5 ms·

> So it’s not that the F35 is ineffective but that there is still more work to do. A full third of the article is about how the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 fo

> So it’s not that the F35 is ineffective but that there is still more work to do. A full third of the article is about how the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 for the specific application of close air support. The last part of the article is about how the F-35C is poorly designed for maintenance on aircraft carriers. I don't see how either situation can be resolved with new software.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
slededit 8y ago
The A-10 is useless against countries that pose an existential threat. The US military has to plan for combat with peer nations if it wants to serve its purported role as a national defense force. Just because we've spent the last 20 years killing people in poor countries with inferior weapons doesn't mean we won't ever combat a developed nation.
forapurpose 8y ago
> the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 for the specific application of close air support The A-10 is defenseless against modern air defense systems; it wouldn't get within 100 miles of the battlefield against a sophisticated enemy; it would be merely a flying coffin for the pilot. Against unsophisticated enemies, such as ISIL, a drone could do the job, based on what I understand. The F-35 could too, though it's an expensive option.
- Latteland 8y ago
  And of course it turns out we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them. We need more. They are cheap. We need a variety of different airplanes for different scenarios.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them We use them because we have them. Lots of people use high-carbon emissions cars and planes, and Facebook, but I'm not sure it's fantastic that we have them.
- SFjulie1 8y ago
  You must have missed the part where a 50k$ Czech passive radar is defeating the F35 stealth capability. Problem of EM sensors is most often then not, are active (especially radars and IFF), they broadcast or ping signals thus leaving quite a huge EM signature that can be pinpointed precisely with 3 antennas.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

slededit 8y ago

The A-10 is useless against countries that pose an existential threat. The US military has to plan for combat with peer nations if it wants to serve its purported role as a national defense force. Just because we've spent the last 20 years killing people in poor countries with inferior weapons doesn't mean we won't ever combat a developed nation.

forapurpose 8y ago

> the F-35 is inferior to the A-10 for the specific application of close air support The A-10 is defenseless against modern air defense systems; it wouldn't get within 100 miles of the battlefield against a sophisticated enemy; it would be merely a flying coffin for the pilot. Against unsophisticated enemies, such as ISIL, a drone could do the job, based on what I understand. The F-35 could too, though it's an expensive option.

Latteland 8y ago
And of course it turns out we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them. We need more. They are cheap. We need a variety of different airplanes for different scenarios.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > we use A10s frequently right now, so it's fantastic that we have them We use them because we have them. Lots of people use high-carbon emissions cars and planes, and Facebook, but I'm not sure it's fantastic that we have them.
SFjulie1 8y ago
You must have missed the part where a 50k$ Czech passive radar is defeating the F35 stealth capability. Problem of EM sensors is most often then not, are active (especially radars and IFF), they broadcast or ping signals thus leaving quite a huge EM signature that can be pinpointed precisely with 3 antennas.