F-35 to replace A-10?

jr1947 · by **jr1947** » 23 May 2006, 00:37

guysmiley, jr here. I'm very fimilular with the two different airframes as far as to look upon. It's the concept of one being a fighter and one being a close ground support aircraft an how they are considering combining the two that has had me confused. The F-35 is a high flight fighter and the A-10 is low ground slow flying combat support aircraft. I doubt they would risk any F-35's at their cost with hanging around the arena very long unlike the A-10's which can take alot of hits. Other than cockpit avanoics change and upgrading the Tf-34 engines I now see what Marks posts of May 22nd. are in regards to the A-10 future. Thanks for the pictures, regards jr1947

Guysmiley · by **Guysmiley** » 23 May 2006, 01:17

Ahh, it sounded like you were talking about TF-34s in the F-35!

jr1947 · by **jr1947** » 23 May 2006, 11:15

hi guy, j.r. here wouldn't that be a waste of technoligy. kinda like putting a prop job on a u-2. I pretty much got the idea now of what's being talked about with the o'l wart hog. we use to watch video archives of the plane during testing, in her hayday she was very impressive, especially with that nose gun. i don't recall off hand who told me but it was said that the shells had radioactive heads for heat penatration. i don't know anything about armament but it did seem as though when they hit a tank it was like a knife going through butter. that o'l dog came alive again during the gulf war if you recall. i'm sure the troops liked having that bird hanging around. well, gotta run. catch you later. best regards allways, jr1947

CAG · by **CAG** » 29 May 2006, 04:29

The GAU-8A Cannon fires a 30mm depleted uranium round, for the penetration capabilities. This is because of the higher density of the material as compared to any other penetrator, not because it is radioactive, which it isn't, thus the name depleted...

I would like to point out a few things to those here critical of the A-10...

If the A-10 was so ineffective, then why was the Army still trying to get control of them for their own use?

If A-10s were so vulnerable then why were more Harriers lost on the same type of CAS missions as those flown by the A-10s?

If F-16s speed to get to target was the most important, they why was the A-10s extensive loiter time capabilities more important to the men on the ground in Iraq?

Will the F-35 really replace the A-10? In capabilities, I doubt it. In effectiveness, unknown, it will all depend on what weapons it deploys and how effective they will be in the future environment.

An F-35 certainly couldn't survive the same mission profile the Hog flies, but with different weapons it shouldn't have to.

And to use it in the same manner would make no sense and strip it of its main advantage, its stealth...

jr1947 · by **jr1947** » 29 May 2006, 15:58

Hello cag, jr here, thanks for the info. on the nose gattling gun of the a-10's. i was all ways curious how there could be so much penetration. i had heard exactly what you had stated but wasn't sure if i had it confused with another plane, but you've cleared that up for me for once an for all. i go along with you as far as the future of this plane. for what ever reason/reasons i don't beleive we have seen the last of this o'l bird. :thanks:

RonO · by **RonO** » 29 May 2006, 19:41

Let me try:

Bad rumour. Army does not want A-10's, they don't have the money to pay for them.

Harriers need replacing too.

A-10's can't loiter over every possible target. So if you were unlucky, do you want to wait for an A-10 to arrive or an F-16?

A-10's will not be able to survive in high threat neighborhoods so if you don't replace it with something else your grunts will have no air cover. If environment is a lot more benign, the A-10 will continue to shine. All comes down to: do you want to equip for worse case or not?

I've spent many, many hours watching A-10's. They can fly in ways that no F-35 will be able to emulate. but as you said, they won't need to.

cheers

jr1947 · by **jr1947** » 30 May 2006, 02:46

hello ronO, jr here, I agree with you, the a-10's are up for the bone yard unless they can become cost effective. maybe that's what this updating is all about. Time will tell right. :2c:

RonO · by **RonO** » 30 May 2006, 18:48

You got that right. Be nice to have both but I don't think there's enough money. Forced to choose I'd go with the one that can do more different things - F-35.

jr1947 · by **jr1947** » 31 May 2006, 10:48

I'm sitting here thinking of all are posts on this particular subjects, and there have been some very excellent ones, and we all know in the end it's going to be not how the money is spent but rather who is going to gain the most from the project. Hopefully just hopefully it will be us tax payers that make out for a change, an our military leaders think maybe just maybe these people know something other than how to put that pump nozzles into their cars :shrug:

RonO · by **RonO** » 31 May 2006, 21:09

I think you are being over cynical. Choices are made on what's best for our military. Most of the time.

jr1947 · by **jr1947** » 01 Jun 2006, 11:12

Hello ronO, I do sometimes become overwhelmed when I see some of the buracracey that goes along with the spending of our tax $'s, an it's not just one sided as to republicans or democrates. It just bothers me to read or listen to sub commitiee hearings. I begin to think that our officials think that we can't actually read between the lines. They attend college and become lawyers an learn all the $100 words but in the end it appears to boil down to, "WHO'S POCKET IS BECOME FATTER", not what's best for our military. Please forgive my skepitacal attitude. I love this country an wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I'd just like to beleive that there isn't as much wheeling and dealing going on behind the sceenes when it comes to how the $'s are spent. I guess we just have to put our faith an tust in there hands weather we voted for them or not, an that's when I get upset.
back to the A-10/F-35 issue, I hope one way or the other that o'l bird raises up from the ashes an screams " I'M STILL HERE", I allways liked that plane, especially that gattling gun in it's nose. best regards, jr1947

RonO · by **RonO** » 01 Jun 2006, 18:41

Suggest some time with military folks chatting about their kit. After you get thru the banter you'll find they think highly of a great deal of it.

swanee · by **swanee** » 01 Jun 2006, 19:48

RonO wrote:I think you are being over cynical. Choices are made on what's best for our military. Most of the time.

Like you said, "Most of the time"

*cough* *cough* bradley fighting vehicle *cough* *cough*

:roll:

RonO · by **RonO** » 02 Jun 2006, 05:58

I could give you 20 more examples of bad buys but they'd still be outnumbered 10 to 1 by world leading kit.

jr1947 · by **jr1947** » 02 Jun 2006, 11:17

hello swanee, jr here, i know i get somewhat skeptical at times, especially when it comes out that some government program just spent some rediciously large amount of $'s on whatever just to end up canning the project for whatever reasons. i know we need development programs on the books other wise we wouln't eventually see planes like the u-2 - stealth - b1 an so forth. now we are going into the future with this jsf prgram an who knows where that's going to take us. well gotta run, time for work.
GOD BLESS U.S.A.
i don't agree with all that goes on here but here is my home, an i love it! :beer: