Originally Posted by
Ian Corrigible
Lone,
From the earliest days, the JSF was always described as replacing both the F-16
and the A-10. Examples from
1996 (DoD TACAIR speech) and
1997 (JSF SAR). I/C
Given that the USAF has been trying to dump the A-10 since before Desert Storm, anything they fly has to fulfill that CAS role if the USAF still wants to do CAS. What I stated is not incorrect: the JSF wasn't built as a pure CAS platform, unlike the A-10.
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.
Apples and oranges again. Uh, the A-10 isn't/wasn't a USMC airframe, the Harrier is/was. Harrier is what B is to replace. (There is another ages long debate on the Harrier that I won't resurrect here).
Here's how I see it: part of the CAS need/requirement will be fulfilled by the UH-1Z, in terms of how the USMC combined arms fighting doctrine applies airborne fires. I may be wrong, having been out of that side of the business for a few years. I do recall that the Marines surely appreciated A-10's overhead when they could get them, as part of the joint force.
As above: nothing replaces the A-10, for better and worse, and that seems to be how the USAF wants it in the future, and has wanted for over a quarter of a century. The push back from the Army, whose requirement it met in the original sense (60's - 70's era requirements formulation) is part of the never ending inter-service bickering. We could also return to the rage from the USMC about the loss of the 8" gun, the 8" gun cruisers (for Naval Gunfire Support) and the second retirement of the Battleships and their NGFS. Nothing can or has replaced the BB, Iowa Class, but somehow the Marines have managed to figure out how to fight without them.