back to article US to stage F-35-versus-Warthog bake-off in 2018

US brass-hats have decided when the F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter” will finally be ready to take on the ancient A10 “Warthog”: in another three years, give or take a little. In 2018, the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation plans to send formations of F-35s and A10s to compare their effectiveness in close air …

Page:

  1. seven of five
    Coat

    versus?

    F-35 vs A10? Obviously not head on, as the F-35 does not have enough firepower to bring a hog down - you need the navy for this :)

    yes, I know. Its just I am a tad sad to see the hogs finally leaving. But loitering above a battlefield to pick off tanks has become pretty dangerous these days. (really) last of the gunfighters[1].

    [1] originally awarded to the Crusader.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      Re: versus?

      Not so much loitering as dropping in, unloading a few hundred rounds, and then zipping away to repeat as necessary.

      I don't think anyone (U.S. included) has armor that will stand up to the A-10's GAU-8.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: versus?

        The issue isn't the undoubted effectiveness of the GAU-8; it's the ability of the A10 to survive over the modern battlefield. ISIS is pretty much an edge case.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: versus?

          ISIS an edge case? I guess this kind of enemy in the future will be much more common than a large war against China or Russia, the only two enemies that could force a very modern battlefield - and I won't rely then on worn out F-35 whose characteristics have been very well studied and understood while attacking lesser targets... after all the F-117 was "expended" soon, after having being used of Iraq and Serbia.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: versus?

            "ISIS an edge case? I guess this kind of enemy in the future will be much more common than a large war against China or Russia, the only two enemies that could force a very modern battlefield - and I won't rely then on worn out F-35 whose characteristics have been very well studied and understood while attacking lesser targets... after all the F-117 was "expended" soon, after having being used of Iraq and Serbia."

            Lets hope it never comes to an all out war with Russia or China or anyone else. Wars like that will kill a load more people.

            F117 did pretty well, 20 years of being pretty successful and effective. It certainly made a significant impact on the 1991 Gulf War. The one lost in Serbia was a blemish, caused mostly because they kept using the same air corridors for exit from the fighting zone. Sooner or later someone was bound to notice... But all in all, an awsome result from a first attempt.

            I still find it amazing that Lockheed spent only $30million building the first two flying prototypes Have Blue. Even in 1970s money, $30million was a piddly, trifling amount for something that revolutionary. Just goes to show what engineers can really do if left alone to do their best.

            1. Tom 13

              Re: Lets hope it never comes to an all out war

              Hope is not a plan. I think that attitude has made it more likely that we'll see that kind of all out war now than it was before the wall came down. Our side keeps hoping that, the other side keeps planning to win it. One of these days they're going to think they have such a substantial edge they'll be willing to risk it. We won't be able to stop it until we stop that kind of thinking. Because the edge they're going to think will give it to them, is that we aren't willing to fight that war.

              1. asdf

                Re: Lets hope it never comes to an all out war

                > I think that attitude has made it more likely that we'll see that kind of all out war now than it was before the wall came down.

                Funny here I thought a big reason why there was no all out war before and after the wall came down between major powers was because of nuclear weapons. It might be more likely but the only way I can see it happening at all is if some vital resource gets incredibly scarce. Fresh water perhaps but by the time that is the case war may very well be fought with drones anyway.

                1. Tom 13

                  Re: Lets hope it never comes to an all out war

                  Then you haven't been keeping up with your history. The Russians were ALWAYS planning to win the nuclear war. We were fortunate in that they always felt they were just a little short of launching the pre-emptive strike.

        2. a pressbutton

          Re: versus?

          ISIS is pretty much an edge case.

          ... sorry if i missed something exciting but hasnt pretty much every large military action since August 1990 (outside peacekeeping in bosnia/kosovo) been

          - based in north africa / middle east

          - against relatively small mobile groups (admittedly, the iraqi army was not too mobile)

          - with lower technology weapons (so far)

          1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            Re: versus?

            hasnt pretty much every large military action since August 1990 (outside peacekeeping in bosnia/kosovo) been

            - based in north africa / middle east

            Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Yes, it borders Iran to the west, but it isn't part of the Middle East by any reasonable definition. It's outside the area as it's typically defined and has a very different history, ethnic base, culture, etc.

            There are or have been a number of sub-Saharan African conflicts that are "large" by any sensible standard. There have been wars in former Soviet republics. The civil war in Nepal. The drug war in Mexico.

        3. TeeCee Gold badge

          Re: versus?

          Actually the A10 is more likely to survive over a battlefield than any other type.

          It's built with horrendous levels of redundancy and designed to fly home having been shot to shit. The only single point of failure is the pilot and he sits in a heavily armoured tub.

          AFAIK it's the only aircraft where more than one of them has returned safely[1] after taking a SAM hit. Small arms, RPGs and conventional flak aren't much of an issue.

          Anyone toting something that can knock down A10s is going to see a load of F35s as a sort of upmarket coconut shy.

          [1] For a given value of "safely" that includes being shy of an engine, a wheel, much of the control systems and most of a wing.

          1. Marcelo Rodrigues

            Re: versus?

            "Actually the A10 is more likely to survive over a battlefield than any other type."

            Too true. That thing is a flying nightmare. It takes an unbelievable amount of punishment - and insists on keep going!

          2. jrwlynch

            Re: versus?

            TeeCee, quite a few aircraft have taken SAM hits and lived, the A-10 doesn't actually do very well in that regard (it was designed to withstand 23mm shells, not SAM warheads). It also, being lower and slower, gets hit a lot more often and is much less able to evade enemy fire.

            During Desert Storm, the A-10s took four times the losses per sortie compared to the F-16 - 20 casualties in 8,640 sorties compared to seven in 11,698 for the Vipers. However, this is even worse than it looks, because while most of the A-10 missions were to the lightly defended front line "killboxes", the F-16s were ranging across all of Iraq (including downtown Baghdad and similar high-threat targets), and using the killboxes on the route home to expend any remaining weapons.

        4. Fazal Majid

          Re: versus?

          "ISIS is pretty much an edge case."

          Every single war the US fought this century fits that edge case.

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon

            Re: versus?

            I once saw an A-10 training video that reduced a tank to it's flat-pack components in one run.

            Awesome to see, a total nightmare being on the receiving end though.

        5. SFC

          Re: versus?

          What isn't an edge case? What war is the US actually going to engage in nowadays against another nation which requires that kind of support? Any nation willing to fight is likely going to result in full scale nuclear war.

          The only battles the US is fighting are exactly like ISIS/Al Qaeda. Traditional warfare between nations is done with, because the firepower available is too great.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: versus?

        As usual that depends on what kind of AA defense protects the ground vehicles. IMHO against not heavy protected forces (i.e. ISIS....) the firepower of an A-10 is much more effective than that of an F-35. It's also probably easier to be flown from advanced airfields than the more complex F-35.

        But for some reasons USAF always "hated" the A-10, it was already about to be retired when its success in the first Gulf War showed it was a very effective ground attack weapon system. But for some reason USAF never like this kind of planes, it's not a fighter, it's not a bomber... maybe all ground attack roles should be transferred to the Army and Marines.

        1. Mark 85

          @LDS -- Re: versus?

          But for some reasons USAF always "hated" the A-10, it was already about to be retired when its success in the first Gulf War showed it was a very effective ground attack weapon system.

          You have to understand the AF's mentality. They're the fighter/glory guys and it's reflected in their culture and promotions. They don't like bombers, tankers, and cargo planes. Just below that on the "hate" list is nuke ICBM's.

          One should note, though, that F-16 and other aircraft used against ground targets in the Gulf Wars were fighters first. So that's ok in the AF hivemind... a few fighter jocks doing ground attack not ground attacks as a primary job.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @LDS -- versus?

            Don't be fooled by the mission symbol. The F-16 was designed to be a fighter/bomber because it had to replace the F-104, F-105, F-4 and A-7 (and, partially, the F-111) that were going to be retired. After all, the F-105, F-111 and F-117 despite the "F" were true tactical bombers, not fighters at all. Only McDonnell used the unusual F/A symbol for its F-18, which was designed to replace F-4s, A-6s and A-7s in the Navy/Marines ranks, to stress its attack capabilities also. The F-4 itself was designed in early stages of its development to be a fighter/bomber.

            AFAIK, the Israeli Air Force always preferred to use the F-16 more in its tactical bomber role than in the fighter one, preferring the F-15 for air superiority.

            It is true, anyway, that "exuberant" planes like the F-14 and F-15 displayed excellent attack capabilities, both as dedicated model like the F-15E, or upgrades like the "Bombcat". But their unit cost never justified large scale production.

            Anyway, the USAF likes also bombers and cargos, as long as they are big and heavy - like the B-52, B-2, C-5, C-17... and it did whatever it could to manage the ICBMs too.

            1. Mark 85

              Re: @LDS -- versus?

              Don't be fooled by the mission symbol. The F-16 was designed to be a fighter/bomber because it had to replace the F-104, F-105, F-4 and A-7 (and, partially, the F-111) that were going to be retired.

              The downside is that the F-16 is a single-engine aircraft. In a CAS environment, that's really not a good thing.

              They may "like" the big birds, but their promotions into command positions are usually given to fighter guys.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @LDS -- versus?

                Actually, it's also the reason why the Navy then preferred the F-18 to the F-16, because it didn't trust single engine aircrafts for naval roles. Now it accepted the single-engine F-35...

                1. Mark 85

                  Re: @LDS -- versus?

                  My understanding was it was "take it or get nothing"...

            2. Shovel

              Re: @LDS -- versus?

              The F-16 was an Aerial Demonstration Tactical Asset. It was engineered to be an high performance hot-dogger. Once they had to add weapons its ballerina abilities vanished. All the A,B,C,D, and E models have been trying to get back the agility of the demonstration protype.

            3. JLV

              Re: @LDS -- versus?

              Agree with general post but calling an F104 Widowmaker a fighter bomber is a stretch. F4, perhaps?

              Isn't the F111 an example of a failed design-to-mission match, followed by role reassignment? I thought it was originally meant to be much more of a heavy standoff fighter than it ended up being - which is mainly a tactical/deep penetration attack/bomber. Ditto Tornado.

              Hard to tell, most online resources focus way more on the current use than the intended use at program initiation time so I am going from memory.

              Btw, you can tell this ain't a Canadian forum. Nobody's yet waxed lyrical about our cherished Avro Arrow. You'd have at least half a dozen posts about it here, even in an A-10 thread ;-)

              1. x 7

                Re: @LDS -- versus?

                the European F-104G was built as a ground attack aircraft.

                Thats why they crashed.....totally unsuitable

            4. Tom 13

              Re: But their unit cost never justified large scale production.

              I always wonder when that's the justification for killing a project:

              Did the small run unit cost accurately reflect what a large scale unit cost would have been?

              Regardless of the run size, you have to pay the capital costs for the production equipment. If you plan to run 1000 units that makes a $10,000 capital cost more palatable than if you're planning to run 100 units. We in the public never get to see the split between the labor costs and the capital costs, so we never know if that Congresscritter demanding we halve production numbers to save us money actually did.

          2. asdf

            Re: @LDS -- versus?

            >You have to understand the AF's mentality. They're the fighter/glory guys and it's reflected in their culture and promotions. They don't like bombers, tankers, and cargo planes. Just below that on the "hate" list is nuke ICBM's.

            All the more reason they should be the Army Air Corp again now we don't need the AF to deliver strategic nukes.

            1. Mark 85

              Re: @LDS -- versus?

              All the more reason they should be the Army Air Corp again now we don't need the AF to deliver strategic nukes.

              Ever wonder why much of the Marines air wings are for CAS? They know the AF can't be counted on. I know this first hand having been a USMC air wing type in Vietnam

              1. asdf

                Re: @LDS -- versus?

                >Ever wonder why much of the Marines air wings are for CAS?

                Not at all. My understanding has always been that in the Marines everyone including the generals (Marine buddy told story of a 50+ year old Marine general leading him and 7000 other men under his command on a run one day) is expected to be a grunt and your specialty is extra on top of that to support that.

                1. asdf

                  Re: @LDS -- versus?

                  Sorry didn't mean to imply everyone is actually infantry but marines really glorify that role and encourage even POGs to think in those terms is what I mean to say.

        2. Johnr

          Re: versus?

          I always thought it a little insane to take out a $5000 dollar Toyota Pickup and a 50 caliber with a 35 million a copy fighter and $125,000 Hellfire missiles although that's what it's all about for the military industrial complex.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: versus?

            Depends on what advantage you gain after you destroyed the pickup. War is not about the price of what you destroy, is about what happens next.

            1. asdf

              Re: versus?

              >War is not about the price of what you destroy, is about what happens next.

              Yep spend a trillion in Iraq spend a trillion in Afghanistan and what do you get, broken 3rd world corrupt shit holes the same as it ever was except a new regime to eventually hate the west.

          2. Greggles

            Re: versus?

            Yes, it would definitely be better to send in ground troops who would inevitably suffer casualties to these scenarios because it would be cheaper, than to send in a $125,000 missile. Especially when SGLI is now $400,000 and costs an entire family an unforgettable tragedy.

        3. drewsup

          well now

          They hate it because it isn't sexy, cant go supersonic, the pilots want F16/15/22's to fly, its always been this way. Now the Marines could be badass in in an A10, but the limitations imposed on no USAF fixed wing aircraft make this doubtful. The A10 is loved by troops for the protection it affords, but it doesn't fit the USAF's stealthy sexy fast mantra.

      3. stucs201

        Re: versus?

        The A-10 is not a plane...

        ...it's a cannon with wings.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: versus?

          "...it's a cannon with wings."

          It's a weapon platform with a weapon. A tank is a gun with tracks, a submarine is a collection of torpedos with a delivery system wrapped around them.

          The point about the A10 is that it is a very effective platform that gets a very effective weapon right where you want it.

          1. Van

            Re: versus?

            "ground attack system"

            "...it's a cannon with wings."

            "It's a weapon platform with a weapon."

            Still a man pressing a button or squeezing a trigger as per Roland Garros in 1915.

        2. Tom 13
          Joke

          Re: ...it's a cannon with wings.

          So, if we sign a contract with Red Bull for ten years, it should last another decade then.

        3. BillG
          Holmes

          Re: versus?

          The A-10 is not a plane...

          ...it's a cannon with wings.

          True. During the first Gulf War, an Iraqi surface to air missile scored a lucky shot on the wing of an A-10. I remember watching the news and seeing an A-10 land with half of one wing missing - as it was designed to do.

          Also, the A-10 has a stall speed so slow (officially 120 knots) that it looks scary at that speed, enabling it to easily engage tanks. With the F-35's wing formation a stall speed of below 200 knots is doubtful.

          1. Jan 0 Silver badge

            Re: versus?

            >"a stall speed so slow (officially 120 knots) that it looks scary"

            Too true, I can remember being stalked by A10s as I rode* around Suffolk on a TV175 and a Viper, back in the '70s. I guess they flew into the wind so that when they suddenly loomed over a hedge, they seemed to be hovering. They certainly scared the shit out of me, without using any ordnance. With those around, I can't imagine why anyone would join a tank regiment. You might as well run naked into a field with a target on your back.

            * They ignored me on bicycles, I expect they targeted cages too, but then the occupants would never notice. (Well I never saw them stalking me when I was in my Land Rover, but then no matter how 'biker' you are, you're just not as aware of your environment in a cage. A tank is a very impressive cage with even more limited views of its environment.) Ironically, the A10 is really a flying tank!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: versus?

              "Too true, I can remember being stalked by A10s as I rode* around Suffolk on a TV175 and a Viper, back in the '70s"

              Upvoted for being someone else on El Reg who once had a Viper. They were nice when they were going and you had the parts.

              However, I think the thing with tanks is you don't zoom around while people are watching. You hide in silent watch hull down and you only move when either you have air superiority or conditions are awful. Ideally your Navy has blockaded the enemy so effectively they are out of aviation fuel. I believe that tank commander lifespan in battle conditions is typically a bit higher than that for pilots, but I don't have any up to date figures and the situation may have reversed.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: versus?

          And it can still fly without one third of a wing, one rudder/tail, one engine, and all 3 hydraulics. One lieutenant came back home, aboard her A-10, and it looked like swiss cheese.

          I doubt a F-35 could survive that kind of punishment. And it WILL fly in the same position as an A-10 if they want it to fly CAS, and WILL be subject to the same hazards.

          http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: versus?

            Thanks for the link - that was a pleasure to read!

        5. asdf

          Re: versus?

          >The A-10 is not a plane...

          >...it's a cannon with wings.

          and the F35 is the world's most expensive jobs program gone horribly wrong.

        6. Fungus Bob

          Re: cannon with wings

          I thought that was the AC-130.

        7. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

          Re: cannon with wings

          A flying cannon going against a flying pork barrel.

          Could be fun, no?

      4. Chz

        Re: versus?

        Actually, the GAU is surprisingly ineffective against even 1970s-era tanks head-on. The pilots have always been told to go for the sides or rear because the attack profile makes it quite difficult to hit the (very thin) top of the tank. It may have a better attack angle than a mud-sucking armoured vehicle, but you are talking about frontal armour that can bounce a 120mm tungsten penetrator round. The GAU's a very impressive gun, but there's only so much a 30mm round can do. It's rated to 69mm of penetration at 500m.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: versus?

      "But loitering above a battlefield to pick off tanks has become pretty dangerous these days."

      Well, that depends on what you're up against. Blokes on the ground armed with AK47s and RPGs are not a threat to any airborne aircraft more than 1/4 mile away. That's plenty close enough for the A10's gun to be totally devastating.

      Up against a foe with a comprehensive anti-air capability? Well that's a different story.

      So it really comes down to the question about any future war zone, "What's the other guy got?".

      My guess is that right now, the answer to that question is "Not a lot". In which case the A10 will do very nicely, thank you.

      Why F35?

      There's a whole load of military/industrial politics and bullshit behind why F35 is happening at all. My view is that we need to be able to build aircraft using the technology developed for the F35, and we need to retain the industrial capacity to build a lot of them.

      However, to put it all into a single aircraft like they're trying to do whilst adding on fairly pointless things like VSTOL is expensive and will not result in a best-at-everything aircraft. [VSTOL is simply a physical acknowledgement of not having bought the right ships to fly it from].

      Why not B52?!?!

      It will result in an aircraft that's maybe good-ish at one thing and underperforms at everything else. It might be a good air superiority platform but that will largely be down to its weapon system, not its stealth and flying qualities. At the moment you could probabaly put that weapon system on a B52 and have better air superiority than F35 will achieve (more missiles, better endurance, etc).

      Politicians and Their Responsibilities

      Most of it comes down to the politicians not being willing to read a few history books and acknowledge that they have a responsibility to take a long term view as well as considering their re-election in 4 or 5 years time. Having professional politicians is crazy - it guarantees that they need to keep the job to preserve their income, so they will never look beyond the next election. It takes a really honest politician to ask themselves why F35 is happening and what it is that has motivated its backers into pushing it as an idea. I've not seen such a politician recently...

      Of course, people like Putin understand this weakness, and he's exploiting it to slowly creep across Europe and the Caucasus. If he does it slowly enough he'll get a long way without any of our politicians caring or noticing or, more importantly for them, taking the blame. It's really a case now of whether Russian bankruptcy will disrupt his ambitions before any more harm is done. Imminent bankruptcy might just force his hand...

      So look at programs like F35 closely enough and you will start wondering how the next 20 or 30 years are going to pan out when we've got creeps like Putin running Russia.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: versus?

        Quote

        However, to put it all into a single aircraft like they're trying to do whilst adding on fairly pointless things like VSTOL is expensive and will not result in a best-at-everything aircraft. [VSTOL is simply a physical acknowledgement of not having bought the right ships to fly it from].

        Strange that the original AST for the Harrier was to operate in Germany against the Russians. not a lot of shops there (unless you count the rhine Barges). The ability to operate from small very dispersed and mobile airfields (viz Roads) was the original planned use for tha Harrier.

        IMHO the F-35 is a total waste of space and money. Obviously designed by committee who dodn't have a clue about the subject.

        AST = Air Staff Target. RAF speak. I'd love to see the one for the F-35.

        In my opinion (having worked on the Harrier so I'm obviously biased) is that a lightweight modern version of the AV8-A is what is needed not the overblown F-35.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon