’s 40 years of experience close to the ground with the A-10,” Behler said. “Training really matters. We had, in the second part of the testing in March, we had former A-10 pilots that are now part of the F-35 force.”

The full report is due to Congress at the end of the year.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 08 May 2019, 18:14

I wonder what percentage of the time the A-10 got shot down in the high-threat environment. 100%?

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 08 May 2019, 18:19

sferrin wrote:I wonder what percentage of the time the A-10 got shot down in the high-threat environment. 100%?

I'll say 0%, simply because the A-10 was not cleared to enter heavily contested air space

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 08 May 2019, 18:58

zero-one wrote:
sferrin wrote:I wonder what percentage of the time the A-10 got shot down in the high-threat environment. 100%?

I'll say 0%, simply because the A-10 was not cleared to enter heavily contested air space

Well that should definitely count against it. "But muh BRRRRTTTTTT" doesn't count if you're stuck on the ramp.

castlebravo · by **castlebravo** » 08 May 2019, 19:04

sferrin wrote:
zero-one wrote:
sferrin wrote:I wonder what percentage of the time the A-10 got shot down in the high-threat environment. 100%?

I'll say 0%, simply because the A-10 was not cleared to enter heavily contested air space

Well that should definitely count against it. "But muh BRRRRTTTTTT" doesn't count if you're stuck on the ramp.

I've seen guys playing DCS use the BRRRTTTTT on the ramp to back up after they took a wrong turn.

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 09 May 2019, 06:43

zero-one wrote:https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pentagon-completes-a-10-f-35-cas-comparative-testing/

Pentagon completes A-10, F-35 CAS Comparative Testing

As anticipated, the F-35 proved to be a valuable CAS asset, according to prepared testimony submitted by Air Force Acquisition Executive Will Roper.

“The F-35, as we expected, has a big advantage in a high-threat scenario where the stealth and sensor fusion really help,” Behler added. “In a lesser threat environment, we were able to put more weapons on the wings of the F-35, so we were able to get much better loads on the aircraft.”

Comparatively, the A-10 performed well with more fuel and more weapons in a low-threat environment.

“One thing that can’t be overlooked is that there’s 40 years of experience close to the ground with the A-10,” Behler said. “Training really matters. We had, in the second part of the testing in March, we had former A-10 pilots that are now part of the F-35 force.”

The full report is due to Congress at the end of the year.

Also mentioned here...
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&start=3195

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... sting.aspx

What I think would be the most interesting is how they are judging the criteria.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 09 May 2019, 18:27

“One thing that can’t be overlooked is that there’s 40 years of experience close to the ground with the A-10,” Behler said. “Training really matters. We had, in the second part of the testing in March, we had former A-10 pilots that are now part of the F-35 force.”

Is it too much to ask of these reporter-wannabees to report what the former A-10 pilots cum F-35 stick actuators what their expert opinion of the Stubby is? (Or at least report they asked for those opinions or tried to get them, but couldn't or something.)