6 ms·

While the A-10 is not comparable with the F-35 playground, it was a plane that saved the budget and fit well into the military. The service made, the capabiliti

While the A-10 is not comparable with the F-35 playground, it was a plane that saved the budget and fit well into the military. The service made, the capabilities and the cost was really good. Same with the F-15. I think the F-35 is the result of hubris.

hangonhn 7y ago
It's interesting you categorize both A-10 and F-15 in the good bucket because the same group of people responsible for the A-10 (F-16 and F/A-18) were very against the F-15. The F-16 and F/A-18 were actually spun up in opposition to the F-15 by the "Fighter Mafia". That group of people favored cheap, numerous planes that did one job really well, hence the F-16 and A-10. Both of those are undoubted successes but at the same time most people would consider the F-15 a success too. I wonder if F-35 would ultimately prove to be a success the same way the F-15 did.
- meerita 7y ago
  Indeed, the F-16 was success, as well the F-18. F-15 was too a success, at its way. Another good example but now well retired was F-14. But the entire generation of planes of that era was really good. F-35 was beaten in dogfight by a F-16 in excercises. I don't think it's a good plane because it's heavy and want to do everything planes aren't good design either.
  - metalliqaz 7y ago
    The F-35 was not built for dogfighting. It is supposed to sense and launch long before the opponents are even in visual range.
    - VLM 7y ago
      I'll go on a limb and claim for publicity and political fallout reasons there will never be enough BVR RoE airspace to make BVR relevant to aircraft design. There's a difference between the classic definition of BVR meaning slinging a missile at a blip no one has seen 30 miles away, vs the F-35 concept which is to have excellent sensor suite leading to the pilot having excellent situational awareness so the pilot can shoot down the other plane before the other plane knows they're present, etc. Its tricky to get into visual range to visually identify the target as a mig-21 and not a 767 full of civilians without at least some dogfighting performance.
    - meerita 7y ago
      The F-35 it's multirole. single-engine, all-weather, stealth multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. So it has to deal with all kinds of dangers. It's I-want-to-do-it-all aircraft that will not outperform anyone who specializes, unless the technical advantadge is on, ie. killing by range without being seen. But F-35 could kill lesser aircrafts, maybe 3 or early 4th generations but cannot outmatch other fighters with same technology. F-22 is way better for that.
      - onepointsixC 7y ago
        3rd gens? Really? Don't you think it's a bit unbecoming to exaggerate so much considering it has achieved 15:1 kill ratios? It's IRST capability even actually gives it the capability to spot F-22's first. Furthermore, the F-16 was do-it-all aircraft. And it did it damn well. The F-35 is even better.
        meerita 7y ago
        New generations fighters have the same range detection. And "stealth technology" is still on claim, in fact russian radars detected many planes with ease. An F-117 was shot down too. I will not rely on that, since all the 4th gen airplanes and 5th have same capabilities.
        onepointsixC 7y ago
        RCS reduction specifically targets X and S band radars because those are the ones which are precise enough used for firing solutions. You need those bands in order to either direct a missile onto a target or have a active seeking missile find it's target. What you're talking about is L band radar, which has existed since the 40's. But it's use is as a early warning system. The problem is that the resolution of it is orders of magnitude worse. For it to be actually useful today you need to build a massive radar which is very power hungry. That's a perfect target for a first hour cruise missile strike. And that's not even getting to the part that the only reason why L band can even detect F35's and F22's is because that they have features like vertical stabilizers which are too small relative to the wavelength. B2's and B21's do not have this issue. Finally the idea that one F-117 shot down somehow invalidates that fact that the F-117's stealthiness provided it protection with 99% effectiveness is absurd. The reason why it was shot down was because of USAF's arrogance in flying identical flight paths day on day and a SAM operator realizing this and succeeding in targeting it the moment it opened it's bomb bays, when it's stealth was degraded.
    - dexen 7y ago
      >The F-35 was not built for dogfighting. It is supposed to sense and launch long before the opponents are even in visual range. The very same hubris caused trouble in Vietnam, which were fixed with rapid re-introduction of guns to fighters, and dogfighting to fighter schools. Sad to see this lesson having been lost.
      - metalliqaz 7y ago
        Don't forget that the US still deploys F22 and F15... The F35 isn't replacing those planes.
  - onepointsixC 7y ago
    Are you sure that the F16 was a success? After all, it was decried as a horrible plan early in its program and service just like the F-35[1]. Also, that F-35 that lost to an F-16 was software limited undergoing testing for the explicit purpose of testing its limits. The plane has had those limits raised since and it has done very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM
    - hangonhn 7y ago
      A fair point! I guess I was trying to use F-15 and other aircraft that were decried as bad by critics early on but later turned out to be successes.
- ranger207 7y ago
  Worth noting that the F-16 is not what the Fighter Mafia wanted at all; they preferred a daytime only fighter that carried only a couple of missiles, while it's evolved to carry much heavier ordnance and much more advanced sensors. However, the simplicity of the design concept did result in a much easier path to service. The initial design was an MVP that was followed on by successive upgrades, whereas the F-35 is more of a program designed to come into being all at once.
VLM 7y ago
The A10 is only viewed as successful today because its very old. Back in initial production in the Carter years they discovered awful metal fatigue problems in the wings. In the early Reagan years they bolted on braces to toughen up the joint. Still kept failing. Around the turn of the century barely before the GWOT the air force realized the wings were failing so fast they'd run out of replacement wings around 2010, so right after the GWOT started (which is getting to be one human generation ago...) they rushed a contract thru to slap repairs on the existing wings and then replace entirely with new wings. As of late 2010s the wing replacement project (about $2B) and the air force desire to get rid of the A10 were dueling with each other, kinda crazy. AFAIK that battle continues today. With new wings we'll be flying those things into mid century. There's never been an engineering project that hasn't had teething problems. Currently, the F35 does not have its wings falling off, the gun mounts merely need beefing up. Thats better than the A10 track record. If thats the worst problem the F35 has, that's pretty good! There's also a lot of irony in that the A10 has been under seemingly continuous avionics upgrades for its entire life; you could probably build a F-35 with 1970s avionics for an 1970s price.. so unfair to compare a price tag for a 1970s plane that's been infinitely upgraded since, with a 2020s plane and its 2020s price tag. Also the leadership of the air force has been trying to get rid of the A10 for some decades now. Some doctrine insists close air support should be an army helo job, not an air force strategic bomber job. The problem with the A10 is if you don't expect soviet tanks to pour across Germany there's no point in a giant flying gun. And if you need air launched anti-armor, the army does a better job with human on board helos and the air force does a better job with drone launched missiles. It just doesn't seem to have a point anymore. It can be made to work, and has worked, but the alternatives are a better match. The troops can and have been supported with a A10, but they'd be better and more quickly supported with multiple apache helos or a swarm of existing drone platforms for the same cost and effort.
- meerita 7y ago
  > The A10 is only viewed as successful today because its very old. It's more than that. The amount of service, casualties dealt that any other aircraft I would dare to say. At the Gulf War in 1991, teh A-10 destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces. The A-10 has more casualties than the F-16 with more than 4k built againts just a 700 production of A-10. I think it's remarkable, just as comparison. All aircrafts had problems and were upgraded. All of them. Some of them with bigger problems others minor. The problems in the A-10 came after 8000 hours of service.
RobLach 7y ago
From those more in the know I've heard they are constantly having to fight to retire the A-10 which is a program mostly kept alive for solider morale and civilian fan reasons. The rumors are that the leadership in the Marines would much rather have more single engine turboprop aircraft like the T-6 or A29 for Close Air Support missions, aircraft which cost at least 10x less to run.
- elabajaba 7y ago
  John McCain wouldn't let the Airforce retire the A-10 because most of the A-10s were based in Arizona, and he was afraid of the job losses from having airbases close (aka the dreaded BRAC).

hangonhn 7y ago

It's interesting you categorize both A-10 and F-15 in the good bucket because the same group of people responsible for the A-10 (F-16 and F/A-18) were very against the F-15. The F-16 and F/A-18 were actually spun up in opposition to the F-15 by the "Fighter Mafia". That group of people favored cheap, numerous planes that did one job really well, hence the F-16 and A-10. Both of those are undoubted successes but at the same time most people would consider the F-15 a success too. I wonder if F-35 would ultimately prove to be a success the same way the F-15 did.

meerita 7y ago
Indeed, the F-16 was success, as well the F-18. F-15 was too a success, at its way. Another good example but now well retired was F-14. But the entire generation of planes of that era was really good. F-35 was beaten in dogfight by a F-16 in excercises. I don't think it's a good plane because it's heavy and want to do everything planes aren't good design either.
- metalliqaz 7y ago
  The F-35 was not built for dogfighting. It is supposed to sense and launch long before the opponents are even in visual range.
  - VLM 7y ago
    I'll go on a limb and claim for publicity and political fallout reasons there will never be enough BVR RoE airspace to make BVR relevant to aircraft design. There's a difference between the classic definition of BVR meaning slinging a missile at a blip no one has seen 30 miles away, vs the F-35 concept which is to have excellent sensor suite leading to the pilot having excellent situational awareness so the pilot can shoot down the other plane before the other plane knows they're present, etc. Its tricky to get into visual range to visually identify the target as a mig-21 and not a 767 full of civilians without at least some dogfighting performance.
  - meerita 7y ago
    The F-35 it's multirole. single-engine, all-weather, stealth multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. So it has to deal with all kinds of dangers. It's I-want-to-do-it-all aircraft that will not outperform anyone who specializes, unless the technical advantadge is on, ie. killing by range without being seen. But F-35 could kill lesser aircrafts, maybe 3 or early 4th generations but cannot outmatch other fighters with same technology. F-22 is way better for that.
    - onepointsixC 7y ago
      3rd gens? Really? Don't you think it's a bit unbecoming to exaggerate so much considering it has achieved 15:1 kill ratios? It's IRST capability even actually gives it the capability to spot F-22's first. Furthermore, the F-16 was do-it-all aircraft. And it did it damn well. The F-35 is even better.
      - meerita 7y ago
        New generations fighters have the same range detection. And "stealth technology" is still on claim, in fact russian radars detected many planes with ease. An F-117 was shot down too. I will not rely on that, since all the 4th gen airplanes and 5th have same capabilities.
        onepointsixC 7y ago
        RCS reduction specifically targets X and S band radars because those are the ones which are precise enough used for firing solutions. You need those bands in order to either direct a missile onto a target or have a active seeking missile find it's target. What you're talking about is L band radar, which has existed since the 40's. But it's use is as a early warning system. The problem is that the resolution of it is orders of magnitude worse. For it to be actually useful today you need to build a massive radar which is very power hungry. That's a perfect target for a first hour cruise missile strike. And that's not even getting to the part that the only reason why L band can even detect F35's and F22's is because that they have features like vertical stabilizers which are too small relative to the wavelength. B2's and B21's do not have this issue. Finally the idea that one F-117 shot down somehow invalidates that fact that the F-117's stealthiness provided it protection with 99% effectiveness is absurd. The reason why it was shot down was because of USAF's arrogance in flying identical flight paths day on day and a SAM operator realizing this and succeeding in targeting it the moment it opened it's bomb bays, when it's stealth was degraded.
  - dexen 7y ago
    >The F-35 was not built for dogfighting. It is supposed to sense and launch long before the opponents are even in visual range. The very same hubris caused trouble in Vietnam, which were fixed with rapid re-introduction of guns to fighters, and dogfighting to fighter schools. Sad to see this lesson having been lost.
    - metalliqaz 7y ago
      Don't forget that the US still deploys F22 and F15... The F35 isn't replacing those planes.
- onepointsixC 7y ago
  Are you sure that the F16 was a success? After all, it was decried as a horrible plan early in its program and service just like the F-35[1]. Also, that F-35 that lost to an F-16 was software limited undergoing testing for the explicit purpose of testing its limits. The plane has had those limits raised since and it has done very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM
  - hangonhn 7y ago
    A fair point! I guess I was trying to use F-15 and other aircraft that were decried as bad by critics early on but later turned out to be successes.
ranger207 7y ago
Worth noting that the F-16 is not what the Fighter Mafia wanted at all; they preferred a daytime only fighter that carried only a couple of missiles, while it's evolved to carry much heavier ordnance and much more advanced sensors. However, the simplicity of the design concept did result in a much easier path to service. The initial design was an MVP that was followed on by successive upgrades, whereas the F-35 is more of a program designed to come into being all at once.

VLM 7y ago

The A10 is only viewed as successful today because its very old. Back in initial production in the Carter years they discovered awful metal fatigue problems in the wings. In the early Reagan years they bolted on braces to toughen up the joint. Still kept failing. Around the turn of the century barely before the GWOT the air force realized the wings were failing so fast they'd run out of replacement wings around 2010, so right after the GWOT started (which is getting to be one human generation ago...) they rushed a contract thru to slap repairs on the existing wings and then replace entirely with new wings. As of late 2010s the wing replacement project (about $2B) and the air force desire to get rid of the A10 were dueling with each other, kinda crazy. AFAIK that battle continues today. With new wings we'll be flying those things into mid century. There's never been an engineering project that hasn't had teething problems. Currently, the F35 does not have its wings falling off, the gun mounts merely need beefing up. Thats better than the A10 track record. If thats the worst problem the F35 has, that's pretty good! There's also a lot of irony in that the A10 has been under seemingly continuous avionics upgrades for its entire life; you could probably build a F-35 with 1970s avionics for an 1970s price.. so unfair to compare a price tag for a 1970s plane that's been infinitely upgraded since, with a 2020s plane and its 2020s price tag. Also the leadership of the air force has been trying to get rid of the A10 for some decades now. Some doctrine insists close air support should be an army helo job, not an air force strategic bomber job. The problem with the A10 is if you don't expect soviet tanks to pour across Germany there's no point in a giant flying gun. And if you need air launched anti-armor, the army does a better job with human on board helos and the air force does a better job with drone launched missiles. It just doesn't seem to have a point anymore. It can be made to work, and has worked, but the alternatives are a better match. The troops can and have been supported with a A10, but they'd be better and more quickly supported with multiple apache helos or a swarm of existing drone platforms for the same cost and effort.

meerita 7y ago
> The A10 is only viewed as successful today because its very old. It's more than that. The amount of service, casualties dealt that any other aircraft I would dare to say. At the Gulf War in 1991, teh A-10 destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces. The A-10 has more casualties than the F-16 with more than 4k built againts just a 700 production of A-10. I think it's remarkable, just as comparison. All aircrafts had problems and were upgraded. All of them. Some of them with bigger problems others minor. The problems in the A-10 came after 8000 hours of service.

RobLach 7y ago

From those more in the know I've heard they are constantly having to fight to retire the A-10 which is a program mostly kept alive for solider morale and civilian fan reasons. The rumors are that the leadership in the Marines would much rather have more single engine turboprop aircraft like the T-6 or A29 for Close Air Support missions, aircraft which cost at least 10x less to run.

elabajaba 7y ago
John McCain wouldn't let the Airforce retire the A-10 because most of the A-10s were based in Arizona, and he was afraid of the job losses from having airbases close (aka the dreaded BRAC).