Which plane is more effective? You may ask. I’m going to try and keep it as simple as possible. The A-10 is better on paper, the reason being simply the power of the cannon of the aircraft, it is accurate and deadly unlike that of the F-35, also, the A-10 has a higher loitering time capability than that of the F-35 meaning it can stay above its target for longer. So effectively ignoring other factors, it seems that the A-10 comes out on top because of its ordnance (even though the F-35 technically should be able to carry more).
Now, lets discuss, how could the F-35 perform better? The F-35 has better agility and speed than the A-10, in every single situation. This means it can perform tasks quicker and usually without getting hit unlike the A-10. The A-10 is designed so that it can take many wounds and still fly, the F-35 is designed not to get hit at all. The stealth of the F-35 makes it incredibly useful in some scenarios, not being able to be picked up on radar means it has gained a serious advantage over the enemies, some radar tracking defenses would be useless and enemies would have a surprise as it approaches. With the A-10 this was impossible, there could be no way in which they could fly in, undetected.
The A-10 in CAS scenarios cannot successful defend itself. It can be armed with air to air weapons but realistically it will be unsuccesful in a dog fight against any air to air combat aircraft as it is simply not designed for that. So, if an A-10 came into close contact with an enemy fighter it would also need backup or it would simply be shot down, not ideal for an expensive aircraft.
In conclusion, I think the F-35 is better than the A-10 for the role of CAS. This is difficult for me to say as a huge fan of the A-10. Basically, the F-35 can do most of the things the A-10 can do but better, the A-10 needs a short runway? The F-35 doesn’t need one. Who can carry more ordenance? F-35. However, it is very close, the cannon carries an essential role in the delivery of successful CAS missions and that fact that the F-35’s cannon is so weak in comparison to a plane that is 60 years older makes it truly dissapointing in ensuring air domination.
The price of the maintenance and cost of each aircraft may seem important, and it is. Every single aircraft bought by the military is funded by the taxpayers of said country. In this case since the only active user of the A-10 is USA, I will focus on that. The country is already known to be criticised due to its military spending and spending more on fighters will only increase the problem America faces.
The new F-35 is just so expensive, its highly overpriced and unfeasable to maintain for smaller countries with lower budgets such as the UK or Spain, it just really dones’t seem like the best route from the eyes of a taxpayer when we already have such capable aircraft. The USA has had a history of making affordable aircraft that outperform the competition but in modern times this seems to have changed, with huge increments in budget for a slight compeitive edge.
The only real justification for the price of the F-35 is the stealth technology and its advantages in pretty much every single scenario possible. It will always remai undetected which is an incredible advantage over enemies, especially in the Close Air support role. Countries without stealth technology are definitely outgunned in terms of air to air combat.
The economics could be justified as it performs so many roles in various air forces and navies around the world, but still, it doesn’t seem like a viable replacement for the A-10 from an economics standpoint, I mean, it’s more than 1000% the cost of the A-10.
The economics could be justified as it performs so many roles in various air forces and navies around the world, but still, it doesn’t seem like a viable replacement for the A-10 from an economics standpoint, I mean, it’s more than 1000% the cost of the A-10.
Specifically in the Uk, budgets cuts in other areas are already being made to accommodate higher military budgets, this affects every single person in the UK as less money in spent on the people themselves and is instead effectively wasted for an unneeded aircraft. NHS, roads, small towns, trains, public transport, it’s all suffering just for the strength on the Navy and RAF.
The F-35 is going to pollute. A lot. That is just the way it is with modern supersonic fighters. Engineers try to make aircraft as environmentally friendly as possible indirectly by trying to increase fuel efficiency. The fuel efficiency of the A-10 is much higher, it can get more done for the same amount of fuel.
There is some debate as the A-10 would need more aircraft as air support than the F-35 as it cannot dogfight in most situations, this could also increase the environmental impact of the program.
In conclusion, the F-35 is the worst aircraft all round when talking specifically about Close Air Support and when considered as a replacement for the A-10. It just does the same job, worse, for an immense increase in pricing. This is very specific to the USA but still, I believe it could have been possible to execute a much better F-35 program than what NATO currently has and its a disappointment to the aerospace industry when considering what it has not achieved.
I recently conducted a survey about this topic in order to try and get another viewpoint from others with a different history to mine.
The results were very both surprising and unsurprising, an oxymoron, however true. In total I had 6 responses which is not as many as I was hoping but 5 of the responses were fully detailed responses. The 5 applicants all came from countries with a lower GDP per Capita than that of my own which is no surprise when the question for a price of a reasonable fighter jet was lower than the F-35 for all 5 responses.
Every single candidate argued that their military force should be improved which is definitely surprising as most American media focuses on reducing the military yearly budget but after researching the countries’ militaries of each candidate, it is clear that their military is out dated when compared to 1st world countries. However, 50% of the responses indicated that carbon emission should be considered in the future for fighters and 25% also argued that Carbon emissions should not be risked for freedom.
Every single candidate responded that environmental impact should be more important than how the aircraft looks and another 50% argued that Environmental impact should be the priority for next generation fighter jets which is definitely surprising to me considering all candidates want to improve their air force with low cost fighter jets. Also, this option was picked over taxpayer finance.
Overall, I think the survey was a good idea in order to look into the situation from another viewpoint. Something I gained from this was that every single candidate’s country was not a part of the F-35 program and every single response suggested that they wouldn’t want this aircraft.