DLT 1,646 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 According to a CNN report, the planes will square off in a competition to see which can do close air support better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Heartbreaker 1,085 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 The proven flying tank vs the expensive jacknife. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 I really hope it's not some rigged shit and they really test them. They should tie them down and do an engine ingestion test first. The A-10 engines will probably eat a small calf without failing. The f35 probably can't handle a bumble bee. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Heartbreaker 1,085 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 The A10 is DESIGNED for close air support. Paired/redundant systems and armor to protect against ground fire. I'm pretty sure the F35 couldn't take near the amount of punishment. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 What would it cost to again start up production of the A10? Don't ruin it with all the unnecessary bells and whistles, but just another new production run? Then compare THAT expense per aircraft to that of the F35? Curious. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) The F-35 would kill an A-10, in a dogfight. Granted, I love the A-10! If the 35 can carry the same loads.....good! The A-10 is a mastery of aviation! Edited April 29, 2016 by Sim_Player 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JonWienke 131 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 The A-10 is designed for close air support--flying low and relatively slow over a target and shredding it with its cannon. The F-35 is designed for supersonic air combat. One is a chisel, the other is a screwdriver, and using either to do the job of the other is flagrantly idiotic. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted April 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 Why not have them both do a low flyby via remote control while they shoot up at them with AAA. See which survives. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 Or ... flying with this good idea, let us make it greater. Impress, (draft without consent) the top brass who are polarized on this issue and order them to fly the one they DO LIKE. THEN make THEM do controlled slow fly byes subjecting each different aircraft to random AAA fire up to 23mm Soviet Stuff. THEN see which aircraft can take a licken' and keep on tickin'. Oh .... disable the ejection system. The Generals, Lawyers and Lobbyists flying the planes must stay with the aircraft. I wonder if that would change tunes? Hummm. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 My money's on the A10. ....unless the test is rigged like it was when they dropped the 1911 for that....Beretta. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted April 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 In a guns only dogfight, the F35 should come out on top due to speed alone. But you never know. If the warthog gets an angle on the 35.... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 The A10 isn't a dogfighter. It's close air support. That said, the Avenger cannon would spread that F35 all over the target range. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted April 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 Basically we are seeing mig vs skyraider all over again. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 Close support only. No high subsonic dog fighting. No stand off missile shooting. Just protecting our people on the ground. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
David Mark 2,452 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) Just a thought. What if future close air support will be being handled by a swarm of drones armed with smart bombs and/or cannons? Take out all enemy armor and fixed positions without putting US airmen in harms way and eliminating the need for the beloved Wharthog? I agree that a "competition" between the two is kind of silly. Edited April 29, 2016 by DaveM Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 There's no substitute for being there. It's called situational awareness. Sure, drones have their place in the toolbox, just not the same place as a manned aircraft. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sjgusmc21 850 Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 Yeah, the AF is just trying damn hard to get rid of the A10. Granted, everything reaches it life cycle, but, why not design a new one base on the current one? The cost would be a pin prick compared to the F35. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 There is no money in the A10 for the complex. That always ends the matter. The legacy began with the P-47 may well end with the A-10. Its more about the weapons systems than the platform anyway now or at least so we are told. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 Follow the money. The day of the Whistling Death, the P47 Jug, the Sky Raider and the Hog are probably gone with the wind. It may today have nothing to do about a feasible workable aircraft as it is all instead about getting the most profit? Whether or not the system actually works is non relevant? Didn't Eisenhower warn us of this stuff? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 (edited) Yes Ike had a possible twinge of conscience and on his way out condemned the military industrial complex as the greatest threat to the nations security. Its on youtbe BTW or was a while back. and here it is Edited April 30, 2016 by Rhodes1968 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted April 30, 2016 Report Share Posted April 30, 2016 If I was running things, the A10 would get a rebuild to Thunderbolt III. Stronger airframe, stronger engines, latest avionics,and it WILL still carry 24 500lb bombs, a full can of 30mm ammo, and still fly with 55% of it's wing surfaces shot off. Strap 24 500lb bombs to a F-35 and see if it gets off the ground! Probably won't and the engine would overtorque!!! 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rhodes1968 1,638 Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 Well nothing can be mounted outside the F-35 air frame, blows the stealth profile. Lots of problems with any aircraft that pushes the envelope, just have to wonder at what point did they push too far. Great for business though 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 Over forty five years ago my sister dated the son of a 2 star Air Force general. He did not and could not even fly. Had to wear corrective lenses to see. Fat fucker. This was in 1968 in Long Beach CA. Had a very nice home way off base, a provided car with driver and even had a servant. I was invited over for diner once and had to wear a sport jacket and tie. At the time it seemed surreal with a distinct East Coast feeling. At least to me. Seems things have only gotten worse. We will probably never see a rebirth of the HOG. Very unlikely. Probably we will not see the final completion and successful deployment of the F35 either? But: it is likely we will see the continued spending of billions of additional tax dollars attempting, (or not attempting) to keep the F35 program. The Military Industrial Complex alive and very well thank you. Meanwhile future wars with our troops in the mud requiring real time on time NOW help with NOT be forthcoming? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
saltydecimator 482 Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 What would it cost to again start up production of the A10? Don't ruin it with all the unnecessary bells and whistles, but just another new production run? Then compare THAT expense per aircraft to that of the F35? Curious. i worked across the runway from the old fairchild plant in hagerstown in like 2008. allegedly the jigs were destroyed (on purpose) awhile back.... so basicaly a long shot.... i too love the airplane, no-one dog fights anymore, or not like in the "good ol" days of ww2. so that leaves CAS to get your rocks off too.... i would join right now if i knew i had a real decent shot at flying them..... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 How many A-11 (new design) could be purchased for the price of 1 F-35? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
saltydecimator 482 Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 well go by modern procurement methods, probably 0.70, ahhahaha Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 Why not have them both do a low flyby via remote control while they shoot up at them with AAA. See which survives. You're close, but missed it. Both are made obsolete by the remote control planes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmzzl 146 Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 A10 all the way. It's designed for close air support. Why do you need the F35? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) I would build a thousand A-10s. Then let them go play in the sandbox We need to put some serious chlorine in that gene pool! Edited May 15, 2016 by unforgiven 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted May 17, 2016 Report Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) The Israeli's want the F-35. They will probably take the airframe, avionics, and weapon sytems and make it what it was supposed to be. Much less red tape. They have better tech than the USA now. 10-20 years of lax security has hurt us badly (foreign hacking). Even their nukes are said to be better. Edited May 17, 2016 by Sim_Player Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.