USAF quietly admits that the F-35 can't beat the A-10

Perrin75

New member
Aug 9, 2001
3,810
168
0
If you are hearing a roar in the distance, that is the sound of every grunt in our military celebrating! The best ground support aircraft that has ever flown now has a new lease on life.
 

UKGrad93

New member
Jun 20, 2007
17,437
12,538
0
I read an article last week that listed 5 planes that were being considered to replace the A-10. I guess none of them made the cut.
 

DSmith21

New member
Mar 27, 2012
8,297
2,036
0
The F-35 was designed to be a Swiss army knife (able to do all kinds of missions including stealth, attack and air superiority). Meanwhile the A-10 was designed to be very good at two things (killing armor and ground support missions). The A-10 flies low and slow plus can carry a boat load of ordinance. This makes it ideal for ground support. On the other hand, an A-10 would be one of the worst choices to be in an aerial dogfight.
 

Crushgroove

New member
Oct 11, 2014
7,331
1,961
0
Thing is, as much as I loathe McCain, he's the sole reason the USAF didn't already completely defunct the A10 to make room for a new, more versatile plane. Maybe that was the f35, but I got the impression USAF was alluding to something else.
 

Perrin75

New member
Aug 9, 2001
3,810
168
0
The other thing the A-10 can do is take an absolute beating and keep on flying. It's absolutely perfect for the mission it was designed for, and that mission is still very vital.
 
May 6, 2002
30,804
2,202
0
The A-10 was always one of my favorite planes before and during my time in the Air Force. I worked on the E-4B and while training for it I got to see multiple aircraft up close. The A-10 was one. I got a picture of myself standing with the Gatling gun right by my head. One of my favorite pictures I took while enlisted. The ammo used in that beast is ridiculous. Here is a size comparison to a 20 ounce bottle and I believe a .50 caliber bullet.


Definitely don't want to be on the receiving end of those. The soldiers on the ground love that plane. Has saved many lives over the years with it's close air support.
 

Deeeefense

Well-known member
Staff member
Aug 22, 2001
43,658
4,750
113
The F-35 “Flying White Elephant” project, which foreignpolicy.com has labeled “the $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere”. This one has to be the all-time Grand Daddy of government boondoggles - A project that started over 10 years ago to produce a modern fighter to replace the aging F-15, has been plagued with massive cost overruns and failing systems that have continued to ground the aircraft which, even if it could perform to specification which seems highly doubtful, is now thought to be inferior to the current flying Russian T-50 (PAK-FA) Sukhoi.

I’m sure it’s purely a coincidence that Lockheed Martin, the proud producer of this turkey, donated over $3.5 Million dollars to congressional campaigns of both parties in 2016 alone. The defense contracting industry as a whole donated upwards of $30 Million last year. I’m sure they were simply supporting good public service.o_O

OTOH the A-10 Warthog has been a really successful aircraft. I think we have definitely got our moneys worth out of it and it's still contributing.
 

Moopyj

New member
Dec 19, 2016
749
588
0
If you are hearing a roar in the distance, that is the sound of every grunt in our military celebrating! The best ground support aircraft that has ever flown now has a new lease on life.
I knew it. I watch tons of doc's on a-10. That thing can take a beating and really dish one out. Stick with what works.
 

bigbluefattycat

New member
Oct 5, 2005
14,557
602
0
The F-35 “Flying White Elephant” project, which foreignpolicy.com has labeled “the $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere”. This one has to be the all-time Grand Daddy of government boondoggles - A project that started over 10 years ago to produce a modern fighter to replace the aging F-15, has been plagued with massive cost overruns and failing systems that have continued to ground the aircraft which, even if it could perform to specification which seems highly doubtful, is now thought to be inferior to the current flying Russian T-50 (PAK-FA) Sukhoi.

I’m sure it’s purely a coincidence that Lockheed Martin, the proud producer of this turkey, donated over $3.5 Million dollars to congressional campaigns of both parties in 2016 alone. The defense contracting industry as a whole donated upwards of $30 Million last year. I’m sure they were simply supporting good public service.o_O

OTOH the A-10 Warthog has been a really successful aircraft. I think we have definitely got our moneys worth out of it and it's still contributing.

Look familiar? China finally unveils its J-20 stealth fighter jet, thought to be based on US war plane plans 'stolen' by hackers
 

CrittendenWildcat

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
12,021
641
113
The F-35 was designed to be a Swiss army knife (able to do all kinds of missions including stealth, attack and air superiority).
In theory, a good idea: one plane, every branch, every need. Plenty of interchangeable parts.

In reality, no plane can be everything to everyone. If you want the best of the best, specialization is absolutely necessary. The Warthog is a perfect example of a military aircraft that fits the need extremely well, both 50 years ago and still today. Similarly, it's why we still have 76 B-52's in our fleet.
 

Rex Kwon Do

Active member
Oct 15, 2005
7,492
1,707
83
Of course the F35 is considered inferior to the PAK-FA, the direct competitor is the F22. Not sure why the two would be mentioned in the same sentence. Hell, I doubt our Alleged Butt Buddy Putin lol will be able to have more than 20 built before they run out of scratch and give up. CHJINA on the other hand....

F35 is a good plane, an admirable idea, and full short/beyond overpriced. Sure af not the first time that's happened in the federal government

Sincerely,

Every fed program military or non *ever*

^ you don't excuse that ****, just hope and pray the outsider starts to turn the tide.
 

Deeeefense

Well-known member
Staff member
Aug 22, 2001
43,658
4,750
113

I use to do business with the Chinese a couple of decades ago. My Chinese contact visited here once and told me a story about how good they are at copying stuff. Back in the 50s or maybe early 60s the Russians gave them a couple Mig 17s. It was their first real fighters. Instead of putting them in service, these dudes disassembled the entire aircraft down to it's last nut and bolt, and then made like 20 duplicates of every part and piece, then assembled them back together in to 20 flying aircraft.
 

bigbluefattycat

New member
Oct 5, 2005
14,557
602
0
I use to do business with the Chinese a couple of decades ago. My Chinese contact visited here once and told me a story about how good they are at copying stuff. Back in the 50s or maybe early 60s the Russians gave them a couple Mig 17s. It was their first real fighters. Instead of putting them in service, these dudes disassembled the entire aircraft down to it's last nut and bolt, and then made like 20 duplicates of every part and piece, then assembled them back together in to 20 flying aircraft.

Every knock off product you can think of from cheap iphone chargers to military jets.
 

ukalum_rivals311718

New member
May 9, 2002
2,542
121
0
I use to do business with the Chinese a couple of decades ago. My Chinese contact visited here once and told me a story about how good they are at copying stuff. Back in the 50s or maybe early 60s the Russians gave them a couple Mig 17s. It was their first real fighters. Instead of putting them in service, these dudes disassembled the entire aircraft down to it's last nut and bolt, and then made like 20 duplicates of every part and piece, then assembled them back together in to 20 flying aircraft.

That's what the Soviets did with our B-29 back in the day. They even fixed a heating problem in the B-29.
 

CastleRubric

New member
Nov 11, 2011
5,854
601
0
I read an article last week that listed 5 planes that were being considered to replace the A-10. I guess none of them made the cut.

Just had a small formation of A10s fly over my parking lot when I left work Thursday

About 2 years ago the F35 went head to head with the F16 in simulated air combat -----

The 80s era F16 repeatedly racked up kills on the nearly hapless F35

(And for a LOT less money)

I could give specific instances of how the kills were made and some other issues with the F35 -- but you can find the details in backdAted issues of "defense industry daily " if curious

About 8 or 9 months later the.navy reported that the F35. Didn't meet all. Criteria and goals related to aircraft carrier performance

But they passed it anyway

And those F16s?
They were reportedly burdened with external fuel tanks for that drill
F35 guy is REALLY embarrassed now -- probably a marine trying to outfly an Air Force man anyway

The F35 is a piece of hot garbage that reflects military industrial complex group think
 
Last edited:

CastleRubric

New member
Nov 11, 2011
5,854
601
0
PS - the government (and to some extent the secretary of the Air Force) tried every Angle they could play to kill off the A10 about a year or so Ago---- some of the rationale was embarrassing (usaf secretary tried to argue that close air support isn't a function for the usaf- but belongs to the army)

Boeing noted that they would immediately seek to place the aircraft on the international market -

It wasn't long after that when the program located new funding
 

Deeeefense

Well-known member
Staff member
Aug 22, 2001
43,658
4,750
113
The F35 is a piece of hot garbage that reflects military industrial complex group think

It also reflects part of that $30 M a year that defense contractors donate to members of both political parties, and guess who leads the pack in donations? If you guessed Lockheed/Martin give yourself a star on the forehead :)
 

CastleRubric

New member
Nov 11, 2011
5,854
601
0
It also reflects part of that $30 M a year that defense contractors donate to members of both political parties, and guess who leads the pack in donations? If you guessed Lockheed/Martin give yourself a star on the forehead :)

And IMO a "joint" weapons platform that's inherently complex and costly - but needs to meet the needs nor each of the sister services --SEEMS like a good idea ---until you've had numerous ost and schedule overruns and your stealth capabilities --"don't really " work ---

Then it's less like a good idea and more like --a freaking dumpster fire

Congrats Japan -- this is your next generation fighter too --- a giant damn flying piano
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
21,328
2,161
113
We tried to build a plane that could do every job, unfortunately it isn't very good at any apparently.
 

Rex Kwon Do

Active member
Oct 15, 2005
7,492
1,707
83
Thing I just can't understand is why the AF and Navy wanted the F35, the Marines I kinda get. Or mainly why the demand for stealth at the clear expense of performance? The F22 works but it's in air superiority and can stomach being limited to internal bays.

That's where this turns to bs for me. If the F35 is going to be replacing the attack capabilities of the 16, 17, and the strike eagle version of the 15 it absolutely has to use external hardpoints which completely negates it's stealth. At that point you just dropped a couple Trill for nothing.

Idk, I'm no military ball but have always liked this kind of stuff. Just think they could've dropped stealth, increased performance, and spent the remainder on other things.....but yeah people got rich and fleeced us.