2017 Defense Budget mandates an A-10 versus F-35 flyoff

[johndoe3]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... y-gun.html

Cage Match: A Congress mandated flyoff to compare ground support missions of A-10 versus F-35; if the F-35 can even eke out a tie then they would retire the A-10.

Now, Congress has called for a series of 'war games' will see which is really best.

The move, outlined in the reconciled $618.7 billion defense policy bill for 2017, is a win for A-10 champions on Capitol Hill, who have been sparring with the Air Force for years over the service’s plan to sunset the venerable Warthog to move precious resources and maintainers to the F-35, according to Aviation Week.

It also fuels speculation that the Air Force will give up trying to retire the A-10 for the foreseeable future, a move several top service officials have recently alluded to in interviews with the publication.

The new bill, unveiled Nov. 30, has a provision that would mandate the Pentagon’s top weapons tester complete comparison tests of the F-35 and A-10 performing the Warthog’s primary missions: close-air support (CAS) of soldiers in the heat of battle, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air control.

The chief weapons tester must report to Congress on the results of this test, as well as the findings of the F-35’s final test period, called initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), expected to begin in 2018.

This means that the Air Force can’t begin to retire the A-10 until 2019 at the earliest.

[TROOPER]

The whole thing is silly. Every single thing about it.

[poikilotrm]

How about a flyoff between a Sopwith Camel and an AH-64? Makes as much sense.

[TROOPER]

How about a flyoff between a Sopwith Camel and an AH-64? Makes as much sense.

^ This ^

Since the parameters of the 'test' can be tailored to either aircraft's strengths, the real 'winner' is the one that the brass wants to win.

And the hell of it is that I believe the A-10 is past its prime and is now a redundant airframe.... but certainly not because of the F-35.

[johndoe3]

Why? because Senator John McCain inserted it in the Bill (chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee). He is convinced that the Pentagon is selling him(Congress) a deficient ground support program.

[TROOPER]

Why? because Senator John McCain inserted it in the Bill (chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee). He is convinced that the Pentagon is selling him(Congress) a deficient ground support program.

Proof that it's possible to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Assuming that this is only about McCain's interest in securing "only the best for our troops".

Frankly; I'm confident that there's a wheelbarrow of lobby money moving around Washington as various defense contractors jockey for bigger slices of the defense spending pie.

I have never once questioned the abilities of the A-10, or denied its past successes. But the cost to operate it versus a combination of other platforms -- most notably the C-130 Spectre (or equivalent) -- is not great.

Sure as shinola, someone will chime in about how they saw or heard or had it happen to themselves personally, some incident where they were pinned down, taking fire, and got their bacon pulled out of the fire by an A-10, burping out its 25mm death to would-be assailants. Yes, I get that. But given the number of armed drones they keep over the area as well as recon and support flights from the Spectres, it isn't as if the A-10 is the one-and-only airframe capable of bringing timely intervention.... and for a lot lower cost to boot.

[poikilotrm]

They could have a drone replacement, GAU-8 and all, with improved underwing stores, longer loiter time, lower operating cost, and a comparative pittance of a cost compared to an F-35. They could do this mostly off the shelf, too.

Never happen. Too effective. Too smart. No chance for large amounts of graft.