The debate as to whether or not the F-35 could take the place of the A-10 has consumed much time and energy for what seems like an eternity at this point. Now, with a proposed test to compare the F-35’s capabilities to the A-10’s, we may finally see how the planes stack up against each other.
In his article, Lt. Gen. Bogdan Hedges on Operational Testing, Dan Grazier, of POGO (Project On Government Oversight) recently wrote, “Several weeks ago, the Project On Government Oversight announced its cautious optimism upon learning the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) planned to conduct a close air support (CAS) fly-off between the proven A-10 and the yet-to-be proven F-35.”
Grazier’s article focused in part on an exchange between Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan and Arizona Congresswoman Martha McSally. Grazier took excception to Bogdan’s claim that the comparative operational test was little more than irrelevant. Grazier believes that Bogdan’s dismissiveness of McSally – and her questions – is a clear indication of the attitude of the USAF leaders these days.
“Representative McSally was absolutely right in the importance of operational testing,” Grazier told popular Tucson radio show host, James T. Harris. “Testing what these weapons can really do under as close to real world situations as humanly possible. So her asking that was legitimate and it was important to get General Bogdan on record with his response to it mostly because the Air Force in general, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force called the notion of conducting this operational comparative test between the A-10 and the F-35 is silly,” Grazier explained. “And you can leave it to your listeners to make up their own mind if they want to go check out the video. I challenge you to watch the video and take a look a the general as he gives his response and you can judge what his sentiments are regarding the test.”
While Grazier was not able to see the General’s face during the hearing as he was sitting behind him, he later watched the video and saw the reactions to the questions Bogdan was asked. Grazier said that watching the video the day after the discussion showed him just how dismissive of the question and the concept of the test as a whole.
Supporters of the A-10 and F-35 skeptics hope to test F-35 and compare it to the A-10 in terms of Close Air Support. According to Grazier, Bogdan seemed well aware of that fact that the A-10 is superior. “When asked by Rep. McSally to comment about the comparative tests, Lt. Gen. Bogdan acknowledged the F-35 would not do as well as the A-10 in such a test. He smugly compared the test to a decathlete competing against a champion sprinter in a 100 meter race,” wrote Grazier.
“It’s definitely not built for close-air support,” Grazier told Harris. “The real problem with the F-35, and this is something that cannot be said enough, is that it was designed not only to be a multi-mission aircraft but also designed to be a multi-service aircraft and to do that they have to make a whole lot of design compromises in the aircraft. So it really ends up exactly as Representative McSally said in her questioning last week. It really becomes jack of all trades and master of none.” Grazier continued, “And simply because a fighter plane, a good fighter plane, has very specific characteristics – and they’re very different from the characteristics that make a good a close-air support platform. So when you make all those compromises to make the one plane a fighter plane, a Close Air Support platform, an interceptor, all those different things. All those compromises mean that some aspect of the performance envelope are short changed in it.”
Grazier explained that because the F-35 is designed as an all-purpose aircraft it is inferior to the A-10 in providing cover for troops. Because the A-10 can go low and can take a hit, it can spend time over an area assisting ground forces. Also, because the A-10 can fly at lower speeds, pilots have a better survey of the field with natural vision versus the dependency on radar and other equipment. The F-35 can do neither.
Grazier noted that McSally sees dangers with that current approach in which technology is dictating how troops will be able to fight rather than battlefield experience shaping the technology incorporated in the aircraft. McSally told Bogdan, “I think us envisioning that we’re never going to have close air support where guys are on the run, they’re out of ammo, they’re doing a mirror flash into your eye, they don’t have time to do stand-off CAS because of the conflict circumstances, if we think that’s never going to happen again, I think we’re lying to ourselves.”
Related articles:
JTAC on A 10: “the sound of don’t mess with me”
A-10 in play as Senate Appropriations Committee drafts FY 2015 NDAA
Ayotte: If the Air Force cut their acquisition failures they could save the A-10
Air Force brass taken to task for A-10 mothball plans