International Aerospace Discussion

[member_22539]

^Agree with you. I was just stating that its not worth it from an LCA technology maturity and indegenization point of view.

[SaiK]

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technol ... n_vehicle/
just imagine the whole thing shot to mars and deployed there

[Singha]

the F-16 has always had a very good combat radius for a 1-engine I think, even before the CFTs.
the CFTs reduce drag and free up 2 heavy pylons for 2000lb weapons

[UlanBatori]

Ooooh! Look at the headline!
"Jet Fires 3500 Rounds Per Minute!"
I seem to recall from the 1980s that there was a picture posted in my kindergarten showing the machine gun on the Cobra helicopter or maybe it was the AH-64, advertising 4000 rounds per minute. BUT.. those were probably cheap rounds, these 3500 cost 10 times more , so it's equivalent to blasting money at 35,000 rounds per minute, 1980s money.

P.S. Nice video linked there. Shows that the plane can Take off, Land, etc.

[UlanBatori]

According to this report, F-22 is being used to bomb the ISIS. Or to ensure air superiority in the face of the flying Toyotas of the ISIS.

Which tells me that NATO is completely lost in countering ISIS. Probably more interested in selling F-22s to the Saudis to counter the Houthis.

[NRao]

Ehud Barak: Steinitz, Ya'alon got cold feet just before Israel was about to attack Iran

[Austin]

^^ Smart Decision , They would have started a long term war in ME which no one know how they would have ended.

Now they have a diplomatic solution to the crisis

[Austin]

No MiG-31s for Damascus: Russia Denies Sending Interceptors to Syria

[brar_w]

Some nice pics courtesy SP, from Tex Scorpion's demonstrations to the RAF/RN..

[UlanBatori]

Is this the Hawk Trainer? Straight wing like Hurricanes of pre-WW2? Then why twin canted tails? Wonder why they don't stack 3 of those wings and make it look like the Red Baron's plane. Or is it the twin-engine follow-on to the F-35?

[member_28756]

According to this report, F-22 is being used to bomb the ISIS. Or to ensure air superiority in the face of the flying Toyotas of the ISIS.

Which tells me that NATO is completely lost in countering ISIS. Probably more interested in selling F-22s to the Saudis to counter the Houthis.

F 22 cannot be exported, there were a few interest but the US congress prohibits it.

[UlanBatori]

They can Lease them to the Saudis? Or to Bahrain?

[brar_w]

The F-22 is no longer in production and was not allowed to be exported. The USAF has 180 odd F-22A's against a minimum requirement (worst case) of 250 and has been forced to compensate for the difference by performing a SLEP on many squadron worth of F-15C's. Any one familiar with the F-22A and how the ACC employs it would know that the prospects of it ever being leased out to anyone are NIL....

From a legal point of view since its systems were never cleared for export and no export cleared systems every designed (the proposal was to do so for Japan while the F-22 was still in production) for it (to replace the classified systems) it cannot be leased out either. The ACC wants more F-22A's, and although that time has gone (better technology is available) in the last election cycle there was some movement to revive production. Going forward, they would rather just get a next generation fighter quicker than re-start F-22 production that is likely to cost billions just to set up a factory and train a work force.

[UlanBatori]

Doesn't the march of technology make the whole problem moot? I mean, what would happen if an F-22 were to meet an F-35 in combat? To say that the F-35 can be exported, but the F-22 cannot, makes a rather obvious statement about that answer, does it not?

As in:

Abdul-Pierre Chin-Rodrigeuz Pilotovich, I can sell you this SHINY new F-35 with the mega-cell-phone and the 3300-round-per-minute tracer gun with red, white, blue and mostly GREEN tracer bullets, which is SAME aircraft that all of our frontline forces will use for the next 30 years since we are broke, but oh, don't ask me about that ooooold, creaky, inferior, underpowered, F-22, you DON'T want that, I assure you!

[UlanBatori]

To make it a bit plainer:

Senators and Congressppl who have received the latest Classified Briefings on the state of capabilities of the fighters, have no problem letting America's 'friends' (and hence enemies) have access to as many hundreds of F-35s as they want, but they are ***NOT** letting go of the 180 F-22s that the USAF has. Not to mention the better grades of F-15s and F-14s and F-16s.

What an endorsement for the F-35!! Old American saying:

Praise da Lawd! But keep the powder dry.

[brar_w]

Doesn't the march of technology make the whole problem moot? I mean, what would happen if an F-22 were to meet an F-35 in combat? To say that the F-35 can be exported, but the F-22 cannot, makes a rather obvious statement about that answer, does it not?

F-35 program has had security clearances and transfers (getting components cleared for export) built right into it from the start and even then it took nearly 5 years of intense negotiations between the NSA, Pentagon and export customers to get the right sort of security clearenaces and negotiations to satisfy all the customers. Israel and Britain took some extra time to get there requests met.

Japan did request the DOD and the designers to chalk out the cost of getting all systems cleared (basically those that were restricted,being replaced by cleared alternatives) for export and it was more than $2 Billion. Basically if you would want to export the F-22, you would have to change the waveforms which are NSA cleared (IFDL is one of them hence the F-35 uses a similar Data link but a different waveform to the F-22A's IFDL)...same thing with the radar and other classified elements.

That point is however not even a concern when the ACC has access to a lot fewer F-22A's that it had the requirement for even in the worst case. In order to replace the F-15A-C's the F-22A purchase requirement was 400+ (Objective) and 250 (threshold)..The latter was a worst case scenario chalked up by the ACC where it would upgrade existing F-15C's that had airframe life still left on them. The rest of the capability shortfall would come from decreased air-superiority requirements. Fast forward to today, they have 70+ fewer than even their own worst case calculations (So less than 1 squadron per air-expeditionary-force)..Once the training units are removed, and the test jets there are only 120-130 combat coded F-22A's that can go to war...A 69.9% Mission availability means that at any one point, there are less than 100 F-22A's available, and you can divide that over the COCOMS (EUCOM and PACOM mostly since the rest of the commands don't need such high end capability) and see how thin the force is. Of course the F-15C and E upgrade plan is being implmemnted..F-15C's don't have the air-frame life compared to the E's and they aren't heavy fighters designed around a long airframe life but some of them have a lot of life left because they haven't been used on bomb hauling missions so they get the EPAWS, AESA radar and an IRST/5th-4th secure LPI comms...the rest of the capability comes from the F-15E's which are not at the same level of the F-15C or F-22A when it comes to performing at some of the speeds and altitudes these two aircrafts perform...but thats a capability shortcoming. Given these realities neither any politician, nor the USAF itself would even suggest something as absurd as leasing out an aircraft which has questionable utility to the two air-forces you suggested specially when the senior pentagon leadership has ruled out immediate sale of even the F-35 to a ME nation outside of Turkey and Israel over the short-medium term (hence UAE is looking at the Rafale, Kuwait at the Super Hornet and / or typhoon etc)...Saudi Arabia has a standing order for brand new F-15SA's which are the most advanced Strike Eagles ever developed including a digital-active/passive EW suite (that borrows technology from the F-35), AESA radar, IRST and a Fly By Wire system leading to larger payload carriage.

[brar_w]

To make it a bit plainer:

Senators and Congressppl who have received the latest Classified Briefings on the state of capabilities of the fighters, have no problem letting America's 'friends' (and hence enemies) have access to as many hundreds of F-35s as they want, but they are ***NOT** letting go of the 180 F-22s that the USAF has. Not to mention the better grades of F-15s and F-14s and F-16s.

What an endorsement for the F-35!! Old American saying:

Praise da Lawd! But keep the powder dry.

The F-22A and the F-35A are extremely different in what they do. The F-35 can't keep up with some of the envelopes the F-22A operates in because of the basic design requirement. On the flip side, the F-22A has a smaller subsonic combat mission radius with an air-to-ground payload compared to the F-35..It trades some of the capability required for pure strike, CAS and a multi-role capability for performance in other envelopes..For example the performance at altitude especially being able to both sustain G's at 50,000+ feet, and being able to perform its mission at 52,000 feet without after-burner..There is no way an F-35A can operate in that regime..But that is a known design trade when you are designing a multi-role strike fighter ..the F-15C has a much larger envelope than the F-16C when it comes to 50,000+ feet envelope or supersonic flight..but then the multi-role strike fighter variant of the F-15 (F-15E) looses a lot of the capability to get more strike capability (FAST PACKS, heavier airframe designed to carry a lot more payload and longer life etc etc etc)...Its a basic trade-off between a 'not a pound for air to ground' fighter like the F-15C and F-22A and a multi-role strike fighter in the F-16C blk 50, and F-35A...The only difference between the F-35A and F-16 Blk 50 is that the former can still pull 9G's with full internal payload and can reach its mach 1.6 top speed with 2x2000 pounds of bombs, 2 missiles and a full internal fuel. In that profile the F-16 blk 50/52 CANNOT even go supersonic or pull a lot of G's without dropping tanks and ditching the payload...The F-22A can sustain higher speeds than the F-35As max. speed without after-burner but then to get that capability in addition the envelope it makes trades that would make it a less than ideal platform if it were to do the F-35A's mission of replacing the F-16C, and F-18C/D..

I mean, what would happen if an F-22 were to meet an F-35 in combat?

The F-22A is a much superior air-superiority fighter when compared to the F-35 because thats pretty much all it has been designed to do. However combat-air-forces require a lot more hence multi-role fighters have always done better when it comes to export than single mission (or stretch it to some SEAD if you may as was the case of the F-22A)..The F-16 outsold the F-15C because most air-forces operate a multi-role fighter...European air-forces bought a lot of F-16's and NONE ordered the F-15C because the former was a much superior multi-role fighter, had a lower cost, lower operational cost, higher operational availability and had huge investments in making it a competent strike fighter. Once the original F-16A pure gun-fighter plans were dropped and F-16C defined, there was no stopping the F-16 compared to either the F-14 or the F-15 which were very capable but expensive, and out of reach for many operators to absorb.

Anyways the point is rather moot. The USAF cannot spare even 1 F-22A from its inventory for reasons well understood by those that look at its force structure and deployment and the overall pivot to the pacific. And the Gulf Nations aren't even getting the F-35A anytime soon outside of the program partner in Turkey and first FMS customer in Israel.

The United States expects no near-term sales in the Gulf region for the F-35 warplane, saying current fourth-generation military aircraft with new upgrades are capable of handling the threats the region faces, the Pentagon said on Sunday.

"I do not anticipate any near-term sales for the F-35 in the region," Frank Kendall, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics, told reporters in Abu Dhabi.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/ ... 7Q20150222

I don't know why you are under the impression that the F-35 is designed to be better to the F-22A. It is a different aircraft designed around a different mission. In a sensor-shooter BVR combat the F-16, that came later than the F-15C was inferior. Similarly, even with upgrades the F-16C is still inferior to the AMRAAM equipped F-15C. That gap will never shorten because the F-15 simply has better performance at higher altitude, has better, larger sensors etc. On the other hand the F-16 is just a better multi-role fighter and compared to the very impressive multi-role strike eagle, is significantly more affordable (around 25-50% lower operating cost). The F-35 is not an LWF fighter designed around LWF needs so it does not sacrifice sensor size like the F-16 (It has a 1500+ T/R module AESA for example compared to the F-16's 1000 T/R modules) but it still is designed around multi-role mission requirements where you need the loiter and subsonic radius for things like CAS, SEAD and Air to Ground bombing...As a consequence it is no F-22A at high altitude and this will be its disadvantage in the pure intercept mission just like the F-16 has and had a disadvantage vis-a-vis the F-15 in the regime. The USAF has since its tactical revival post Vietnam (when tactical began to trump strategic..) tried to maintain a 2 fighter air-force with other fighters playing a support role...The F-22 and F-35 combo shifts this from a HI-LOW mix to a HI-MED. mix given the size, weight, and sensor performance of the F-35 compared to the F-16..The F-35A will replace the F-15s and do air-superiority, but it will do it differently at lower altitudes utilizing its sensor-net, stealth and network centric capabilities to carry the day..At those altitudes, and at those speeds you will require more F-35's to provide air-superiority over a fixed area compared to F-22's but then those F-35's can do a lot more since its a multi-role fighter that can perform self escorting strike missions..

One look at some of the program materials released on the YF-22 and YF-23 and one can see what they were aiming for with these programs. It was all out, air superiority and pretty much nothing else. The capability requirement was to act as an interceptor from greater than 55,000 feet altitudes, but also be able to dogfight and both sustain G at a subsonic speed (as in the KPP's), but also the ability to pull high AOA...All in a low-observable all aspect stealth airframe. With the F-35 the performance requirements were a lot different and the trade space was large...The aircraft has to perform in air to air, air to ground including CAS, SEAD and penetrating self-esecort missions..as well as have the sensor coverage to be an ISR assets in a net centric setup..So naturally just like the Rafale is not as good as the Typhoon in a high altitude intercept the F-35 has to balance these things in its design and is way below the F-22A's capability in many air to air scenarios with the only benefits coming from better frontal stealth, and better avionics suite..

Not to mention the better grades of F-15s and F-14s and F-16s.

Better grades of those fighters are not really important..For example if Saudi Arabia wants a better F-15E to the USAF's there is really no problem..The radar they get is deployed on US aircraft (and an ever better one in the AN/Apg-82 in low rate production and being put on USAF F-15E's as we speak), the EW suite they get is coming on the F-15E's in the USAF as an upgrade..The sensors the USAF gets on them like an IRST is going to come through the MAPS / Legion Pod route..So besides having them a few years earlier the Saudi strike eagles aren't going to be a lot different from USAF F-15E's in 2025 aside from the ability to carry more missiles thanks to expanded stores that come via a FBW system.

In case of the F-16 Blk 60, remember the UAE wanted the F-16U that General Dynamics designed for the USAF, but the UAE wanted the USAF to buy some before they would commit to it..When the USAF said no, the UAE went in for the block 60 F-16 a more advanced F-16 than what the USAF operates but nothing compared to the F-35A, an aircraft the USAF had by then committed to for replacing its retiring F-16's. The USAF hasn't acquired a new F-16 for a long time so it doesn't matter what the international customers are doing with their new-orders. Same applies to the F-15E, with the difference that the USAF F-15Es are among its youngest fighters (besides the F-22's) and since they are designed around 2x the lifetime of the F-15C (hence much heavier airframes that reduce all out climb and acceleration performance compared to the F-15C) they will be upgraded at a cost of nearly $15 million per jet, because they are going to be in service till 2040.

There were no F-14's sold that were superior to the USN's F-14's, and especially not compared tot he F-14D's that retired after Afghanistan.

[Vayutuvan]

I haven't seen this posted. Please remove if duplicate.

Analyst: Russian MiG-29 and Su-27 Top American F-35

which I got from the slashdot page below where some interesting comments are posted (and funny ones as well ).

f-35-might-be-outperformed-by-fourth-generation-fighters

savuporo writes:
Defensetech.org posted a story relaying a report from National Security Network titled "Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program". According to the story, F-35 is outperformed or showing only slight advantages in simulations and limited real-life tests by decades old 4th-generation fighters like F-16 and F18, but also MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, that are of course made by Russia and latter also produced in China. The story also refers back to earlier report last month of F-35 performing poorly in dogfights. "In one simulation subcontracted by the RAND Corporation, the F-35 incurred a loss exchange ratio of 2.4–1 against Chinese Su-35s. That is, more than two F-35s were lost for each Su-35 shot down."

[brar_w]

The folks that are thanked in the NSN report pretty much tells the intent the author had..Sprey has been doing this over the last many years, he for one thinks the F-16 will keep on trumping the Su-27, 30 35 etc because the latter are large, heavy fighters .. In fact he takes the flanker production and success in the export market as a sign that the F-16 can be kept on for many more decades because it is significantly ahead of these figures

We would especially like to thank David Axe, Winslow Wheeler, Mandy Smithberger, Pierre Sprey, Larry Korb, Kate Blakeley, and Bill Hartung for reviewing drafts of the paper and providing valuable feedback that immensely benefited this work.

So mix a hipster blogger, a left wing-trust fund funded retired-analyst and his protege (the organization started off with the M-1 Tank and got that totally wrong..luckily the M-1 survived the non-sense but unfortunately so did the organization that changed their name later to POGO), Sprey, who completely lets the news media call him "designer of the f-16, F-15 and A-10" and who claims a radar is useless addition on a fighter and has been on odds with the USAF ever since they converted the WVR ONLY gun figure of the F-16A to the block 30 F-16 that was actually USEFUL..


Here's Sprey at his finest ...

The Su-30MK is simply another modification of the Su-27, a not-very-high-performing Russian imitation of our F-15 that had its prototype flight in 1977. The new version is significantly heavier and has poorer dogfight acceleration and turn than the original, mainly because of all the weighty and draggy gadgetry (e.g., canards, vectored thrust nozzles) added to allow these spectacular maneuvers [performed at airshows – ZM].

The more of these turkeys the Russkies sell, the longer the now-ancient F-16 (designed in 1972) will reign supreme as the world’s best fighter. And the less reason we will have to buy F-22s at $355 million each.”

The rest of the stuff is basically a literature review of POGO articles...Its relatively easy to design a world class weapons system, but impossible to design one that POGO will like..

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... s-aft.html

In one simulation subcontracted by the RAND Corporation, the F-35 incurred a loss exchange ratio of 2.4–1 against Chinese Su-35s.

And it was later revealed that the SIMULATION was conducting using a video game (Harpoon 5) and the assumptions were mostly taken from APA as opposed to any data from the OEM, developer or the classified capability of either aircraft. Talk about credible wargaming..no wonder RAND totally disassociated itself from the study and the person who conducted it left for Northrop Grumman and now actually takes a position 180 degrees opposite to what he did back them (perhaps he has access to actual full system war gaming and simulation data?)

The problem of presstitutes is not exclusive to India..Washington is full of 20-30 year old so called analysts (ex or current policy wonks) that have absolutely no background in aerospace, engineering or the military but publish policy driven (and often agenda driven as in right wing, left wing, reformer etc etc) reports aimed mostly towards the press that then picks it up and claims analyst claims XYZ not going into the facts that the analyst himself/herself has absolutely ZERO credibility or experience but more importantly the background to talk on the matter with any degree of expertise.

[Vayutuvan]

No wonder it got linked from /. then?

[Austin]

Japan Working On Anti-Stealth Missile Guidance

[SaiK]

http://www.janes.com/article/53770/f-35 ... round-test

Evaluators fire the GAU-22/A 25 mm gun from static ground test F-35A aircraft AF-2, at the Edwards Air Force Base, California, gun harmonising range on 14 August. Source: F-35 Integrated Test Force

Key Points
An F-35 test article fired 181 rounds from its Gatling gun during a 14 August ground test
The gun is scheduled to be fully operational in 2017

[brar_w]

They have to finish ground testing and wait for full 3F capability to be certified for flight. Since the F-35 lacks a Heads Up Display the next software version has to be fielded to frontline aircraft before they can take the gun up in the air in an operational setting. The final definitive version of the helmet has now been delivered and block 3F will be ported over to the test jet fleet end of next year. (its currently in flight testing aboard the test bed) They should wind up ground testing of the cannon soon and then move to ground testing the podded cannon.

[NRao]

how a nazi rocket could have put a briton in space

[Singha]

what is the role of podded cannon in JSF when it has a inbuilt cannon?

will it take over A10 role with a podded GAU9

[jayasimha]

http://www.microwavejournal.com/article ... ghter-jets

For all its troubles, Lockheed Martin's F-35 joint stealth fighter remains a very popular warplane -- both here and abroad.....

If you ask Lockheed Martin, its F-35 stealth fighter isn't really all that an expensive plane to begin with. According to the company's website, a plain vanilla F-35A fighter jet costs only $98 million

[Singha]

Here's the Chinese factory where Airbus assembles its most popular plane

http://flip.it/OYGYf

Uber tfta surgical neatness

[Singha]

from my limited understanding a scramjet engine does not feature any moving parts right ?
so once someone has mastered the advanced aerodynamics needed, a scramjet engine would be relatively easier and cheaper to make than a regular turbofan , albeit it will be use-and-throw only?

does it need some exotic material also that is beyond current science?

[member_22539]

^Seems so, with focus on high temperature and strength. They have been at this since early in the cold war and only now has material sciences and computer models measured up to the needs to create something workable.

[Viv S]

what is the role of podded cannon in JSF when it has a inbuilt cannon?

will it take over A10 role with a podded GAU9

Only the F-35A has an integral cannon. The carrier based B & C variants will have to employ a gun pod if the want that capability in a particular mission.

[Singha]

wierd. so if it merges into wvr with missiles out, the best they can do is turn and run away

the marine version to support shore ops surely needs a gun.

[Viv S]

wierd. so if it merges into wvr with missiles out, the best they can do is turn and run away

the marine version to support shore ops surely needs a gun.

Well thing is, if you're an F-22 or PAK FA pilot who's out of missiles getting into a merge with say.. an F-5 equipped with a Elbit HMD and a pair of Python 5s, there's a good chance that its the third gen fighter that'll prevail. The gun will really only be decisive when the your adversary is out of missiles too. Possible but unlikely. When out of missiles, its really best to be hightailing it for home.

Similar situation with A2G ops too; if you're flying low enough to hit a target on the ground with your gun (slant range <2km), you're within the envelope for hostile AAA & SR-SAMs too. Much safer to engage with SDBs from altitude. Of course where the ground threat isn't significant and you want to carry out a strafing run, the gun pod can be carried without any RCS concerns.

IIRC the RAF wanted to replace cannons on the their EF T1s with ballast. They eventually dropped the plan when they figured out that the replacement would cost more than they'd save foregoing the cannon.

On the other hand, there is the psychological factor at play. A pilot with a last ditch fall-back weapon will always be more confident than one without, even when it delivers very limited marginal utility in the vast majority of combat situations.

[Singha]

in afghanistan, some F15 did manage to go in low and strafe taliban convoys. seeing as how 99% of the time amrika is fighting similar colonial bush wars, a integral gun would have been useful atleast for amrika JSF. maybe they can fit a powerful cannon and ammo into the internal bay for such missions.....just open the bay doors, the gun slides down and unleashes a barrage

[Viv S]

in afghanistan, some F15 did manage to go in low and strafe taliban convoys. seeing as how 99% of the time amrika is fighting similar colonial bush wars, a integral gun would have been useful atleast for amrika JSF. maybe they can fit a powerful cannon and ammo into the internal bay for such missions.....just open the bay doors, the gun slides down and unleashes a barrage

Yes, but when you're fighting the Taliban and the like, you don't need to be worried about RCS. Just sling a gun pod underneath and you're good-to-go.

[NRao]

Welsh: F-35 To Conduct Different CAS Missions Than A-10

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Monday that any plan to compare the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s ability to do close air support (CAS) to that of the A-10 Warthog, which currently flies those missions, would be “a silly exercise.”

"The F-35's mission in the close air support arena would be to do high-threat close air support in a contested environment that the A-10 would not be able to survive in. That will be the role of the F-35,” he said during a briefing to reporters, adding that the aircraft will not be able to conduct CAS mission until at least 2021, when it reaches full operational capability.

"The idea that the F-35 is going to walk into the door next year when it becomes [initially operational] and takes over for the A-10 is just silly. It's never been our intent and we've never said that,” he said.

Still yet to be seen is whether Welsh’s objections will sway the Pentagon’s independent testing community.

Last week, an official from office of the director of test and evaluation (DOT&E) revealed plans to administer “comparative tests” between the F-35 and A-10 during initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in 2017. The tests would gauge any new capabilities the F-35 could bring to the table, as well as any deficiencies it has compared to the legacy platform. (Defense Daily, Aug. 20).

Should the A-10 perform well, it could add more fuel to the arguments of Warthog proponents who have argued for the platform’s continued use by the Air Force. The service has been trying to retire the platform since 2014 to fund other budget priorities.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said that if the service could spend “billions and billions” of dollars more than the president’s budget request, it would like to retain the A-10.

“But in a budget constrained environment, this is one of the tough choices that we had to make for the sake of moving forward and modernizing,” she said.

Welsh pointed out another problem with being forced to keep platforms it would like to divest, such as the A-10 and U-2 spy plane: Unless those aircraft are retired, the service doesn’t have enough maintainers to repair the F-35.

“We have enough airmen identified and in training to make the IOC (initial operational capability) date. The IOC date has never been a concern for the maintenance side of the house. It’s full operational capability that is the problem,” he said.

“Eventually” Welsh would like to procure a replacement for the A-10 that would be designed from the ground up to conduct CAS in low threat environments, he said.

There currently is no program of record on the books for that capability.

[NRao]

To Prove Its CAS Capabilities, F-35 To Face Off Against A-10

[Khalsa]

Egypt gets its first 3 of 24.
http://www.thecairopost.com/news/160306 ... l-to-egypt

[brar_w]

Welsh: F-35 To Conduct Different CAS Missions Than A-10

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Monday that any plan to compare the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s ability to do close air support (CAS) to that of the A-10 Warthog, which currently flies those missions, would be “a silly exercise.”

"The F-35's mission in the close air support arena would be to do high-threat close air support in a contested environment that the A-10 would not be able to survive in. That will be the role of the F-35,” he said during a briefing to reporters, adding that the aircraft will not be able to conduct CAS mission until at least 2021, when it reaches full operational capability.

"The idea that the F-35 is going to walk into the door next year when it becomes [initially operational] and takes over for the A-10 is just silly. It's never been our intent and we've never said that,” he said.

Still yet to be seen is whether Welsh’s objections will sway the Pentagon’s independent testing community.

Last week, an official from office of the director of test and evaluation (DOT&E) revealed plans to administer “comparative tests” between the F-35 and A-10 during initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in 2017. The tests would gauge any new capabilities the F-35 could bring to the table, as well as any deficiencies it has compared to the legacy platform. (Defense Daily, Aug. 20).

Should the A-10 perform well, it could add more fuel to the arguments of Warthog proponents who have argued for the platform’s continued use by the Air Force. The service has been trying to retire the platform since 2014 to fund other budget priorities.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said that if the service could spend “billions and billions” of dollars more than the president’s budget request, it would like to retain the A-10.

“But in a budget constrained environment, this is one of the tough choices that we had to make for the sake of moving forward and modernizing,” she said.

Welsh pointed out another problem with being forced to keep platforms it would like to divest, such as the A-10 and U-2 spy plane: Unless those aircraft are retired, the service doesn’t have enough maintainers to repair the F-35.

“We have enough airmen identified and in training to make the IOC (initial operational capability) date. The IOC date has never been a concern for the maintenance side of the house. It’s full operational capability that is the problem,” he said.

“Eventually” Welsh would like to procure a replacement for the A-10 that would be designed from the ground up to conduct CAS in low threat environments, he said.

There currently is no program of record on the books for that capability.

Replied to a similar story here

Simply put, At the A-10's mission the F35A is significantly inferior. However in a moderately defended environment the A-10 cannot perform the mission it was designed to perform a few decades ago. Its armor and protection is inadequate for modern day MANPADS and SHORADS..and its 30mm round is not tactically game-changing against modern armor (that is likely to proliferate). If you want to do CAS using the 30mm cannon against the Taliban, then by all accounts the F-35 is not your aircraft for that role. If you want to do anything else, then the A-10 is not the best at CAS. As has been said CAS IS A MISSION and not a platform, or an aircraft. In an ideal world you would love a few squadrons of A-10's or a dedicated successor to the A_10 for permissive environments however no one lives in an ideal world and there is no money to go out and develop an aircraft. For roles where the armor isn't a big concern and you just want to drop ordinance on target using a high loiter, persistent net enabled aircraft and do IT CHEAP, you can look at off the shelf solutions that can give you ISR and CAS for as low as $2500 per hour if not lower (Many times below the A-10's operating cost) -

[Singha]

with modern sensors and armour, and modern version of the legendary RR merlin engine, this puppy would be great against people who have nothing but the odd manpad...esp at night

[Manish_P]

Weren't there some plans being explored in 2012-13 to develop the A-10s into Unmanned versions with full controls in the hands of the ground units

It would reduce the risk of pilot losses for sure.

Some concept depictions by fans: