Back to Squawk list
  • 2

A-10 vs. F-35: Air Force warplanes to face off

(CNN)Can an old war horse that dates back more than 40 years hold its own against the newest warbird loaded with the latest in technology and weaponry? The Pentagon said it aims to find out and will pit the venerable A-10 Warthog against the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter in a series of rigorous tests replicating what the planes would face in battle. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

"Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is made up! Of course we will give the A-10 a fair trial, but I'm sure that the F-35 will win. Lockheed_Martin, that will be $35Mil deposited in my off-shore account.


The AF Decision Makers"

This poor horse has been beaten to death! The AF just had to replace the P-47 with the P-51 for close (effective) ground support during WWII. Yes, the P-51 worked but it couldn't return home from a mission with one or two jugs shot off. And take one in gizzard (cooling system) and that's all she wrote. Just ask Hub Zemke. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Retire the A-10 AFTER you retire the c-130 and the B-52. Some planes just exceed their expectations and deserve their place in the lineup. The A-10 has proven itself time and time again. Why use a multi-tool when a simple sledgehammer will do the trick (with confidence).
ADXbear 6
Ya really want to risk a $135 million aircraft to ground fire?... stupid Apple's to oranges comparison

canuck44 8
Particularly when it won't be able to shoot back until 2020 and then only with 20 mm gun good for only one or two short bursts.
Cal Keegan 3
Completely rigged. They're going to delay the face off as long as possible, two years minimum if not more, continue spending money hand-over-fist on the F35 ("we can't get rid of it now! we've spent so much on it!") and declare it the winner no matter how poorly it performs.

USAF has never liked the A10 and tried to kill it decades ago with the A16, a ground attack version of the can't-go-slow, can't-go-low, single-engine, no-ability-to-sustain-damage-and-fly-home F16.

They should give the A10 to the Army. Just like helos can't fight effectively against jet fighters, not every aircraft has to be an air superiority aircraft (sorry USAF!). The AWACS, F15s and F22s handle the air superiority, the A10 pounds the enemy's ground positions.

Q: Why does the Army fly rotorwing aircraft rather than the AF? Same reason they should be given the A10. The Air Force has never given a serious flip about Close Air Support. It's not their butts on the line, not even their service. They're not really impacted by their failure to do it; it's the grunts that pay for the silk scarf mentality with their lives.
chalet 3
The A-10 was designed and built for CAS missions, the F-35 for other activities. Secondly, the cost per unit is enormous, the F-35 costing 5 to 7 times more (you will never know with so many hidden/misleading figures coming off Lockheed, last quoted price was $ 130 mill) and there is the cost per hour and then again the Lockheed PR types will tell you only half the story whereas the similar cost of the A-10 is several orders of mafnitud LESS.
Lloyd Boyette 5
This is a ridiculous match-up. Neither plane is in the same league as the other. In the Ground Support role... nothing beats the A-10 and in a straight up dogfight the F-35 would hand it its ass. In overall performance in regards to speed and range, again, the F-35 has it in spades... In airframe reliability and overall battlefield survivability.... the A-10 has the F-35 trumped. What do they expect to gain from this competition?
canuck44 9
The Army better jump in to score the ground support aspect because you know the Air Force suits will have their finger on the scale. Probably won't even require the F-35 to fire a round....oh yah, because it can't.
matt jensen 2
Let's just see how the F35 performs. It's never really been pushed to the wall, like the A10 has - like in real combat.
erniekovacs 2
I am Vietnam era Army veteran with eleven years of service and don't know much about aviation but I would like to voice my 2 cents worth.
There are three things I have heard about the F-35.
1. I has radar to engage enemy aircraft from 300 miles away with a shoot and forget missile.
2. Because of #1 mentioned I do not see the need for a dog-fight and therefore the $400,000.00 helmet that they can see with 360 degrees is not needed.
3. Do not need the VTOL version since any combat engagement would be by Air Force grand based craft or carrier based Navy. Since it is on the carrier no need for VTOL. VTOL-s have never been what most consider a fighting platform. It is just a show piece.
So, if you remove the see all helmets and the VTOL aspects cost, you can save enough to purchase ne A-10-s and everybody could be happy having both.
Don't grade me for poor English. I am not trying to be an English professor. Just commenting and hope somebody may pass this onto the eyes of some politicians.
Rick Schmidt 1
The F35 and F22 are a sweet program or funnel money to a Skunk Works program. A black eye for a "issue" is better than trying to explain why there is money going into a black hole :)
Bernie20910 1
The only real question here is, how heavily weighted in favor of the F-35 are the tests going to be?


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.