General: F-35 Will Initially Lag Older Aircraft in Close Air Support


The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s newest and most expensive weapons program, will only offer limited close air support when it begins operational flights in the Air Force next year, a top general said.

“In many ways, it won’t have the some of the capabilities of our current platforms,” Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, head of the service’s Air Combat Command, acknowledged during a briefing with reporters on Friday at the Pentagon.

His comments came as lawmakers have begun debating the Defense Department’s fiscal 2016 budget request, which resurrects a controversial proposal to retire the A-10 attack aircraft. The Cold War-era plane, known as the Warthog, is designed to support ground troops with a 30mm, seven-barrel Gatling gun, called the GAU-8/A Avenger.

Air Force officials are pushing to divest the A-10, largely due to automatic budget cuts, despite recently deploying the aircraft to the Middle East to fight militants affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The low, slow-flying gunship was also recently sent back to Europe in a show of support to the Ukraine, which is battling pro-Russian separatists.

Lawmakers have previously rejected the service’s proposal to send the Warthog to the bone yard, in part because the F-35, which is designed to replace the A-10 and other aircraft, can’t yet perform the close air support mission.

Lockheed Martin Corp., the Pentagon’s biggest contractor, is developing three versions of the stealthy, fifth-generation fighter under a $400 billion acquisition program to build a total of 2,443 aircraft.

The F-35B, the Marine Corps’ jump-set variant, is scheduled to enter so-called initial operational capability, or IOC, later this year, followed by the F-35A, the Air Force’s conventional version, in the latter half of 2016, followed by the F-35C, the Navy’s aircraft carrier variant, in 2019.

Carlisle said the F-35A won’t initially be able to perform “advanced” close air support “because those are systems that are going to be coming onto the airplane in later blocks.”

The technologies the aircraft will initially lack include the large area, high-definition synthetic aperture radar known as “BIG SAR,” which is needed to get the best functionality out of the electro-optical targeting system, as well as a pinpoint glide bomb known as the Small Diameter Bomb II, or SDB-II, the general said.

Carlisle said the systems are slated to be integrated into the aircraft as part of a Block 4 software upgrade, the first version of which isn’t scheduled to arrive until 2021. “All of those are things that are going to be coming on in Block 4,” he said.

Even the F-35’s 25mm, four-barrel GAU-22 gun won’t be ready for at least a couple of more years.

So which weapons will the airplane initially carry? The Marine Corps’ F-35B will enter service with Block 2B software, which lets pilots fire a pair of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles, AMRAAMs, or drop a pair of satellite-guided bombs or laser-guided weapons — not exactly the armament of choice for close-in missions.

About the Author

Brendan McGarry
Brendan McGarry is the managing editor of He can be reached at Follow him on Twitter at @Brendan_McGarry.
  • Lance

    So even the JSF wont be ready for combat till after 2022. And yet the Obama Zombies in the DoD want to gut our fighter and CAS fleets, in order for there pet project like MHS JSF and AAPV. Shows how corrupt and out of reality brass in Washington DC are. We need fire these rich corrupt generals and get real leaders back to there jobs ASAP!

    Time for real weapons like a new fighter and tanks that we need not crap like new handguns and another M-113 replacement we don’t need, and a fighter which may never be fully operational.

    • Mitchell Fuller

      These generals know what their doing (sarcasm).

      The way I see it, is have them put their asses where their mouths are, have them man a really poor defensive location ( where was that horribly located FOB in the valley in A-Stan?), notify the bad guys that we have all this brass their and then, here’s the catch, they can only use F-35s for close air support………

    • William_C1

      If you’ve seen the condition of those M113s you’d see why a replacement is needed. The thin armor doesn’t help either. The winner which is basically a M2 without a turret makes a lot of sense for commonality purposes.

      Saying “new fighter” as in one design is just setting the stage for problems. The Air Force wanted more F-22s but were overruled by those who’d rather try to make one aircraft do everything. The F-35 already had a big enough challenge replacing the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8. From a design standpoint the F-35 will do that and exceed those aircraft in most areas. From a design standpoint there is also nothing about the aircraft dooming it to be horribly expensive as critics would claim. Of course business and politics cloud the picture.

      • citanon

        F35a prices will converge with f16 prices by 2020. After that it will actually be cheaper to get an f35 than a 4th gen fighter.

        Economies of scale…… Work.

        • balais

          Thats assuming 2200 airframes are purchased. The cost factor remains to be seen.

          • citanon

            No, that’s assuming they reach full rate production and current cost reduction trends continue.

            Judging by f-16 sales numbers, by the time we start agonizing about how expensive the f-55 is becoming and how it’s years behind schedule, well be pointing to the affoef-35 and noting how there are 4000 airframe in service around the world etc.

          • balais

            Like I said, that remains to be seen.

            “noting how there are 4000 airframe in service around the world etc”

            That is, as they say, “a tall order”

          • citanon

            Except there over 4000 F-16s sold today. The F-35 will be the F-16 of the next 40 years. Any US ally seeking to leverage large scales of economy, parts commonality and interoperability will buy them if they are allowed to.

        • balais

          Thats assuming 2200 airframes are purchased. The cost factor remains to be seen.

    • Snafuperman

      The “new fighter” is actually two aircraft, which replace the high end roles covered by the F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-22/F-15E. They don’t replace the F-35, and are going to be a stretch to fund anyway.

      Also, those 50 year old M113s are pathetic in today’s world. Paper thin armor and can’t keep up with modern forces. Replacing them with turretless M2s creates a parts system with a lot more commonality, and greatly increases capability and survivability. And by the way, the Army wasn’t asking more tanks – they were just getting them to keep up the production line until the big set of new updates come in.

      • William_C1

        If you’re referring to the “6th generation” fighters the Navy and Air Force are thinking about you are correct. I think Lance was referring to an alternative to the F-35 however. Yet because it has to replace the same aircraft there are going to be compromises involved and challenges during development. It would be a waste of money considering the work done on the F-35.

        Right about the M113. Besides for old age consider how frequently the war in Afghanistan and Iraq involved “rear echelon” units and support vehicles getting involved in direct combat. The new M2-based vehicles are going to be a lot better protected than the minimum of armor the M113-based vehicles had.

        • Mark

          The Bradley fighting vehicle was the M113 replacement.

          • blight_

            Only for the armored personnel carriers assigned to rifle squads and scouts. The M113 absorbed the M114’s scout role due to the latters poor performance in RVN. Then the Bradley replaced these two in the M2 and M3 variants. The M113 is still in a variety of places in a TO&E, along with its command variant, the M577.

            Replacing the engineer vehicle, the ambulance, the mortar carrier, any FIST vehicles is what needs to be done. If we replace M2/M3 with their successors, we are still left with M113/M577 variants in the force. Standardizing with the M2/M3 is tempting, as chassis variant was converted into the MLRS carrier.

      • balais

        M113s have actually performed quite well in the rugged terrain of afghanistan, especially in Helmand, when compared to wheeled LAV type vehicles. Especially the Dutch variants with a cannon.

        There is still a role for a “tracked box” to transport infantry, even if some western militaries are currently favoring wheeled designs. One needs to only look at the G5 contender, Scout SV family (FRES), and Chinese and Russian designs.

        Other countries, especially in the pacific, are buying the 113-type vehicles for various roles because of the characteristics of the terrain where the lower PSI of tracks is more advantageous.

    • Adam

      I think most people will find the Defense sector in America is massive Republican supporters and not democrat, everybody in the world knows America only starts wars under a Republican president then the Democrat cleans it up. Take note, if a Republican wins your next election you will attack Iran and ISIS at the same time, threaten China more openly and the F-22 program will recommence and F-35 will accelerate and all the weapons your military needs will be ready straight away, and the trade off domestically will be an easing of domestic gun laws and other unpopular democrat policies which will keep the populace onside….. and I am not even a commie lefty just a regular guy who can read between the lines

      • Pat Patterson

        Pure BS.

        • blight_

          Hard to say anymore. In 2000 I almost voted for GWB because he was going to take us out of Kosovo, Bosnia et al.

          The isolationists in both parties went dormant, and then popped out again in time for Arab Spring.

      • Talosian

        Adam, you have an unusual interpretation of history. My history book shows:

        Wilson (a democrat) was the president when we entered WW-I.
        FDR (a democrat) was the president when we entered WW-II.
        Truman (a democrat) was the president when we became entangled in the Korean peninsula.
        Kennedy and Johnson (both democrats) got the USA entangled in Vietnam and kept it there for over a decade.
        Clinton (a democrat) got the USA involved in Bosnia.

        That sure seems to be a long list of democrats getting the USA involved in various wars and conflicts. And I didn’t even bring up Carter, whose mismanaged Iranian foreign policy fostered the uprising and ultimately helped zealots seize control of that country, and has essentially led to the nuclear problem that exists with Iran today.

        • blight_

          And notably, neither party existed in 1776.

          Reagan wisely did not take on the Soviet bear head on, but he did engage in Iran-Contra and fund the muj, and ignored when Israel supported the Iranians against Saddam.

          Bush Sr responded to the invasion of Kuwait with a counter-invasion, and wisely did not proceed with the deposition of Saddam.

        • miles

          Could you elaborate on how Carter caused the Iranian Revolution?

          • blight_

            Indeed, since the Pahlavis were a secret-police petro state just like the others. Demands for “popular government” did not lead to representative government.

          • paamf

            So blight it was the same result as the Arab Spring following our bringing “democracy” to the middle east.
            Nice to know we Americans apparently never learn. It must be our inherent superiority complex that comes from the lack of knowledge of true history.

          • blight_

            The “bringing democracy” thing is a very limited objective, since it hasn’t really been our mission overseas (we are not above allowing monarchs to be our best allies). We undoubtedly attempted to bring it to Iraq and Afghanistan, toppling authority figures and such.

            The US did not bring “democracy” to the Middle East. Many of the Gulf nations are monarchies, and they were monarchies before we hitched our wagons to the Middle East. If anything, we have reinforced monarchy.

            The Arab Spring was a people’s movement against authoritarian governments along the Mediterranean (North Africa and the Levant). Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Our involvement in Tunisia was very minimal. Our involvement in Libya was clandestine (but not covert, since there was no attached deniability). Same with Syria. Egypt we “brought” democracy in the sense that we watched passively as the Army decided not to protect Mubarak. Did we bring the Muslim Brotherhood to temporary power in Egypt? Unsure. Did we stand by as the Egyptian military put Morsi in jail? Seems like it.

          • paamf

            The Arab Spring is not a rising up of the people against tyranny. It is the power play of violent minority groups who were embolden by the rise of Iran after we removed their counter balance Iraq and signaled we would not interfere with their uprisings which was the height of uninformed foreign policy.
            To state the U.S. has not been pushing democracy is an understatement since we removed a democratically elected government in Iran, continuing the best traditions of the “West” in that area of the world.
            What is really happening is an all out war against sectarian governments whether elected or not as well as payback in the Sunni vs Shia “religious war”.
            There is no way for the U.s. to prevail in any of the conflicts in the region. We and our allies only give the combatants more reason to continue wars while at the same time real threats to the west such as China and Putin become embolden.
            We should remove our face from the middle east conflicts, there are many Arab nations with dogs in the fight who have vast coffers and modern militaries. Let them engage and get up front something they will not do as long as the U.S. willingly does the heavy lifting. They are more threatened than we are.

  • CharleyA

    Seems that the PR types are finally advising the brass not to make obviously false assertions – or maybe the brass is finally realizing that their absolute power in their fiefdoms does not translate into real world credibility.

  • paamf

    No shite sherlock! I’m thinking somewhere between a Neuport and Stuka and it’s a toss up with the Stuka.

    • @GreensboroVet

      I’ll take the Stuka. It’s German made and we all know its works.

      • paamf

        Especially in the hands of Hans Rudel. Imagine what an A10 could in his hands. How many of the arm chair Aces in the blogs could sink a battleship like he and his wingman did.

  • BlackOwl18E

    As if this is anything we don’t already know…

    A defense analyst named Janine Davidson wrote an article that pretty much gutted the USAF argument to kill the A-10:

    • Dfens

      Which is it this time, “the next program will be better” or “buy more 40 year old F-18’s”? As if anything could be as f’ed up as either of those options.

  • Sev

    For the price spent on the f35 so far, how many f22s could we have built?

    How many dedicated air superiority, CAS, and naval aircraft assets could we have bought instead that do everything the f35 is supposed to do only much better and far more cheaply?

    Send in the stealth bombers and fighters to clear the way for CAS aircraft and navy ships. I mean how many of these do it all but worse F-35s could we afford to lose in a sustained conflict with an advanced enemy anyway?

    • Mitchell Fuller

      It’s not only the loss rate, it is also the readiness rate. If you have 50 aircraft on the books but the readiness rate is 50% you really have only 25 aircraft.

    • timbrwolf

      Unfortunately that is an entirely different issue. Stealth is now becoming obsolete due to improvements in thermal guided systems, and China’s new radar systems.

      • Sev

        not only that but radar itself is becoming obsolete. Now they can detect the movement of molecules in the air. So even if you were invisible you’d have to find a way to move without producing any environmental disturbance. Essentially now you have to basically say the enemy will see you coming and with that in mind what is the next best option for defeating their defenses. Striking faster than their defenses can hit you and with overwhelming force against their physical defenses so as to clear the way for older, less agile assets like jets and tanks and ships.

  • Cataldo

    I hope it’s a good new, perhaps the DoD knows they need less CAS in the future :), less wars and more softpower ? We need more peace now than ever.

    • blight_

      Yay, more isolationism and Tomahawk diplomacy. I can’t wait for the ’90s. Groan.

      While not a personal fan of the ’90s or the ’00s they represent extremes that weren’t navigated as well as they could have been.

      FYI, what soft power were you thinking of to hold back ISIS? Dialog? Forced conversion? Tithes? The Byzantines learned you could not appease the enemy, but by 1453 there was nothing they could do about it.

      • Cataldo

        I was born in Kroton, a town founded 250 years before Rome, we know well the lessons of history, we have had more wars than you can imagine it, and we remember all, we have a scar for each of them.
        Isis is just an ectoplasm, created by a wrong policy, and is not real, it can be destroyed by a single signal of wisdom.

        The softpower to which I refer is made of truth and substance, the backbone of America we love and that we have always respected, since 2001 we have lost this values.
        Personally I feel like someone who has lost his older brother…, but i’m sure that sooner ot later he’ll came back to support us .

        • paamf
        • blight_

          The United States is unlikely to fall to ISIS or to Iran. However, empires that ignore a peripheral threat for a few centuries will eventually fall to them. Empires that allow themselves to grow weak are usually devoured by the risers, thus some degree of caution (since intervening in everything is also a way to weaken an empire) is required.

          The United States needs to maintain a flexible response. For whatever reason, our ability to apply hard power (in spectra ranging from clandestine or special operations up to a nation-state invasion) is superior to the application of soft power. Our soft power is actually quite pervasive, but not sufficiently influential.

          • Cataldo

            Wise words.
            Is somehow surprising* that sites like this are one of the few spaces left open to democratic discussion, not only on technical or militaristic, in an era characterized by a lack of true and common sense that plague all the information.

            *for those unfamiliar with the basic character and the hystory of the army of the United States ;)

        • paamf

          Your genes are more than Magna Greek and Norman. Take it from one who came from Zungoli and married a Sicilian which is the most conquered island in the world.

    • @StevenHartselll

      The F35 is not soft power.. The only aircraft in the Air Farce inventory that would be considered soft is the C130 (various models to be specific) heck for that matter maybe it would be better to can the F35 and buy more HC-130 and AC-130. As for air superiority have we even had an air-2-air engagement that really constituted in a dog fight since the Vietnam war? Iraq dont count as all their aircraft just cut and run and we just shot them down as they ran, that is not a dog fight or really an engagement. What the General didn’t say was what he did to this deputy (the 2 star) who stuck his foot in his mouth..

      • blight_

        I believe he means “soft” in the non-military sense. Hard power is on the ground force projection. Then there is the /thought/ of force projection, which is what ISIS has…the mere sight of black flag trucks causes Iraqi divisions to quit the field. Then there is soft power in the sense of Sistani saying “defend this city” causing tens of thousands of Shia to step up where the Army has failed. Or telling Muqtada to back down, and causing him to back down. Or Saddam saying he may or may not have WMD, allowing him to bluff Iran into not smashing him (since if Iran invaded during the 90s it is unlikely we would have intervened to protect the national sovereignty of Iraq). Or soft power is when we convinced the UN to suspend disbelief and not stand in the way of OIF.

        • Preston

          I like the ac130 thing but it’s too slow.
          A hand held could take it down. Again it could replace the a10 and just mow everything. Down
          Have you checked out the bullet power.

  • Franklin

    If the political knuckelheads won’t build a true CAS aircraft like an upgraded A10 then maybe we can buy something cheap from China or Brazil? I think we should robotize a few A10’s and stick politcians in them so they can experiance what a real close air support aircraft is really about, or maybe embed them with ground troops waiting for the F35 to show up?

  • retired462

    All talk about the A-10’s future should stop until a suitable replacement is OPERATIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • oblatt22

    The reality is that if you look at Lockheed’s own work schedule the F-35 is only half way through development and its taking twice as long as predicted.

    2021 really means late 2028 and even then the aircraft wont have the defensive aids or radar software to do anything more then fly out and fly back under escort from real combat aircraft.

    Its hardly surprising that we are seeing Chinese investment in Lockheed. They are doing such a good job for China.

    • William_C1

      I’m going to guess you can’t come up with a source for all of this just as with anything else you write.

  • Charles

    Considering: how far behind schedule the F-35 (any variant) is; that it cannot meet even the several times reduced missions requirements; It still has no gun to speak of; has the performance of a generation 3 fighter at a 6th generation cost; cannot carry a combat load of any substance – and will not be able to until 2022 at the *earliest*; and, that the USAF deliberately manipulated the mission effectiveness/fratricide facts in its article in USA Today – it is really hard to take its word for much of anything.

    That the USAF’s “leadership” is still intent on sending the A-10 to the boneyard despite its less-than-competent program management; it being busted for lying about the planes performance; the lack of any credible replacement; the appalling operational cost; and no one has yet to be court-martialled despite the service suffering from a severe credibility gap – demonstrates much of whats wrong with today’s civilian and military leadership.

    • William_C1

      Regarding schedule are we bemoaning the original schedule or the schedule since the program was restructured? Considering the buffer time built into the latter scheldule things aren’t looking too bad.

      Several times reduced mission requirements? If mission requirements refers to KPPs the only change was the addition of 50 feet to the short take-off requirement for a loaded F-35B.

      No gun? It’s there. Software is still in progress but the gun is there. Performance of a 3rd generation fighter? Is the F/A-18 3rd generation now? It performs much like that. 6th generation costs? No idea what that is supposed to mean as the costs are a dynamic that is constantly changing and nobody has even seen a 6th generation fighter.

      So JDAM, SDB I, JSOW, and the GBU-12/49 aren’t anything worthwhile? Good to know.

      • paamf

        50ft added huh…that’s a lot of real estate in STOL world and a carrier deck.
        As for the mythical gun, it has one…. just needs the software! That means it doesn’t have the weapons system to use a gun. It doesn’t have a gun. If the “software” for the gun is anything like the other non-existent systems this gold plated turd is missing the world will be using fairies and pixie dust for CAS before it sees combat.

        • William_C1

          Paamf according to the last public information on the subject the takeoff distance was 568 feet versus the 550 feet of the original KPP. The reason the KPP was raised to 600 was to provide a buffer zone.The deck length of an America class LHA is 844 feet so this really isn’t a problem. With a ski-jump the takeoff distance would be less but for some reason we’ve never been very interested in those. The Brits like them though.

          The gun exists, so it’s not really mythical. No idea if it is installed on every F-35A at the moment but it designed, built, test fired, and all of that. The software in question is likely related to lead calculation and other functions that use the radar. The matter or pressing the trigger causing the gun to fire is a lot simpler than that.

          The decision that the gun wasn’t going to be fully integrated until Block 3 was made long ago and not exactly earth shattering information. These days the AMRAAM and JDAM capability the F-35 will have at IOC are going to be far more useful than the Sidewinder and gun which is all the F-16 had at IOC. There aren’t hordes of MiG-21s to worry about.

          I want to see us keep the A-10 around too but it isn’t the only aircraft that can do CAS. CAS is a mission, not a specific plane.

          • paamf

            William 580 feet is long for a single engine aircraft. The length used for takeoffs on a carrier is not the total length of the flight deck.
            I lived through geniuses who decided a fighter didn’t need a gun, it was the F4 Phantom. The software is the trigger on the gun for all intents and purposes and it’s not as simple as you make seem. The history of this aircraft has been long on promises and short on deliveries. I am sure the “gun” will be another. None of the air superiority weapons you mentioned are designed to take out widely dispersed mobile targets such,as ground troops in close proximity to friendlies.

          • William_C1

            That is a 580 feet without a catapult. For comparison the Gripen known for great STOL performance requires over 2,000 feet. The F-35B is intended to be operated from LHAs, LHDs, the UK’s Queen Elizabeth class, and other ships which don’t have a catapult.

            We’ve come a long way from the F-4 Phantom II, but oddly enough the Navy decided they didn’t want an internal gun for the F-35C. The F-35B doesn’t have the room for it but much like the AV-8B it will replace it can carry a gun pod.

            The program does have a poor history I’ll grant you that. For many years it was in a poor state and it wasn’t Lt. General Bogdan started bashing heads that things really got back on the right course. There is simply no reason the gun shouldn’t be ready by Block 3F as planned. It isn’t some crazy design like the hideously overcomplicated 25mm caseless cannon they wanted for the F-15.

            As for ideal CAS weapons SDB II will be very useful but the ability to carry laser-guided Hydra or Zuni rockets would be great to have and is something I hope the Air Force considers for both the F-35 and other aircraft. As I’ve said I want to see the Air Force keep the A-10 around but our other aircraft will continue doing CAS as well and improving their ability to do that is also important.

          • paamf

            2000+ feet is not STOL performance by any stretch of the imagination and I would say the Grippen has better air superiority performance than the F-35. The Grippen is designed to be able to operate from unimproved landing strips such as highways. Never heard it rated as a STOL aircraft before by any of its people.
            As far as strict CAS aircraft, the statistics,such as survivorability, clearly show no aircraft in the U.S. arsenal has performed the combat mission as well as the A-10. As outdated as it is; for you to compare it to the aircraft and tactics used in the Ukrainian conflict is ludicrous.
            With reference to the “gun” we are speaking about an aircraft designed for the Navy that could not catch a wire. A tail hook is not a leading edge technical system. I have no doubt the gun issue as many issues in this fiasco program will remain unresolved or so compromised as to make this bird more of an Ostrich than Eagle, gold plated of course.
            I appreciate you are a cheer leader for the F-35 but it was a lousy concept that was tried before (1 do all system) and that will not improve by throwing more money at it. It will not be able to perform any of its proposed missions at a superior level but it will prevent money from being spent on improvements to aircraft that do perform their missions at a superior level. That is the unspoken cost of this golden turd program. The U.S. will not have air superiority in any mission.

      • raven

        Still working in the pentagon pr office William?

        • William_C1

          Still waiting for all of the money Lockheed supposedly pays me.

          But yes I am guilty of being supportive of the F-35, there is no denying the program was horribly managed for a time and that the original schedule and cost estimates were nowhere close to reality, but we passed the point of no return years ago. New aircraft (not just updates to the last generation of fighters) are needed and from a technical standpoint the F-35 has everything it needs to be an effective replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 and AV-8. Yet replacing those three aircraft is a challenging enough goal, it should have never had to make up for the shortfall in F-22 production for example.

          The government has the job of getting the best possible deal out of Lockheed and by all means they should. Cancelling it wouldn’t remove the need for new aircraft and that new aircraft is still going to cost money and have problems that need to be worked out during development.

          We’re at the stage where the media which is largely clueless about the subject of defense procurement does their usual frenzy of criticism. They did the same thing with the F-14, F-15, F-22, B-1, B-2, M1, M2, AH-64 and so many other designs.

          For example take the adjustments in specification for sustained turn rates and acceleration. Some don’t even understand the former because they confuse it with instantaneous turn rate, nor do they seem to understand that those figures for sustained rate are for a certain altitude, speed, and weight. None of those specifics are known. Acceleration is also dependent on altitude and weight (plus drag from external stores) and the “baseline” was a Block 50/52 F-16C with no ordinance other its gun and two AMRAAM on the wingtips.

          In such a very light configuration the F-16 is going to have excellent transonic acceleration that even today only a handful of designs can best. Once you start loading up the F-16 with more weapons, fuel, and other items things start to change and you quickly reach a point where the F-35 has better performance.

          Despite all of the fuzz about the gun none of the “reporting” on the subject has even been able to determine what prevents it from being integrated sooner. Is it entirely related to software? What about the new 25mm APEX ammo planned for it? Has that been tested, approved and certified to the meet the standards of the DoD bureaucracy? We don’t know because the journalists are too busy pointing out the obvious differences between the GAU-22/A and the GAU-8/A with its massive drum of ammo. Needless to say these guns were built for different requirements. The M61A1/2 isn’t very impressive compared to the GAU-8/A either.

          Anyway it’s a lot more interesting to discuss the subject when people have more to argue with than claiming I work for Lockheed. If I did I doubt I’d be spending time on the comments section of a website like this.

  • kevin

    Dump the F-22 and the A-10 for the now more expensive incomplete F-35 because of money. Well Obama wasn’t worried about spending the money when he gave away $ billion to the Russian military’s machine when he purchased their helicopters in Afhaganistan. This is as stupid as when the great minds thought that guns weren’t needed on the F-4’s during the Nam War! The Pentagon needs brains with balls when our president has none!

    • ccc40821

      If you think the Afghan air force would have been better off with a much more sophisticated Western helicopter force, think again. Buying those Russian flying trucks was sensible, even if the money went to a potential adversary.

  • PolicyWonk

    So – here we have the USAF admitting that the F-35 will lag in acquiring CAS support, which is why its logical to them to retire the only aircraft dedicated to the CAS mission.

    Seriously – you can’t make this stuff up!

    • Mitchell Fuller


    • GI dude

      CAS should belong to the Army… it is their butts on the line!

  • blight_

    It’s amazing how this brings out the “Obama”s.

    The F-35 is an overly optimistic program from hell. The X-35 managed integration of all three missions into a common airframe, but when it came time to scale up for production (including those internal bays), weight issues triggered a cascade of developmental delays.

    • steve

      Want to know who is blowing your money? it’s Congress.

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    You can’t find a thread that doesn’t have a certain number of complaints from those who look under the bed each morning for the new dust bunnies that Obama sneakily installed during the night.

    The F-35 remains the poster child for all that’s wrong in how Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex does business. And the Congress is almost as culpable for letting it happen.

    • William_C1

      Congress is why you have one fighter set to fulfill so many roles. That wasn’t the result of big bad industry.

      • Brian B. Mulholland

        The litany of complaints about the F-35 usually starts with the decision to stuff V/STOVL functionality into the airframe. I may well be wrong, but I don’t believe that the decision was forced on DoD by Congress. I believe it came out of Secretary of Defense’s office under Jimmy Carter.

        • Brian B. Mulholland

          LM has not been particularly truthful about problems as they emerge; and the Pentagon and DoD have been more than willing to help Lockheed out by reducing the requirements that the aircraft was supposed to meet. We know about the relaxed requirements for transonic acceleration and so on. I keep wondering what shortfalls in sensor fusion are being held back at this time. Not even a working gun for five years? Yikes.

        • Lightingguy

          That’s a bit of a stretch in trying to lay blame on a Democrat. The original, original Joint Strike came from DARPA and was called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. This program never envisioned stealth and a whole host of concepts that has become F35. The concept is so different from current that there’s only a vague historical path between what they had as idea’s and what’s being built. As well, both Lockheed and MD had a hand in the original concepts.

          • Brian B. Mulholland

            If it matters, I AM a Democrat. And as best I recall, V/STOVL capacities were added to the brew during the Carter Administration. If you know otherwise, please correct me.

          • blight_asdf

            Unsure what Carter has to do for a post Cold War program such as CALF or JSF.

          • blight_asdf

            If anything, CALF was the X-35. Each airframe with some modification was -A, -B or -C. Each X series aircraft used mostly OTS electronics, thus didn’t come with fancy sensors and stealth.

            But you know, we can’t procure aircraft without sensor fusion anymore.

    • john

      Almost culpable? Try guilty as hell.

  • crackedlenses

    Uhhhhh, OK.

    Frankly, I never expected the F-35 to be a dedicated CAS platform, so this news doesn’t faze me, nor does it affect my overall support for its adoption.

    • William_C1

      Nobody with a brain should have been expecting the F-35 to be the A-10. The unique characteristics of the A-10 and the characteristics of a modern fighter are mutually exclusive qualities.

      • crackedlenses

        Agreed. It just irks me that the anti-F35 crowd is jumping on this non-story for propaganda purposes.

        • William_C1

          They always do that, the Air Force didn’t even want to retire the A-10 until they got stuck in this budgetary mess. Talk was of keeping it until 2028 before then.

          • paamf

            I fail to see propaganda in the discussions however there has been a lot of “misinformation” thrown around since day one on all sides of the political spectrum. We have people stating it’s ludicrous to compare the F-35 to the A-10 since one was designed for the CAS role and the other was not and yet that is the very crux of the issue. The F-35, truth be told, is a compromise aircraft. It will not have the fighter performance of a F-22 or the survivorability and CAS capability of an A-10 and yet that is exactly what the builders and supporters of the F-35 continue to espouse because to tell the truth to the public,i.e. we are going to spend 400 million dollars for a mediocre aircraft. We are building a platform that may be a jack of many trades but a master of none.
            Let me know when a F-35 proponent speaks the truth on the issue, I will have found an honest man.

          • crackedlenses

            “I fail to see propaganda in the discussions however there has been a lot of “misinformation” thrown around since day one on all sides of the political spectrum.”

            The F-35 haters are using this as one more opportunity to bash the F-35 when in reality this is not earth-shattering or game-changing news.

            “We are building a platform that may be a jack of many trades but a master of none.”

            And for all of that (and much more) it is still far ahead of the aircraft it will be replacing. It seems to me that the F-35 detractors seem to have a more inflated opinion of the F-35’s capabilities than many of its supporters.

            “Let me know when a F-35 proponent speaks the truth on the issue, I will have found an honest man.”

            And what would “the truth” be? Whatever tickles your fancy and sounds right to you?

            Face it: we don’t really know how the F-35 is going to perform until it does. Everything else is speculation until then, and all the moral grandstanding is foolish.

          • paamf

            Cracked…What aircraft does the F-35 surpass and in what role? Your response was full of contradictions and mistatements. To point out the differences between the information put out when selling the program and all the cuts in capability, pilot safety, as well as the decrease in operational readiness and the astronomical cost increases makes a F-35 “hater” in your eyes. For me it makes a watchdog looking out for the good of the nation and the men who will face the enemy in combat flying the golden turd.
            So tell me what aircraft this F-35 is going to surpass and how. All the capability issues being contested come from the information made known to the public and it is a big issue.
            Drink a little less of the kool aid, the nation is better served by more doubting Thomas’ and fewer cheerleaders.

          • majr0d

            “the Air Force didn’t even want to retire the A-10 until they got stuck in this budgetary mess. Talk was of keeping it until 2028 before then.”

            The Air Force said similar things after the A10 was first fielded, after Desert Storm and while things were hot or just over in Iraq and Afghanistan but on each of the previous occasions the Air Force invented reasons to mothball the A10 after a couple of years of peace after saying it would keep it in service for decades..

            Just because the USAF said it wanted to keep the A10 til 2028 after it showed its worth against insurgents recently is not evidence about how the USAF looks at the A10 or CAS. Look at the historical record in total.

        • Another Guest

          @ crackedlenses,

          What really irks me that the pro-F-35 crowd is jumping on this non-story for propaganda purposes.

    • Guest


      The F-35 is a replacement for the F-117. Not the F-16, 18 nor A-10. The fact that it carries only building smasher bombs (the F-22 actually carries more, of a more mixed, payload in it’s wideXshallow bays) should point us in this direction.

      What people are ignoring is the simple fact that the A-10 is itself not the ideal CAS effector because technologies and particularly munition systems have moved on while the nature of the mission “We’re on the enemy’s schedule…” as constant patrol and occupation force suppression of insurgents (one bunny looks much the same as another) requires both a much greater persistent loiter than ANY manned platform can provide. And the ability to deliver micro PGMs in the Griffin and Hellfire class rather than the massive GBU-12 and 38 which remain the principle USAF/USMC/USN fixed wing fighter PGM systems.

      Throw missiles into the mix and the A-10, sans MAWS or DIRCM, will be at great risk delivering gun passes from under 5,000ft slants. Throw heavy GBAD at the problem or longer, overwater, mission radii as with Ukraine (Russia) or the Formosa Straits (China) and the A-10 is flatly no longer a player because it doesn’t have the radar for lolo/standoff work or the fast transit speeds to be (tanker) compatible with other strike assets.

      What is wrong with the F-35B, as a CAS effector, is quite simply that it lacks the external hardpoint carriage to loft some of the above ATGM as well as laser guided rockets, both of which would supply superior to GAU-8 precision CAS as forward fire munitions.

      This may partly be a weight issue as pylons add about 500lbs per pair and the Bee is already severely overweight with limited bring back options. But the integration of the Brimstone triplet for the British and the twin Hellfire carrier for the USMC, as well as 7 or 19 shot 70mm pods would 200% improve the jet’s CAS capacity, relative to the existing GBU-12/22 and GBU-32 alternatives which are principally Interdiction systems.

      With the 35-42hr Predator ER rapidly standardizing (longer wings, external tanks) the replacement for the A-10 is not the F-35.

  • david

    Anyone who thinks the f-35 will be even 50% of the CAS the A-10 is on crack. CAS aircraft get damaged by ground fire all the time. With the A-10 u just put a quick patch on it and good as new. The bullet hole in a F-35 will takes days if not weeks to repair in order to maintain the F-35 stealthy signature. Hell u can’t even get a super hornet to go below 10k when they do CAS.

    • GI dude

      The go-fasters wont even drop an iron bomb closer than 1000 meters from the bad guys with troops-in-contact because they are so scared of fratricide. Had it happen more than once in Iraq. I’d ask: “What was that supposed to do?” AF would say: “Scare them” …. the troops screaming at me over the radio begged to differ! 120mm tubes and 155mm guns would put steel right on their little towel-covered noggins!

      • blight_

        There are a fair number of published accounts on the usage of CAS. The SBS had a unit in northern Iraq that required close air support…all they got was buzzing F-16’s. Must have been depressing.

        Conversely, in actions like Sperwan Ghar Army SF got plenty of airstrikes, and probably some danger close as well. And for Operation Medusa the Canadians took some blue on blue at the same time. The rules of engagement make the effective employment of CAS unpredictable. Also, accounts of early problems with CAS may be due to the lack of sufficiently small bombs. The first smart bomb kits were generally applied to relatively heavy bombs.

        Edit: As far as I can tell, a commander could call on heavy bombs close to his position by providing his initials, absolving the flier of liability. However, the Rules of Engagement that specified when and where bombs could be dropped is another story entirely.

    • citanon

      The a10 is less resistant to manpad damage than an f18 or even f16. If used against a truly competent enemy its loss rate would be eye watering. Just look at what happened to su25s in eastern Ukraine.

      • majr0d

        The SU25’s performance in Ukraine is informative but there are key differences and missing information.

        Is SEAD being attempted? If so, how good are the Ukrainians at doing it? They have a military that has been functioning on pennies for a decade and their ability to conduct operations has been seriously compromised.

        How many sorties are the SU25’s executing as well as the quality of execution?

        • blight_

          Ukraine and Russia have a good idea of the systems the other nation has. It’s anyone’s guess which nation has adapted the best to countering the Warsaw Pact with insider knowledge. That and whose army is in better shape. The Russians have learned from two invasions of Chechenya and one of Georgia what to do and what not to do. The Ukranians lack wartime experience.

      • balais

        Against any competent enemy with overlapping, modern air defense systems, our losses of all aircraft would be significantly higher.

        The SU25 losses in Ukraine highlight the weaknesses of their armed forces, which is in the quality of tactics and planning. These weaknesses have been obvious from the perspective on the ground as well.

    • UK Grant

      ” The bullet hole in a F-35 will takes days if not weeks to repair in order to maintain the F-35 stealthy signature”

      depends on where the bullet hits. The F-35 uses fuel to cool the air frame (to reduce IR signature). So a hit anywhere other than the edges or extremities will set the plane on fire!! (i.e. the F-35 is as good as toast).

      Doubt that they can build a new one in weeks – finding the money alone will take months.

      • Another Guest

        @ UK Grant,

        “The F-35 uses fuel to cool the air frame (to reduce IR signature). So a hit anywhere other than the edges or extremities will set the plane on fire!! (i.e. the F-35 is as good as toast)”.

        The F-35 can’t do close air support mission. I reckon one of the test office’s conclusion is misleading. The vulnerability has decreased 25 percent focused on a small area “if the aircraft is hit.” The probability is actually high, classified number. This means the overall impact to aircraft’s survivability is high, higher than 0.5 percent.

        Why is the survivability higher than 0.5 percent?

        To restore a 2 lb safety valve system part of 43 lb (20 kg) equipment will increase more weight on the F-35 affecting the aircraft’s flight performance parameters, making it draggier that can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run to escape enemy fighters/guns/missiles, terrible acceleration, limited range/endurance and doesn’t have enough motor for the weight. Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety precautions on the F-35 which is a very delicate aeroplane that makes it more vulnerable (if flown at low altitudes when performing close air support missions) from a high-explosive round such as .22 Rifle, or any form of gunfire that will disable or destroy an engine and fuel tank and the F-35 has no armour cockpit tub to protect the pilot if hit by a bullet or fragment. The F-35 doesn’t carry flame-retardant foam in its fuel tanks because the foam displaces fuel. The fuel tanks are not equipped with self-sealing membranes to plug bullet or shrapnel holes. As its limitations are inherent to the design, they cannot be altered by incremental upgrades.

        Unfortunately there is a little margin for error, the large exhaust nozzle of the F-35 will be extremely hot, enormous fuel burn and has a very big heat signature (when using its full afterburner). That is a dead give away when the Flankers, Fulcrums and the PAK-FA aircraft are equipped with an Infra-Red Search & Track (IRST) sensor to pick up the heat pluming F-35. The back end of the F-35 in full afterburner is something like 1600 degrees (Fahrenheit). In terms of temperature, aluminium combusts at 1100. You are talking about something really, really hot. If you have got a dirty big sensor on the front of your Su-35S or your PAK-FA or whatever, it lights up like Christmas lights and there is nothing you can do about it. The plume because of the symmetric exhaust, is all over the place. It is not shielded, it is not ducted in any useful way. The Sukhois or MiGs equipped with the heat seeking BVR (Beyond Visual Range) AA-12 (R-77) Adder air-to-air missiles will be able to seek and destroy the F-35. It is going to be a fire explosion and waiting to happen.

  • Kostas

    The problem for an effective CAS is not the F35. The problem is that we do not have a good CAS munition. The ideal CAS munition should have:
    – a small lethal radius to prevent any fratricide, because (by the definition of CAS) friendly forces will be close by. Therefore, HE 250lbs bomb are NOT suitable for that role
    – a range outside the MANPADs range. Therefore guns are suboptimal
    – high velocity for rapid effects, because of the rapidly changing battle conditions. Therefore long range gliding bombs are out of the question
    There is a readily available munition that meets the above requirements, the:

    • Nick9876

      Laser guided Zunis in a centerline stealth pod…

      • Kostas

        LOL, Nick9876 that is telepathy!

    • citanon

      Or maybe a cruise missile like round that can fly around and loiter at low altitude and drop cluster submunitions one at a time under the control of a ground controller.

      • blight_

        A Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, you mean? :)

        A UAV with a ball turret gun would be nice as well. It would have to be something a JTAC could control, versus something with multi-timezone latency for timely fires.

        • citanon

          Yeah, basically an air dropped expendable UCAV controlled by the JTAC.

    • DawgNayshun

      So, maybe a bomb that could be launched from a stand off range, and glide into target, yet be controlled by a JTAC, and re-targeted in flight if needed? Or 28 of them all at once?

      I give you the SDB2, and the F15 can carry 28 in one sortie.

      • Kostas

        SDB2 does not really meet my #1 and # 3 requirements, see above. I will also add that the CAS munition should be relatively cheap because you might use it against even a single sniper. You cannot be spending $250K to take out a single soldier. So try again with a new proposal, SDB2 is not the correct answer.

        • paamf

          There has been a lot of “misinformation” thrown around since day one on all sides of the political spectrum. We have people stating it’s ludicrous to compare the F-35 to the A-10 since one was designed for the CAS role and the other was not and yet that is the very crux of the issue. The F-35, truth be told, is a compromise aircraft. It will not have the fighter performance of a F-22 or the survivorability and CAS capability of an A-10 and yet that is exactly what the builders and supporters of the F-35 continue to espouse because to tell the truth to the public,i.e. we are going to spend 400 million dollars for a mediocre aircraft will start a firestorm. We are building a platform that may be a jack of many trades but a master of none.
          Let me know when a F-35 proponent speaks the truth on the issue, I will have found an honest man.

          Read more: 

        • majr0d

          Kostas – Generally agree with your munition requirements but disagree that the F35 isn’t part of the problem. You make a course of action error by ignoring it. If there isn’t a perfect munition then you improve the vehicle to deliver existing munitions.

          If a tank has to get close enough to destroy an enemy tank we ensure it has the best armor possible to give it a fighting chance and even then acknowledge we will lose tanks. It’s the reason we put body armor on troops instead of saying we don’t have a rifle that can shoot around corners.

  • GI dude

    Maybe they could rig it with some duct tape and cinder blocks to drop until they get a few more hundreds of billions of dollars!

  • GI dude

    Can the entire F-35 boondoggle, hire China to build us 400,000 F-51’s for the same price!

  • oblatt22

    two weeks ago the F-35 was a great replacement fro the A-10, the F-35B was designed specifically for marine CAS.

    Today in typical F-35 style the spec has been lowered and it cant realistically do the job.

    Man I remember when the F-35 was a fighter too. Back before it was realized that it couldn’t pull 4Gs had terrible transonic performance, had poor weapons load, and couldn’t give a 1950s fighter a run for its money.

    • William_C1

      No specs relating to CAS have been lowered. For all of your lies the F-35 also still performs better than an F/A-18. A model is rated for 9Gs, the B and C are rated for 7Gs.

      Do enlighten me as to how 18,000 pounds of ordinance qualifies as a “poor weapons load” and what 1950s fighter would beat it.

  • Richard Brown

    I have 23 years working on Air Force aircraft.The F-35 is another fly by wire aircraft that don’t work. Are we going to tell the boots on the ground to keep their heads down for X years till we can help them.I retired back in the 90’s.I was in nam and the first gulf war,it was the older planes the keep flying not the bullshit $$$ fly by wire.In 2022 the old planes will still be flying when the F-35 is in the bone yard.

    • Another Guest

      Richard Brown,

      Indeed, in 2022 the old aircraft will still be flying. It is certainly time to put the F-35 into the boneyard and to get them chopped into the recycle bin.

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    Kostas (or William C1, or anyone) can the APKWS or similar rockets be carried internally to preserve stealth, and lock on after launch? Do they offer enough range for the F-35 to stay out of 14.5 and 23mm range, if the target is so defended?

    • Kostas

      Yes about range and LOAL. The internal carriage would require some form of retractable launcher

      • Brian B. Mulholland

        Thank you.

  • OMG

    About American deindustrialization

    For example:

    Heavy Press Program

    The Heavy Press Program was a Cold War-era program of the United States Air Force to build the largest forging presses and extrusion presses in the world. These machines greatly enhanced the US defense industry’s capacity to forge large complex components out of light alloys such as magnesium and aluminium. The program began in 1950 and concluded in 1957 after construction of four forging presses and six extruders, at an overall cost of $279 million. Eight of them are still in operation today, manufacturing structural parts for military and commercial aircraft. They still hold the records for size in North America, though they have since been surpassed by presses in Japan, France, Russia and China.

    The Heavy Press Program was motivated by experiences from World War II. Germany held the largest heavy die forging presses during the war, and translated this advantage into high performance jet fighters. The Soviet Union captured the largest German press to survive the war, with a capacity of 33,000 ton, and were suspected to have seized the designs for an even larger 55,000 ton press. The next two largest units were captured by the United States and brought across the Atlantic, but they were half the size at 16,500 ton. As cold war fears developed, American strategists worried that this would give the Soviet Air Force a crucial advantage and designed the Heavy Press Program to help win the arms race.

    Seventeen presses were originally planned with an expected cost of $389 million, but the project was scaled back to 10 presses in 1953.

    Air Force Lieutenant General K. B. Wolfe was the primary advocate for the Heavy Press Program. Alexander Zeitlin was another prominent figure of the program.

    The Heavy Press Program was run by the U.S. government in the 1950s, to give us the ability to forge metals like magnesium into large but light component parts, primarily for aircraft and rockets. At the program’s end in 1957, a total of 4 enormous presses and 6 extruders had been built and eight of these monsters are still in use today.

    Heavy forging and extrusion presses allow for complex parts to be forged from lightweight materials. Without these machines, the high-tech, lightweight aircraft we now take for granted would not be possible. In the 1950s, the United States undertook a plan to build 17 heavy presses across the country. This program was created in response to the Soviet Union’s possession of what was then the world’s largest heavy press. Fearing that this would give the Soviet air force a great advantage, the American government financed the creation of bigger and better presses than those possessed by the Soviets. Although the program was eventually scaled back to ten presses, this still allowed for America to become a leader in producing both civilian and military aircraft. Eight of the 10 presses are still in operation today.

    The American Society of Mechanical Engineers designated the 50,000-ton Alcoa and Wyman-Gordon presses as Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks. The Alcoa press weighs 8,000 tons and is 87 feet (26.5 meters) tall. The die table is 26 feet by 12 feet (7.9 by 3.7 meters), and the maximum stroke is 6 feet (1.82 meters).

    Mesta Machinery

    Mesta Machinery was a leading industrial machinery manufacturer based in the Pittsburgh area town of West Homestead, Pennsylvania. It was founded in 1898 by George Mesta when he merged his machine shop with another. Mesta “machines” can be found in factories throughout the world and as of 1984 had equipment in 500 steel mills. Mesta was the 488th largest American company in 1958 and the 414th largest in 1959

    World War II

    Mesta’s West Homestead plant was a center for World War II production. It earned the coveted Army-Navy E Award and was only one of seven factories to earn six stars. Mesta specialized in manufacturing 16 inch naval guns, ship-propeller shafts, artillery carriages and “Long Toms” 155-mm cannons that hurled 100-pound shells 15 miles. Iversen personally oversaw the production of “Little David” a 36-inch bore mortar that was put into production for the canceled Japanese invasion. During the war, Iversen transformed Mesta into one of the nation’s top ordinance suppliers, personally working 18-hour shifts on the factory floor. His accounting department also ran two 8 hour shifts per day.

    Mesta, and later Iverson operated the Hays Army Ammunition Plant from the 1940s through the 1960s.

    Post war success

    The company manufactured a 9-story forging press for ALCOA in 1954 that was still in operation in the 1980s. The press manufactures aluminum for 747 and DC-10 jetliners.


    Mesta filed for bankruptcy in February 1983, and most of its West Homestead works was sold off in June 1983.The company’s last assets were sold in April, 1988.

    China is already far ahead of U.S.

    China has started the building of an 80,000-ton press forge

    • UK Grant

      “China has started the building of an 80,000-ton press forge”

      That had been completed in 2008, right? Russia is also far ahead of the US.

  • rat

    When the -22 entered service, it could do everything it was supposed to do. The finest air supremacy aircraft, literally, ever. It could even double in brass and replace the 117 in some missions. They pull the plug on it and ram this POS down the citizens throats that can’t even do what its designed to do for another 7 or 8 years.

    And what exactly was the USAF going to do once the rid themselves of the A-10? Hmmmm?

    • john

      It wasn’t the USAF that got F-22 canceled. Several AF generals were forced into retirement, because they continued speaking publicly for continued F-22 production. Misled by Robert Gates, the Congress voted to stop production. The votes absolutely cry out for an investigation, because there was no legitimate argument for what our elected officials did. It wreaks of corruption little short of treason.

  • Fordownr

    Even if it COULD do everything it’s been hearled to be capable of, the brass will never let their new toy below 5000 feet. Can’t have their expensive new plane get taken out by ground fire now can we?…..

  • Badger

    A BETTER alternative: Textron Airland Scorpion for CAS, check it out people

  • wolfden

    Operation Destroy CAS capability

    Interesting read:

  • David

    The F-35 is not an never will be an A10. It can’t fly slow enough. It can’t take the abuse and enemy fire. When the first $100+M F35 is shot down that plane will have its flights restricted.

    What is needed is a resurrection of the A10 program…maybe even a successor, with the F35 and Apache left in the roles for which they are more appropriate.

    • Another Guest

      @ David,

      just to keep you informed that the F-35A’s unit cost per plane is now $180+ million.

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    It can’t be an A-10, but that really isn’t the issue. In an environment well supplied with MANPAD/SHORAD systems, would the A-10 really be less vulnerable than the F-35?
    I don’t know, but I doubt it. CAS in the future may have to be performed from 20,000 feet with a weapons load that maintains stealth. In principle the level of sensor fusion sought in the F-35 should permit that, but not for an appallingly long time.

    • Nick9876

      The F-35 won’t get a DIRCM before 2022 or so, it until then it is really risky to use it for CAS. The difference with the A-10 is that it is much more survivable when hit. The A-10 could in many cases return and be repaired. The repairs might be quite important, but usually it wouldn’t cost be that much by canabilizing on retired planes, and it can be reused a few months later or for the next war.

      • Kostas

        F35 can outrun fired MANPAD missiles under many circumstances. A10 cannot do that under any circumstance

        • paamf

          Your F-35 statement may be true in certain limited circumstances. Your A-10 statement has been disproved in combat in the recent wars.

        • blight_

          The A-10’s knocked down in ODS were usually those sized to be carried in light vehicles. I am unsure what happens to the F-35 against similar missiles, especially if used in gun runs (that require a fixed strafing course)

        • Nick9876

          The missile flies at about mach 2 or plus compared to the speed of the F-35 of say mach 0.8 and the speed of the A-10 of mach 0.5. So the difference of speed between the 2 planes is rather negligeable.

        • Brian B. Mulholland

          I believe that several A-10s have come home after a MANPAD has knocked one engine to pieces. Has any A-10 ever been hit by a larger, SHORAD-sized weapon, the equivalent of a Rapier or Crotale, etc., and come home? I don’t know, but those weapons are spreading just as surely as MANPADS have done. CAS in the future has to be planned on the assumption that they will be present and not emitting any signal. On that basis, CAS has to be done from altitude, does it not?

          • Nick9876

            If the weather is bad the plane will have to descend to low altitude. Note that the weather in China and Russia tends to be worse than in Afghanistand and Irak.

            A larger missile would kill an A-10, but at least the plane is more resistant to damage so the pilot might have enough time to eject, whereas for the F-35 the plane would just explode.

          • Another Guest

            @ Nick9876,

            Absolutely the F-35 will be a fire, explosion and waiting to happen on any mission you care to mention.

          • blight_


            SA-9 is a large cousin of Strela MANPAD. Vehicle-mounted. Accounted for one loss in Desert Storm.

            SA-13 is the successor to SA-9 above. Vehicle-mounted. Accounted for three losses.

            Site above reports “SAM-20”, guessing SA-20 or S-300. One loss. On wikipedia, this is reported as a kill by an Igla MANPAD.

            For OIF, an A-10 was lost to a Roland missile.

            Getting info on damaged vehicles will take some time…

        • majr0d

          Kostas – The F35 doing a CAS mission and coming into the envelope of a MANPAD (not dropping a PGM outside the envelope, something the A10 can do also and not going Mach 2 because you wouldn’t be doing that if you had to get close to deliver ordnance) isn’t going to outrun the MANPAD missile.

          It might outmaneuver or spoof the missile (just like an A10 can) but it won’t outrun the missile.

    • Another Guest

      @ Brian B. Mulholland,

      CAS in the future can’t be performed from 20,000 feet with a weapons load that maintains stealth.

      How can you affectively provide close air support with an aircraft who cannot fly lower than 10,000 ft because it is so expensive. CAS means get down and dirty, not fly high and pretty? Retiring the A-10 is going to cost lives of the Army brothers and sisters.

      • Brian B. Mulholland

        This is something I’ve been wondering about. Is CAS necessarily synonymous with low altitude, down and dirty passes? If it is right now, can it stay that way in the future? Assuming a MANPAD/SHORAD rich environment, can we really fly low and slow, down and dirty, ? If not, can we provide it from altitude, if the multi-sensor fusion on which the F-35 is premised is made to work?

        If DAS and the AESA radar can be made to provide a nicely fused, multispectral view to the pilot, perhaps it WILL be possible to provide CAS from altitude, IF you also have suitable munitions. (And thank you for addressing my question, BTW.) Right now the signs remain bad. DOT&E’s latest report is horrible, just horrible. Perhaps the F-15,16 and 18 can perform the CAS currently needed in theater, but it seems that the F-35 is a decade (!) away from doing so and that the Marine’s IOC date is fantasy.

        I’m not an advocate for disposing of the A-10 or keeping it, just an interested civilian.

  • UK Grant

    I have to wonder why USAF is still wasting time talking about this less-than-worthless piece of junk.

    Don’t they have better things to do? Like dreaming about its 9th generation fighter jets?

    Better start dreaming now, coz by the end of the year, even dreaming might be too much of a luxury – funeral march for the petrodollar might start as early as October this year!

    Say goodbye to the Empire of Chaos. Time is up.

    • Hollander

      I doubt that most posters here have an inkling what “petrodollar” is, much less the implications of the growing rejection of its use around the world.

      Some would say that the funeral march for the petrodollar has already started. The process may take a long time though.

  • UK Grant

    A shot of reality for clueless “patriots”

    spend 6 minutes on this short article. (if you are a slow reader, spare 12 minutes)

    • Hollander

      Excellent article.

      Doubt that the “clueless patriots” can handle the truth. ;)

  • Cynical175

    Isn’t everybody forgetting that in a CAS role they will have to hang a lot of stuff UNDER the wings. VOILA no more stealth.

    Pleas don’t come back that suddenly the A will have established air superiority. And the F-22 hanger queen still has to prove it self in a REAL fight. Not by flying in uncontested air at 40.000 feet over Syria.

    • Brian B. Mulholland

      That’s my concern. In the future it may not be possible to deliver CAS by low altitude passes. Sensor development apparently doesn’t permit the F-35 to use the most appropriate SDB II yet (even if the cost of the latter was irrelevant) from altitude, and there seem to be no other weapons on hand that would permit an orbiting F-35 to deliver CAS from altitude while maintaining a stealthy profile.

      If the F-22 proves unable to deliver air control, we’ll have more problems than inability to provide low-and-slow CAS. IMHO, which is that of a civilian.

  • arc5radio

    It lags in everything except massive costs and making a few “fat cats” fatter.

  • Dale

    What I have been asking for years on this subject is why do we to buy/build THIS.

    If you want to argue that the the first of the F-15’s F-16’s and non super hornet F-18’s are getting old and need to be replaced, fine but all thre of those aircraft are STILL in production and what is rolling off the assembly line are vastly different aircraft, everything engines, electronics, computer hardware and software have been “new and improved any number of times and in some aspects are “newer” than the F-35 because it has taken forever. Now if the F-35 was a quantam leap ahead, what the F-100 was to the F-86 what the F-4 was to the F-100, what the F-15 was to the F-4 and what the f-22 was/is to the F-15 then I would say all this trouble may be worth it and not say we should just buy more new build 15’s 16’s and 18’s but that is NOT the case I no of no mission parameter is better by any substantial amount and plenty where it is worse sometimes a lot. We could buy new aircraft esyily intergrate them into exist squadrons/wings use existing training and logistics piplines, get them NOW not next year or more likley 5 or 10 years from now and have the added bonus be that they do not cost a GD fortune.

  • Andrew

    Initially . . .like, until it’s replaced.

  • Brin

    So sad to see. You can not have a stealth aircraft do close air support. It’s impossible. Stealth aircraft are more for high altitude work. And the fact that The F-35 still isn’t working right, give everyone, who can see it, the ammo to force the air force to keep the A-10 In service. It was built for the job, and did it very well. And doesn’t cost the taxpayers, where as the F-35 is breaking the bank, and not doing anything. Given all the problems the F-35’s having, this should make the air force pull all he A-10s out of storage, rebuild and repair them, and use them.

  • tom

    Just as Carter cancelled the B1 bomber, the F35 should have been cancelled. Reagan created the first trillion dollar national debt when he cut taxes and resurrected the unneeded B-1. The stealth fighter was already flying. If you raise defense spending or go to war like Bush did, raise taxes to support it, don’t create more of a deficit and greater National debt.