Recently I read news about the US air force is conducting side by side comparison of F-35 vs A-10 in close air support just to see who is better at the job. In my opinion, it is obvious that the less than 200 rounds of 25mm shells of F-35 is not up to the job of true close air support. It might be enough for one pass or two at most, but F-35 is too fast for accurate firing, and it is not as tough as A-10 in the term of taking ground fire. It also can't carry as many missiles as A-10. So what is the point of comparing when the answer is obvious?
Agreed, for close air support, the A-10 comes out ahead, imho. The "do all" of the F-35 is left wanting in some roles, like this one. Alas, the A-10 is going to be started phasing out in fiscal year 2018.
The A-10 has been in service for so long for a reason, tough as nails and packs a brutal punch. No, I do not think the F-35 will be anywhere close to what the A-10 is capable of. When the A-10 is phased out they should redesign a whole new platform aside from the F-22/F-35 projects. It will have to take an older approach and build a new beast that can take the beating the A-10 can and still survive. Heck it might even have to be a new helicopter design like a super advanced Apache or Hind.
Not even Apache kind of attack choppers can be substitute for A-10. Choppers are much slower with shorter maximal range. They can't reach battlefields nearly as quick as A-10, and they are easier to be shot down by enemy fire. As for comparison between A-10 and F-35 for close air support, it was a nobrainer. F-35 under current design can't do the same job. Accurate close air support require the aircraft to fly low and slow, the F-35 can't take nearly as much punishment as an A-10 when it is flying low. And it actually defeats the purpose of F-35 of being stealth.
Yes it would. For sure. I was just using the attack helicopters as an example. They are going to have to find a happy medium some where.
