Page 10 of 20

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 04:11
by popcorn

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 04:18
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:POGO isn't happy..LOL :D
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... go-report/




Laughable........ :lmao:

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 04:37
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Your splitting hairs.....The A-10 will retire and the F-35 along with a very long list of other platforms will take over the role. In addition the F-35 "was" designed as a Multirole Strike Fighter from the start. So, hardly surprising that is can perform most A-10 Missions.

BTW The F-35A will replace a number of F-15C units in the coming decades. So, is it also a "direct" replacement for the "Air Superiority Eagle"???


The USAF position, not mine, is that the F-35A will replace the A-10 and F-16 from the start. Just because the F-35 is multi-role doesn't mean its not replacing the A-10 in the CAS role. It will regardless of whatever some people say in the A-10 squadrons that get replaced by the F-35As.

Since it has not announced any F-15C unit replacement with the F-35, this is merely an assumption or educated guess at this moment. It would be a good educated guess since no other fighter will be or planned to be built until 2035 at least. But the F-15C was not what the F-35A was designed to replace in the USAF on day 1.

If Congress and USAF chooses to replace any A-10 squadrons with something else, sure then the F-35 is not the direct replacement. Until that happens, then sure, claim all you want that the F-35 is not the direct replacement. Last I heard, even the LAS got canned.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 05:34
by Corsair1963
Still splitting hairs in my opinion.......



Nonetheless, we will just have to agree to disagree!



Respectfully 8)

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 06:33
by weasel1962
You got me wrong. I'm not here to agree anything with you. I'm just stating facts whilst you make claims.

Whether you agree or not, your claims are generally not factual. Examples have included: J-20 is an export fighter, F-35 flies further than an F-15 with CFTs, Japan is not developing a stealth fighter, F-35 is not directly replacing the A-10, USAF will retire the F-15C over the next several years etc.... are just some of the more recent ones.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 08:42
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:You got me wrong. I'm not here to agree anything with you. I'm just stating facts whilst you make claims.

Whether you agree or not, your claims are generally not factual. Examples have included: J-20 is an export fighter, F-35 flies further than an F-15 with CFTs, Japan is not developing a stealth fighter, F-35 is not directly replacing the A-10, USAF will retire the F-15C over the next several years etc.... are just some of the more recent ones.



1.) I just stated the J-20 and J-31 could be exported. So, considering both are early in development. Who knows if one or both will. Personally, I consider the odds to be high for the J-31 and low for the J-20. Yet, I was just making a point for sake of argument.

2.) I did express an opinion that the F-35A/C likely had better range than that the F-15E with similar payload. Which, I standby. This is easily supported from numerous sources. As F-15E easily grosses out with max fuel and anything much over 10,000 lbs of payload. This example is at gross........The F-35A/C could carry "6" - 2,000 lbs class weapons with less drag and well under gross.

F15ELD.jpg


3.) Japan isn't developing the "F-3" as originally envisioned. Yet, "may" co-develop a future 6th Generation Fighter with a partner or partners.

4.) The F-35 was not a "direct" replacement for the A-10. Which, is a dedicated CAS Attack Aircraft. Which, was designed to fly low and slow over the battlefield. (think tank with wings)

5.) The F-15C is on the chopping block and the USAF has made that very clear. Only thing that could save it. Is if the Congress overrules them. (doubtful in my opinion)

Honestly, I hardly care if you believe me or not. Yet, with a little time the "facts" as you call them will come out and trust me. I'll be right there to point them out..........


Again Respectfully 8)

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 10:24
by weasel1962
The J-20 could be exported as much as the F-22 could be. Sure it might happen in the corsair world. I didn't even bother to read the rest of the tripe.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2018, 05:52
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:You got me wrong. I'm not here to agree anything with you. I'm just stating facts whilst you make claims.

Whether you agree or not, your claims are generally not factual. Examples have included: J-20 is an export fighter, F-35 flies further than an F-15 with CFTs, Japan is not developing a stealth fighter, F-35 is not directly replacing the A-10, USAF will retire the F-15C over the next several years etc.... are just some of the more recent ones.





operaaperta

Newbie

Newbie

Posts: 16
Joined: 12 Jan 2017 08:42






Unread post28 Aug 2018 00:39

A couple of interesting quotes from Lt Col Christine Mau who has over 2000hrs in F15E and was first female F35A Pilot. Both quotes from presentation to Smithsonian.

At 1.04.33 when quizzed about CAS role and comparison to A10:


...as far as endurance goes...we’ve got a lot of gas, in fact the legs on the F35 are longer than the legs on an F15E, based on my experience. Internally we carry 18,000lbs of gas on the A model, and we’ve got one engine, it’s pretty impressive.
At 57.40 when asked about M1.6 top speed of F35 compared to faster fighters:


...[in my whole flying career] let me just tell you this, I’ve never flown faster than M1.5, and the Strike Eagle can go faster than M2, so I just don’t know if there is a whole...I know there’s tactical implications for that, but it’s not something we’re typically relying on, on a daily basis.


Source- [YouTube]https://youtu.be/BmPAUdVNmXE[/YouTube]


viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53048&p=400721#p400721


NOTE: I never claimed the J-20 was an "Export Fighter". Nor, can you and anyone else provide a source to the contrary.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2018, 16:06
by weasel1962
Ayotte's out, McCain's gone. Now McSally's lost the Arizona bid. Is there anyone left in the senate that would champion the A-10? If no, I'd think the A-10 retirement will accelerate.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2018, 04:49
by weasel1962
Nice article on the Senate/A-10 support on defensenews.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ly-matter/

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 21:01
by charlielima223
Resurrecting a dead thread...
Image

The main thing that drew me here was the A-10 F-35 "controversy". At that time I was completely against the F-35 replacing the A-10. Then one day doing some online "research" I stumbled into this place. Peoples comments were more than just "big 30mm gun hurr durr durr" and "A-10 is built like tank durr hurr hurr". The statements and points of the members were laid out in a logical fashion pointing to strategy, tactics, mission requirements etc. I slowly started to come around to the F-35 before makin a near 180.

That said this is a good article over at BD... they still put out some good stuff now and again.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/a-s ... the-a-10s/
Because of this disparity, the Air Force is continuously forced to trade existing force structure to pay for modern weapons. It does not matter that the Air Force fields the oldest and smallest aircraft force in its history, or that nearly every mission area is coded “high demand, low density.” The Air Force leaders who sought to retire the A-10 in 2014 did not actually want to cut the aircraft, but they had no other choice due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. While that era has passed, the same dynamics are still at play— a service that is under-resourced, overtasked, compelled to retire aircraft to free up resources to modernize the remaining inventory of mostly geriatric aircraft.

With that background, it is important to understand the Air Force’s plan to cover the panoply of mission requirements that it faces. Defense leaders today are anticipating a broad array of future threats ranging from non-state actors like the Islamic State and Boko Haram on the low end, North Korea and Iran in the middle, and China and Russia as peer adversaries on the top of the spectrum. The overlapping concurrency of these challenges makes for a difficult balancing act given the chronic underfunding of the Air Force and the fact that dealing with each threat demands a different set of tools. 

This is precisely why the Air Force wants to retain the bulk of the A-10 inventory. They are planning on doing it in a smart way to achieve two primary goals. First, to assure sufficient capacity to ensure that when  combatant commanders need the aircraft the Air Force has enough aircraft so that one squadron can be continuously deployed for combat operations. Second, to assure sufficient capability, leaders are investing in re-winging all the remaining A-10 airframes, funding avionics improvements, and other critical upgrades. Taking these steps will ensure the A-10 can continue to fly and fight into the 2030s. The reason for this is simple: when it comes to effectively and efficiently dealing with certain missions in the low- to medium-threat environment, few aircraft can net better results than the A-10. These aircraft are incredibly precise, efficient to operate, can haul a tremendous load of munitions, and their ability to integrate with other aircraft as well as ground forces is legendary. 

However, when defense leaders consider operations at the higher end of the threat spectrum, the reality is that A-10 cannot survive. In such environments, commanders select appropriate capabilities rather than risking airmen or mission success. Close air support is a mission—not an aircraft—and it can be executed by many aircraft other than the A-10, particularly in higher threat scenarios. This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft. Commanders prudently decided to harness F-22s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, F-16s, and others to secure desired objectives because these aircraft could better defend themselves against those threats. 

Such sophisticated defenses require continued investment in aircraft like the F-35 and B-21. These are the sorts of aircraft—empowered with fifth generation attributes like stealth, advanced sensors, and computing power—that will be far better equipped to handle mission demands against potential adversaries equipped with the most advanced weapons coming out of China or Russia. 

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 21:21
by spazsinbad
This is the last post on a comatose A-10 replaced by F-35 thread: Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=437296#p437296

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 22:02
by aussiebloke
charlielima223 wrote:Resurrecting a dead thread...

this is a good article over at BD... they still put out some good stuff now and again.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/a-s ... the-a-10s/
This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft. Commanders prudently decided to harness F-22s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, F-16s, and others to secure desired objectives because these aircraft could better defend themselves against those threats. 


David Deptula hasn’t been paying attention:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... syria.html
using only 12 A-10 aircraft throughout the deployment, "the 74 EFS struck 44 percent of all targets in OIR, which resulted in the liberation of Raqqa, the decimation of ISIS war-making revenue streams, and the elimination of ISIS from 99 percent of Iraq and Syria."

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2020, 22:14
by spazsinbad
A Smart Approach To Retaining Most Of The A-10s
04 May 2020 David Deptula

"The Air Force leaders who sought to retire the A-10 in 2014 did not want to cut the aircraft, but they had no other choice due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. While that era has passed, the same dynamics are still at play— a service that is under-resourced, overtasked, compelled to retire aircraft to free up resources to modernize the remaining inventory of mostly geriatric aircraft.

Some were surprised to see the Air Force again trying in the latest budget request to retire 44 A-10s from, bringing the total force of 281 Warthogs down to 237.

Any discussion regarding the status of the A-10—or any other capability in the Air Force’s inventory—needs to start with the fact that the Air Force is seriously underfunded. Between 1989 and 2001, the Air Force absorbed the largest cuts of all the services as a percentage of the overall defense budget. Between 2008 and 2011, the Air Force received its lowest share of the defense budget going all the way back to the Eisenhower Administration. On top of those slim budgets, the service does not even receive all that is allocated to it in its total budget. Roughly 20 percent is removed from its control as a budget pass-through to the Intelligence Community. In 2020, that equaled $39 billion—enough to buy 400 F-35As....

...This is precisely why the Air Force wants to retain the bulk of the A-10 inventory. They are planning on doing it in a smart way to achieve two primary goals. First, to assure sufficient capacity to ensure that when combatant commanders need the aircraft the Air Force has enough aircraft so that one squadron can be continuously deployed for combat operations. Second, to assure sufficient capability, leaders are investing in re-winging all the remaining A-10 airframes, funding avionics improvements, and other critical upgrades. Taking these steps will ensure the A-10 can continue to fly and fight into the 2030s. The reason for this is simple: when it comes to effectively and efficiently dealing with certain missions in the low- to medium-threat environment, few aircraft can net better results than the A-10. These aircraft are incredibly precise, efficient to operate, can haul a tremendous load of munitions, and their ability to integrate with other aircraft as well as ground forces is legendary.

However, when defense leaders consider operations at the higher end of the threat spectrum, the reality is that A-10 cannot survive. In such environments, commanders select appropriate capabilities rather than risking airmen or mission success. Close air support is a mission—not an aircraft—and it can be executed by many aircraft other than the A-10, particularly in higher threat scenarios. This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft. Commanders prudently decided to harness F-22s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, F-16s, and others to secure desired objectives because these aircraft could better defend themselves against those threats....

...Preparing for the future demands adjusting the Air Force’s existing aircraft inventory in response to budget realities. Dialing up investment in fifth-generation aircraft is an essential requirement, especially given that too few B-2s and F-22s were procured in the past. The types of combat scenarios that defined the post-9/11 world occurred in permissive airspace at the low end of the threat spectrum. America’s interests demand a much more far reaching set of options able to operate and survive in high threat environments. That is why investments in A-10 modernization and newer designs like the F-35, B-21, and next generation air dominance aircraft are so important.

However, capacity still matters. The Air Force needs to be properly resourced so it does not have to gut the very numbers that will prove essential in future engagements. No matter the theater in which a fight may erupt, the type of combat action, or the scale of the operation, the need for numbers of airframes is a constant—the same cannot be said for surface forces. It is well past time for leaders in the Department of Defense, the White House and on Capitol Hill to start properly scaling Air Force resources to align for the actual mission demand required by our National Defense Strategy."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/a-s ... the-a-10s/

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2020, 01:08
by Corsair1963
Honestly, the solution is really right in front of us. I would "give" the A-10's to poorer NATO Members. Like say Bulgaria and/or Romania. (for example) Which, really want to upgrade their militaries. Yet, have limited resources to buy equipment. Especially, new advanced systems.


That said, while the aircraft themselves would be "free". Yet, they would still have to pay to support the aircraft. (Maintenance, Training, Infrastructure, etc.)


This in my opinion is a win-win. As it would strengthen the poorer Eastern European NATO Members. Without losing the A-10's....Which, would be available to the Western Alliance during any major Crisis or Conflict.