Originally Posted by
Turbine D
We have spent and continue to spend an ungodly amount of money on the Marine version of the F-35 which doesn't have the CAS or survival capability of the A-10. So what role does it really have? What role will it have?
Let's not mix apples and oranges.
When it was first procured, the F-35, aka Joint Strike Fighter, was not "this is the plane to replace the A-10" was it?
No, it wasn't.
The B is to replace the Harrier.
The A the F-16.
The C the F-18.
(Whether or not this is all in all a good idea is another matter, long argued from program inception to this morning, and beyond)
None of those previous models were a replacement for the A-10 either.
Right?
The A-10 fitted a unique niche, but if you look in the other direction, it can't replace the Viper, the Hornet, nor the Harrier in their multiple missions.
Doctrinally, Strike and CAS are distinct missions, though perhaps the authors of doctrine make distinctions that eventually blur in combat. You'll note that the competition was not for a Joint CAS Fighter.
I'll stand by the point already made in the other thread: nothing can replace the A-10. And nothing will, by itself. If you bother to roll up an echelon, the joint fires necessary to support the close fight will need to be provided by a mix of direct, indirect, and airborne fires (like Apache/Cobra attack helicopters) even though they are not an exact match for that lovely Warthog gun. A piece of it will come from strike aircraft like the
Harrier
Viper
Hornet
Strike Eagle
Lightning II
With the increasing use of "smart munitions" "brilliant munitions" and various flavors of guided sub-munitions, the menu of fires in support of the close fight is pretty well set up, with columns A and B, like a good Chinese menu.
The complaint that F-35 has not yet demonstrated strike and CAS in finished form (yet) I won't argue: I'd say it hasn't yet.