It is also slated to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II (AKA the Warthog, AKA the flying gun), another role for which there is much doubt regarding its capabilities.

I didn't think that there was any doubt about this. It is totally incapable of performing the A-10's role.

The A-10 will get shot down too easily today unless it stays high enough to be out of range of surface to air missiles and just uses missiles or bombs itself. At height it is too slow to cover a reasonable area compared to something like an F-16.

As I understand it the real advantage of the A-10 is persistence. It can stay around and provide close support for a long time period relative to a fast jet. Apparently the shooters on the ground like having this type of support...

Why not let the Army decide what ground support planes it gets and leave the Air Force to gain air superiority and strategic bombing.

It's a purpose built close air support platform so it naturally has very good low speed manoeuvrability. It was designed in part to replace the A-2(? the prop driven one, number might be wrong) and was designed to kill Soviet tanks (among other things) in an era where smart munitions weren’t the default (so you had to get close to have precision) and "our close air support can't get close enough without risking our own troops" was a real problem in Vietnam. As a requirement of being expected to go head to head with Soviet tanks it was designed to get very shot up and still fly away.

All this winds up translating really, really well to a modern (asymmetrical) conflict these capabilities let it somewhat overlap roles with attack helicopters. It has better loitering and payload capabilities, while being much harder to hit with an RPG. Even if it takes a direct hit there's a pretty good chance it won't go down. Another perk is that bullets are cheap compared to bombs and you can swiss-cheese someone without the explosion caving in the roof of the elementary school two streets over. The F35 is not a close air support aircraft so even if it's employed in that role, it won't fit it as well. You can drive a nail with a pipe wrench, but that doesn't mean it's a direct replacement for a hammer.

TL;DR: The A-10 can fulfil most of the role of an attach helicopter without nearly as much risk. A10:F35 = grapefruit:tangerine

It's a complex situation. Basically, on one hand, the Air Force wants to keep a firm grasp even on CAS because they don't want the creation of a second Air Force in the Army.

But on the other hand, they just despise CAS and see it as a 'less noble' kind of mission for the Air Force.

> Why not let the Army decide what ground support planes it gets and leave the Air Force to gain air superiority and strategic bombing.

Because then we end up paying for 4 complete militaries. Everyone loves having their own set of toys, and can make the case for why a particular role makes sense for them.

But surely one lesson from the F-35 is that sometimes having specialised equipment can be cheaper than having one multi-role item?

Sometimes? Sure. But just letting each branch do what they want isn't the right way either.

Of course. Yes I realise that my post might have seemed like that. There should clearly be a joint strategy.

However, as I understand it the US Army currently can't have fixed wing planes (although they can have helicopters) yet are the ones that need close air support and also understand what is needed from it best.

The A-10 can take an enormous amount of punishment. Rumour has it that the F-35 can be shot down with an AK-47. There are a lot of AK-47s in the world.

And the great thing of the A-10 is that it can give close air support. It doesn't have to stay out of reach, it can get right up close so the pilot can see what's going on and shoot the right thing and not the other thing right next to it. The F-35 will have to stay out of reach and pepper the battlefield with long range weaponry.

> The F-35 will have to stay out of reach and pepper the battlefield with long range weaponry.

I'm confused. This is exactly what the F-35 was designed for was it not ?

Yet it's also supposed to replace the A-10.

Your theory is nice but it doesn't match what was seen in Iraq in 2003, the A-10 is obsolete.

Are you sure? I thought the A-10 still did more missions than anything else.

Indestructible and deployed against weakly defended targets equals plenty of missions.

Typical would be those propaganda leaflet runs. Yes, you can make a lot of "bombing" runs under those conditions with great mission count stats etc. Under front line initial attack conditions the plane wouldn't survive anyway, so send it after individual trucks and convoys and stuff like that. Basically targets you'd send a cheap attack helicopter to if the chopper were in range.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with deploying a weak plane against weakly defended targets, other than the mantra there shall be only one plane that does everything for everyone perfectly etc etc.

Between attack helicopters and drones and cruise missiles its hard to find a purpose for an A10 or a F35. Generals/Admirals always prepare for the last war, and ground attack fighters are about as useful as battleships, carriers, and horse cavalry in 2015.

Its very interesting that 70 years ago sending a P-51 up against a B-17 and having the P-51 win the dogfight wouldn't be very interesting story, but in 2015 sending a daytime air superiority fighter like a F-16 up against a F-35 strike bomber and having the fighter win only surprises the people who drank the marketing kool aide that it'll do everything for everyone. The laws of physics and aerodynamics cannot, however, be fooled. Also its very unfair to send one $10M plane up against one $100M plane... they should have sent 10 F-16 up against the F-35 to be economically fair. Or launched over 200 cruise missiles at the airfield the F-35 is based at and see who "wins", who has control of the air when the enemy literally no longer has airports or planes or air force personnel.

In Iraq, the most useful CAS was performed by helicopters, typically the Apache and later the cheaper Kiowa.

It's been used all over the Middle East and Afghanistan and I don't know of any losses. Just the other day one had 4 anti-aircraft missiles fired at it in Syria and was just fine.

It's a dessert topping and a floorwax.