You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
F-35 Pilots Not Happy to Perform A-10 Comparison Tests
2016-05-09
As usual, the F-35 crowd hiding behind the "Apples vs. Oranges" crap.
J. Michael Gilmore, the U.S. Defense Department's top weapons-tester, confirmed on April 26 that the Pentagon will conduct a head-to-head test of a new F-35 stealth fighter and an old A-10 attack jet in the close-air-support mission.

Critics of the high-tech, budget-busting F-35 and fans of the tried-and-true A-10 -- a rugged, purpose-built ground-attack plane -- applauded the announcement.

But at least one person is not pleased. Lt. Col. Joshua Wood, an F-35 pilot and the commander of the U.S. Air Force's 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada -- the unit responsible for developing new tactics for the F-35, A-10 and other front-line Air Force fighters -- told Combat Aircraft that the test will not be helpful.

"You run the risk of drawing unrealistic conclusions," Wood told reporter Steve Davies, who has done excellent work on the 422nd TES and F-35 tactics.

Wood stressed that it was not up to him to decide whether there would be a test. "Dr. Gilmore is the quality assurance check on the military's acquisition system," Wood said. "With that in mind, he wants that comparison" between the F-35 and the 1970s-vintage A-10.

Actually, Congress more than anyone else wants the comparison. Lawmakers have repeatedly blocked the Air Force from retiring its roughly 300 A-10s in order to free up a few billion dollars for F-35s.

Wood's problem with the F-35-versus-A-10 test, he told Davies, is that the two planes -- one, single-engine, fast and flimsy; the other twin-engine, slow and sturdy -- are too different for a direct comparison. "What I would say is that it's very important to compare apples to apples."

"When you try to have a comparative analysis of a single-mission platform like the A-10 against a platform like the F-35, which is fundamentally designed from the ground up to do something completely different," Wood added, "you run the risk of drawing unrealistic conclusions."

Citing War Is Boring's summer 2015 publication of a leaked test report describing a mock dogfight between an F-35 and a much older F-16 -- a trial in which the nimble F-16 performed much better than the more sluggish F-35 did -- Wood continued:

"Take [basic fighter maneuvers], for example. You fly off a 'clean' F-16 against a 'clean' F-35 -- who will win? That's a difficult question to answer. In some parameters, the F-16 is going to dominate. It's a day [visual flight rules] fighter that can turn inside its own butt."

By contrast, Wood said, "the F-35 was built with stealth to be able to go places that no one else can go and to be lethal without anyone seeing it. Those are two very different design points. So, what if I draw a conclusion that the F-35 can be [out-maneuvered] by the F-16 -- therefore the F-16 is better? Hmmm. Well, let's throw in a couple enemy [surface-to-air missiles]. Then let's see how the F-16 by itself does."

"In other words," Wood concluded, "you can design tests if you have inside knowledge to showcase strengths and weaknesses and abuse them to your own bias if you wanted to do a disingenuous comparative analysis."

To be clear, Wood's squadron -- which works for Air Combat Command -- will not be the one conducting the F-35-against-A-10 trial. That job belongs to the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, which works for the overall Air Force.

But Wood offered what could turn out to be a preview of the test's result -- that both the F-35 and A-10 can do close air support. But they would do it differently, especially against a well-armed foe with radars and air-defense missiles.

The slow, non-stealthy A-10 flies very low -- down to 100 feet -- in order to avoid detection by enemy sensors. "A-10 guys don't like radar threats," Wood said. "We enjoy the tactics that they force, being down at 100 feet, but when you pop over that ridgeline and you're exposed, you are just sitting there trundling towards the target thinking, 'Don't find me. Don't find me. Don't find me. Okay, good. Bombs are off. Let's get the Hell out of here.'"

With its speed and stealth -- especially compared to the A-10 -- the F-35 can come in high. "I am able to locate and plot the threat relative to the target and can assess whether an attack is tactically feasible or not. If it is, I can take out the target without the threat knowing I'm there and egress without being targeted."

Likewise, while the A-10 carries more than a thousand rounds of ammunition for its powerful 30-millimeter cannon, the F-35 carries just 181 rounds for its own 25-millimeter gun. So the A-10 can shoot its gun in support of ground troops, but the F-35 might rely more on small, precise bombs.

That doesn't worry Wood. He cited statistics from Afghanistan that show that a wide range of aircraft -- including bombers that don't even have a gun -- have flown close-air-support missions. "Day after day, we've executed CAS with zero rounds."
Posted by:gorb

#16  The only fixed wing aircraft lost to an enemy Sam in oif was an a10. The rest were fast movers shot down by patriots.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2016-05-09 23:43  

#15  They lost six A10s in a three week period in Desert Storm before they were reassigned to areas without AA support. That was against the monkey model Soviet stuff from 1990.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2016-05-09 23:34  

#14  That's because people keep defining ground support as strafing form fifty feet when that's no longer a viable strategy against opponents with AA missiles.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2016-05-09 23:14  

#13  The damn plane was pitched as a dual use aircraft to be used as a ground support aircraft. It was sold to replace the A10. Just like every fighter prior to it, the Air Force lied to get their new toy. They are good at this. I remember the F16 was sold as a ground support aircraft. Then the f18 and on and on. But then on delivery they are hard configured for aerial combat only. When called out the Air Force standard reply is that the aircraft is a ground support bird but it's not configured for it and it will take bundles of money to reconfigure. This stunt is getting old.
Posted by: 49 pan   2016-05-09 18:20  

#12  If y'all aren't including an OpFor with a representational anti-aircraft system like the Pantsir-S1 y'all are really being unrealistic.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2016-05-09 15:01  

#11  Yer doing it wrong. Want to show off your shiny new plane? Fly it head-to-head against the A-10 in an air superiority exercise. That will show those warty Warthog lovers!
Posted by: SteveS   2016-05-09 14:58  

#10  USAF preordained tests: Went to a Red Flag exercise with a bunch of intruders; 2 of them were painted an experimental desert mottled tan;
we sent both as a section and they jumped the Ascot boys. When they got back the 2 star running the show told our C.O. he couldn't fly those two birds together again. Overhead photos showed the tan birds invisible against the ground.
sad when a bomb truck can take out a F-15/16.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2016-05-09 14:36  

#9  Beso, most definitely.

To quote the Blogfather, "Where's the graft in that?"

Oh right, that's where.
Posted by: AlanC   2016-05-09 11:50  

#8  Let's put the f16 and f15 through the same tests and judge them by how well they strafe...
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2016-05-09 11:12  

#7  Darth, somehow I doubt that the AF is going risk one of their precious, oh so expensive F-35s flying down in the weeds just to help a few ground pounders.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia    2016-05-09 10:53  

#6  Whaaaaa....

Here is the scenario for both planes:
Call goes out for CAS. Pilots jump in planes and depart to target area. Smoke has marked one target. Hit target. Loiter over area for more targets from the ground controller. Hit targets. As eyes above the ground be able to spot hostile movement and adjust fire and relay intel to ground forces. Fly home. Damage assessment and how close you came to the target with your weapons will be graded.

Pretty easy and something the A10 does every day. If the F-35 can take over, it should be able to accomplish the above fairly easily.

I bet it can't which is why the pilot mafia has their panties in a bunch.
Posted by: DarthVader   2016-05-09 10:44  

#5  The problem is deciding what, in an objective world, the correct answer is.
Posted by AlanC


'Engineering in' contract w/o end proprietary sustainment and multi-decade innovative upgrades are obviously a must.
Posted by: Besoeker   2016-05-09 07:57  

#4  Wood got one thing right in that article.

When designing and conducting tests, intimate knowledge of the systems being tested allows the outcome to be pre-ordained. Ran many tests of computer systems in my career and it was easy to design them to give the desired answer.

The problem is deciding what, in an objective world, the correct answer is.
Posted by: AlanC   2016-05-09 07:46  

#3  Procurement and OMA cost comparisons as well ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2016-05-09 07:37  

#2  How about allowing the end user/customer (Army) do the evaluation? Or better yet, just move the mission and resources directly to the end user.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2016-05-09 06:06  

#1  ...I feel sorry for LTCOL Wood. Right now, the few -35s in the USAF inventory are being tended 24/7 by handpicked LockMart/USAF crews and the results still ain't good (one test about a month ago under the most favorable conditions imaginable got ONE -35 out of six off the ground after a day of trying). If that can't be beat, then all the Hog has to do is show up.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2016-05-09 05:25  

00:00