http://news.investors.com/082815-768701-f35-vs-warthog-matchup-isnt-silly-after-all.htm

quote:

---

A matchup between Lockheed Martin's F-35 vs. the older A-10 Warthog isn't so "silly" after all. The Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation said late Thursday that it would run tests to evaluate how the F-35 stacks up in close-air support vs. the A-10, according to Defense News. The tests will use the latest upgrade of the 3F software for the F-35 and take place in 2018.

The announcement comes after Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the press Monday that he wasn't aware of any tests between the two planes and said a matchup "would be a silly exercise."

He (Welsh) said the planes were expected to perform different functions: The F-35 can survive in high-threat, close-air support environments with its advanced stealth and other high-tech features, while the A-10 can't.

But Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, said the tests would help the Pentagon understand the differences between the close-air support provided by the two planes and identify any gaps in the F-35's abilities.

---

I think this is a great idea - please note the part I bolded. When I was in the AF I provided wx support for the IOT&E of the F-111D model early in my career and was involved with the NEXRAD doppler weather radar IOT&E during my last tour.

Conducting an IOT&E to "understand the differences between the close-air support provided by the two planes and identify any gaps in the F-35's abilities" makes perfect sense to me. Hopefully knowledge of the "gaps" will help the AF figure out how they can ameliorate them with new tactics, software tweaks, etc.

I am somewhat surprised that Gen Welsh, a former A-10 driver, thinks it "would be a silly exercise". I think it says a lot about the mindset of the AF about CAS and I applaud the Pentagon's OT&E community for making this happen.

I think this test could easily be a silly exercise, depending on the parameters.

The biggest question is how are they going to assess the threat environment and survivability?

IMO, the A-10 is a tweener that has diminishing value on the battlefield. In permissive/low threat environments, I would prefer to have the control, ISR capability, and loiter of a Reaper.

In high threat environments, I don't know that the A-10 can operate as intended -- while a F-35 can, to some extent.

On which battlefield is the A-10 going to excel? Where the threat is too high for a Reaper, but low enough to allow a slow, but durable aircraft to fly without significant advanced ADA threat?

I'm sure that sweet spot exists somewhere, but it is an increasingly narrow niche.

nm

quote:

---

quote:

---

On which battlefield is the A-10 going to excel?

---

How about the one we are in right now and are going to be in for the next decade?

---

Any number of platforms can do what we are doing on the battlefield "right now" -- and in the next decade -- which is employing precision munitions against single targets from high altitude.

And frankly, a Reaper can do it better, with more loiter time, and less risk if something goes wrong.

The A-10 was designed to kill massed formations of armor in close air support roles where there is significant vulnerability to ground fire. This is NOT the battlefield we have now, nor are likely to face in the future. And if we do, we have other platforms that play the same role -- like the Longbow Apache. Or that can do it passably well (F-15E; JSF; Reaper) as well as do lots of other things that are much more likely, and just as necessary.

Don't get me wrong, I like the A-10. All things being equal, I'd like to keep it. I just don't like it better than a bunch of other capabilities in an era of declining defense budgets. I would not want to sacrifice UAV capacity to keep it.

Do you want to give up a few active ground brigades to fund the A-10? Drop the active force to 420k? Because those are the trades that are being discussed.

Hawgs

I think your perspective is off.

I agree. I like the A-10, it has an important purpose & if I could increase military budgets or cut a few absurdly expensive bombers or fighters to retain the A-10 force I would. However in the current & projected environments if I can have A-10s or Apaches & Reapers, I will take Apaches & Reapers every time. If I have to cut one it is the A-10.

Why would you take longbows and reapers over an A-10 in a general force on force war? Just curious here.... Also, as a former A-10 guy and current F-35 pilot I am very curious to find out the test objectives and what runs will be used to measure these objectives. I am not sure comparing an LO strike fighter and a Heavy Attack fighter is necessary.....hence the CSAFs comments.

quote:

---

The A-10 was designed to kill massed formations of armor

---

This is not true at all. This role developed in desert storm, and while it turned out to be fantastic in it, this was not originally what the airframe was intended for.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The A-10 was designed to kill massed formations of armor

---

This is not true at all. This role developed in desert storm, and while it turned out to be fantastic in it, this was not originally what the airframe was intended for.

---

Considering the plane was designed specifically to carry the GAU8 gun - to defeat armor - I'm not sure how you could say that.

Why do you think it exists?

I prefer Apaches in the support role because they are more flexible, easier to communicate with, can fire in a wider arc, have more loiter time, are not hostage to the CAOC and retasking, not limited by JTAC requirement, and easier to train with.

I like reapers because they are both phenomenal ISR, and have precise, responsive lethality with very low CDE when employing hellfire. Loiter time is outstanding. And there is no pilot risk in really hairy places where there its high threat or where DART is impossible.

When A10s were created, we didn't have apache or UAV. I wouldn't give up either to save it.

A10 has a niche, but it's capabilities are not so unique, nor the niche so large, to justify the retention cost in this budget environment.
My opinion, but it is a pretty well informed one.

With practical experience employing all the airframes mentioned.

00:28 mark of this video.

This from the guy who came up with the design. Fighting armor/tanks is a component of CAS, but the plane was not designed for that role alone.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

---

---

I prefer Apaches in the support role because they are more flexible, easier to communicate with, can fire in a wider arc, have more loiter time, are not hostage to the CAOC and retasking, not limited by JTAC requirement, and easier to train with.

I like reapers because they are both phenomenal ISR, and have precise, responsive lethality with very low CDE when employing hellfire. Loiter time is outstanding. And there is no pilot risk in really hairy places where there its high threat or where DART is impossible.

When A10s were created, we didn't have apache or UAV. I wouldn't give up either to save it.

A10 has a niche, but it's capabilities are not so unique, nor the niche so large, to justify the retention cost in this budget environment.
My opinion, but it is a pretty well informed one.

With practical experience employing all the airframes mentioned.

---

Well put, I agree 100%. Given the choice I take AWT & Reapers over A-10s every time. For the reasons above & many more.

quote:

---

00:28 mark of this video.

This from the guy who came up with the design. Fighting armor/tanks is a component of CAS, but the plane was not designed for that role alone.

---

What the airframe was designed for is largely irrelevant to this discussion. What the air frame is capable of, how it has been, & will be employed is.

quote:

---

00:28 mark of this video.

This from the guy who came up with the design. Fighting armor/tanks is a component of CAS, but the plane was not designed for that role alone.

---

I will partially concede the point, but think we are both right -- the design parameters for the A-X were looking at both the requirements for CAS, and the capacity to kill armor from the air in direct support of the ground fight. Recent experience in Viet Nam, Israeli use of air power against armor in the 67 war, and the Soviet threat in Western Europe all influenced the design.I acknowledge it was never intended for BAI, and didn't meant to infer that.

But as Swing Your Saber states, the changing battlefield environment makes that less relevant.

The advances in FLIR, optics in general, UAV, and precision guidance -- combined with increased lethality of integrated air defense -- make the case for A-10 less compelling.

And as I stated previously, the Apache/Reaper combination is preferable in low-intensity conflict, and the A-10 is not really survivable in a warfight against a near-peer competitor -- or even a lesser adversary with access to high tech air defense systems.

The A-10 may survive -- the Air Force included it in the FY17 POM. But only because they knew Congress would add it later, forcing them to then make other, poorly thought-out cuts. Even so the A-10 will siphon money away from other requirements. Like munitions. Or UAV CAPs. Or strategic lift. Or maintenance for other platforms we have been flying the wings off of for 15 years.

And make no mistake -- Department leadership is perfectly willing to cut the Army to 420k or below to fund modernization and other service programs. So we may keep the A-10, and the Army could give up even more BCTs to pay the cost for making-up the investment shortfalls used to fund it.

Is that a win for the ground troops? I don't think so.

There is no free chicken, here.