F-35 to replace A-10?

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.

Keep in mind that smaller air forces can't afford one trick ponies, since the total number of aircraft will be so low. Only multi role aircraft makes sense, where Norway is a good example, replacing an older, very decent multirole aircraft, the F-16, with the latest multirole aircraft, the F-35.

Hardwired ground attack aircraft may be useful for countries where domestic terrorist groups is a bigger threat than some global (wanabee) super power next door.

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.

FTFA:

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.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft

FTFA:

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.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft

NATO perform many missions that aren't against a near peer threat like Russia. With Afghanistan and Iraq being good examples. In addition the A-10's could operate as a stand off platform. If, forced to do so....

In short there is a place for the A-10 still....

There can be a place for anything if you so choose, even for a kite like the Fairey Swordfish. Perhaps we should still be maintaining some old kites in the chance we get that one perfect white whale encounter again too?

In short there is a place for the A-10 still....

Sure there is. When funding is ample and the AF is well resources no one is going to question the need to keep it for the type of situations where it can perform its missions highly effectively. The problem of trading capability comes when there are budget constraints applied. Right now we have been in a situation where the USAF/OSD has been getting 60+ F-35A's a year compared to a much smaller ask, thanks to the Congressional additions. When budgets get squeezed and that Congressional backing goes away, the USAF will again have to find money from elsewhere to both buy the new fleet and to sustain it. 9 out of 10 times if forced to make that trade it will continue to choose the more modern, capable and more multi-role platform. This situation could play out sooner than we think (FY22 perhaps). If modernization accounts don't grow but the need to modernize still remains then you can either trade readiness or shed legacy programs. Those are really the only options one has.

FTFA:

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.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft

NATO perform many missions that aren't against a near peer threat like Russia. With Afghanistan and Iraq being good examples. In addition the A-10's could operate as a stand off platform. If, forced to do so....

In short there is a place for the A-10 still....

Sure thing, but I think those smaller and poorer air forces would be better served with something like Super Tucano for cheap CAS/COIN or something like Textron AirLand Scorpion or Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master for higher performance. A-10 is still relatively expensive to operate compared to those and are old aircraft needing more maintenance and support. Of course those don't come with 30mm gun or have any real armour, but those seem rather limited advantages these days. For stand-off work, those aircraft would be good alternatives with very advanced avionics systems.

I wonder why USAF never went with the up-rated OV-10 Bronco. For all the light attack testing they've done, it seems to have been the optimal aircraft for the job.

By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq and the Phillipines went exceptionally well. It should be a lot less expensive than maintaining a fleet of A-10's, and a more appropriate solution for those situations not requiring "overkill". Comparatively speaking, it would take up almost nothing in the budget to maintain a small fleet.

And with the breathroughs made in miniaturized guidance sub-munitions, its potential is only going to get better and better. Would give the CAS mission a more affordable aircraft, without eating as much into the F-35's planned buy.

I wonder why USAF never went with the up-rated OV-10 Bronco. For all the light attack testing they've done, it seems to have been the optimal aircraft for the job.

By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq and the Phillipines went exceptionally well. It should be a lot less expensive ... maintaining... Comparatively speaking, it would take up almost nothing in the budget to maintain a small fleet.
..

From my buddies that flew them, they were the perfect aircraft for simple maintenance. A teenage Vietnamese kid with a 9/16th inch open end wrench and a hammer could fix anything in 15 minutes while standing in the dirt at ground level. Or so they said ... ... and they could takeoff and land anywhere there was dirt ... or not even dirt ...

Was a good aircraft for what it was designed to do.
FWIW,
BP

“By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq...”

Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.

“By all accounts, its deployment to Iraq...”

Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.

This one..

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10 ... 1764407068

"OV-10s performed outstandingly in combat, racking up 134 sorties and 120 combat missions over 82 days while having a 99 percent availability rate..."

Ah, so ‘all accounts’ are those of Axe and Rogoway. Got it.

Cliff Acree and Guy Hunter might have tempering perspectives (although I think Hunter has passed).

FTFA:

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.

hard to imagine Russia not having sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft

NATO perform many missions that aren't against a near peer threat like Russia. With Afghanistan and Iraq being good examples. In addition the A-10's could operate as a stand off platform. If, forced to do so....

In short there is a place for the A-10 still....

Sure thing, but I think those smaller and poorer air forces would be better served with something like Super Tucano for cheap CAS/COIN or something like Textron AirLand Scorpion or Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master for higher performance. A-10 is still relatively expensive to operate compared to those and are old aircraft needing more maintenance and support. Of course those don't come with 30mm gun or have any real armour, but those seem rather limited advantages these days. For stand-off work, those aircraft would be good alternatives with very advanced avionics systems.

I'd be very supportive of a significant buy of armed T-X derivatives for this reason. The airframe has enough performance for air policing and could easily carry a consequential payload for CAS. That performance also makes it more survivable in threat environments that include something higher-tech than a DShK. Its flexibility means that there is more of a role for that type of aircraft than the A-10, in my opinion, and several can be bought for the price of an F-35.

Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.

VMO-1 & VMO-2 flew over a thousand sorties with the Broncos in theater. They were by far the most used asset for FAC missions. The two losses were A models which lacked the IR suppression of the D. After the first loss, D models were primarily tasked with the higher threat missions.

Were they more vulnerable than faster/higher flying assets? Absolutely, but they didn't 'get the sh*t shot out of 'em'.

No, that was the A-10s that got the sh*t shot out of them.

Which ‘Iraq’ might you be referring to? They got the s___ shot out of ‘em in DS. That’s what happens when the other guys can actually shoot back. It doesn’t take much to go from ‘a walk in the park‘ to ‘holy s___ Batman’ when you’re flying around at something around 200 kts and altitudes where everyone can see you.

VMO-1 & VMO-2 flew over a thousand sorties with the Broncos in theater. They were by far the most used asset for FAC missions. The two losses were A models which lacked the IR suppression of the D. After the first loss, D models were primarily tasked with the higher threat missions.

Were they more vulnerable than faster/higher flying assets? Absolutely, but they didn't 'get the sh*t shot out of 'em'.

Each VMO had 10 broncos. A 10% loss rate isn't something to be proud of, nor is it a ringing endorsement of the plane's suitability when faced against a 1970's era ADA system in the 1990s.

An airplane that had to fly low and has a cruise speed of 193kts got shot down a disproportionate amount compared to other aircraft in a desert environment that lacks terrain masking? I'm shocked.