F-35 vs A-10: Can The Lightning Effectively Replace The Thunderbolt?

[rangerrebew]

F-35 vs A-10: Can The Lightning Effectively Replace The Thunderbolt? 
 © Provided by SimpleFlying

A-10 Warthog excels in close air support with multiple weapon options and enhanced situational awareness.

F-35 Lightning II offers stealth, advanced sensors, and multi-mission capabilities but lacks A-10's weapons capacity.

F-35 conducted tests against A-10, exposing limitations in weapon loadout and workload management for certain missions.

Yes, the question has to be asked – can the F-35 Lightning effectively replace the US Air Force’s only aircraft designed for Close Air Support in the A-10 Thunderbolt II? Below is an attempt to answer the question from multiple credible sources.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f-35-vs-a-10-can-the-lightning-effectively-replace-the-thunderbolt/ar-BB1nlxYA?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=22d0913c2a8e4c368ed3b6f45d352fd1&ei=16

[Smokin Joe]

There is an intangible that won't make their list.

Stealth will not replace the psychological effect of that A-10 prowling the skies above you, like a hawk hunting mice in a pasture. (YOU are the mouse).

No matter what else the F-35 can do, it will not mindf*ck your enemies like a good A-10 driver can.

[PeteS in CA]

F-35 Lightning II offers stealth, advanced sensors, and multi-mission capabilities but lacks A-10's weapons capacity.

Also, if the F-35 does carry its full weapons capacity, it carries some on its wings, which makes it unstealthy.

The F-35 is fairly loud, and it carries a 25 mm cannon (with far fewer shells), so it may have some psychological effect.

I think it comes down to whether: the F-35's sensors can compensate for less time to "see" and attack targets; whether weapons capacity and loiter time matter; whether the F-35's speed makes it significantly less vulnerable; whether the A-10's durability is significantly better (it's more than "just" the titanium "bathtub", there are systems redundancies, the engine placement narrows the angles from which they can be hit, and the plane can land on the protruding wheel if the landing gear hydraulics fail; even the Projection Unit in the A-10A had a back-up aiming system in case of loss of main electrical power; the A-10 was designed for mission completion and bringing the pilot home).

[Hoodat]

You can purchase eight A-10s for the cost of one F-35.  And for this mission the A-10 is far superior than the one-size-fits-all F-35 which is designed primarily to line politician pockets with taxpayer cash.

[Smokin Joe]

You can purchase eight A-10s for the cost of one F-35.  And for this mission the A-10 is far superior than the one-size-fits-all F-35 which is designed primarily to line politician pockets with taxpayer cash.

Never saw an F-35 fly (in person) but I have watched A-10s 'hunting' over the Nevada desert. If someone is looking at being a target, it's be enough to cause incontinence, knowing what that gun can do.

Maybe the ordnance from an F-35 would have the same effect, but those who survived that would not have the FEAR factor the A-10 would induce. That, and I seriously doubt the F-35 airframe could take the punishment some A-10s have and still RTB.

But TPTB in the AF want sleek and sexy zoomies, not purpose built and not-so-pretty CAS aircraft.