A-10 Thunderbolt Mk. 2 VS F-35 Lightning Mk. 2

Again it was designed to survive the Fulda Gap, not really a hospitable place, one teaming with Soviet armor, infantry equipped with MANPADs, these armies supported by the Soviet air force and anti-air regiments, all while NATO air forces were struggling for air superiority. …Soviet armor, Soviet infantry, Soviet MANPADs, Soviet Air Forces = 1980s Tech. Whereas I did say per verbatim: “The ultimate 21st century air-threat environment is….” and that the A-10 is ill-suited for this type of high-tech/high threat environment. Only 5 A-10s have been destroyed in combat (only ONE pilot has DIED), but the first four planes were destroyed during the first Gulf war, a place not exactly lacking of SAMs, but they were inevitability pulled off the line but only after 8,100 combat sorties. The historic A-10 grounding in Desert Storm came after 2 A-10s in a row were downed after engaging elite Iraqi Republican Guard divisions in a single day (whose destruction was purposely saved for last by CENTCOM commanders) (http://en.wikipedia.org...). During that same week, dozens of A-10's also came limping back to base after heavy flak and coordinated AAA fire, and some were unable to return to frontline service. You’ll remember too that the Republican Guard was the only reliable/well-equipped SAM forces Saddam had in the entire Gulf War campaign, which should prove something about the A-10's performance against legit surface to air missile threats. DAS is in later versions of the software, how long tell it's operational? Northrop Grumman has just delivered its 1,000th AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system (http://www.airforce-technology.com...). Which proves the system’s maturity. The point of this example is objects are very blurry to the eye when traveling at 60, let alone flying at 1000 mph at high altitudes, little objects on the ground will be hard to identify, even with sophisticated equipment. When’s the last time a fighter pilot has ever locked on to a ground target with a radar seeking missile just by using eye sight? The pilot in this case, either had an advanced helmet mounted display, sensors, or a super advanced radar-avionic suite – both of which are featured more prominently (and in more advanced forms) in the F-35. The A-10 has the lowest number of friendly fire incidents (excluding the AC-130). Which allows me to bring up an interesting point. Why not have the AC-130 complete the slow-loitering CAS role that features gatling guns and oversized cannons? The Air Force doesn't need the A-10 What of the F-35, it is highly sophisticated and computerized. The F-35 was designed for electronic warfare and features built-in countermeasures against radar jamming, hacking, and EMP. In contrast, the A-10 lacks even a basic countermeasure against radar jamming and GPS tampering without first attaching an electronic warfare mod (or pods) underneath the wings. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22 You’ll notice again in Round 3 that I said “The F-35 will not need fighter escorts for the majority of its missions.” In contrast, the A-10 needs an escort for ALL of its missions whenever air sumpremacy is contested by enemy aircraft. Slow moving is an advantage in C.A.S missions, (which the A-10 excels at), Are you really trying to say that the ability to perform CAS at supersonic speeds isn’t? and low flying planes are harder to pick up on radar. In general yes, but there’s a tradeoff. Low flying planes are much more vulnerable to small arms fire, AAA, shorter range SAMS, and can be spotted by the naked eye. Low-flying planes also tend to lack significantly in range and suffer from their own radar/sensor impairment when flying near the ground. SAMs can shoot planes down at altitudes of 30km or 98,425 ft, the ceiling of the F-35 is about 45,000 ft, So when the F-35 is picked up on radar ( some, sadly,will be) it will be shot down with no armor to protect the pilot or get the plane home safely. That's quite an assumption considering all the speed, acrobatics, computer gizmos, and stealth features I’ve been touting on the F-35 that make it impervious to radar lock by surface to air missiles. Unlike the A-10, it has a lot more defensive counters than just flare and chaff. The AF, Marines, and Navy shouldn't have to spend 68, 87, and 92 million dollars respectively, (only the flyaway cost) on a plane whose combat effectiveness is constantly dropping. The only airframe whose performance is constantly dropping is the A-10 – which you’ve even admitted “needs upgrading.” Rather than blow millions on upgrading an obsolete and aging platform, it makes sense to procure a newer and better weapon systems that maintains are tech lead while our enemies continue to make technological advances themselves. The F-35 does that and more.