You need to seriously educate yourself on:

-Modern precision guided munitions

The AMRAAM missile is radar-guided with a range of 110 miles (model D). The target picked up on radar by the aircraft has its speed, altitude, and directed path calculated which is fed into the missile. The missile then goes on an intercept course. Should the target move or attempt to evade (e.g. change directions) the information is linked to the missile and it changes accordingly. The AMRAAM, from close range, has a lot of fuel in it, and thus has problems turning, but will be most deadly when its almost out (when it can turn more freely after an intended target).

…. that’s off the top of my head. How much of that is correct?

[QUOTE=ELP;1082851]-Today’s ground forward air controllers[quote]
You mean the stuff that the Air Force’s special forces combat controllers do, or you talking something else? Be a bit more specific, it kinda didn’t make sense.

-Today’s low altitude threats are even better than the 70-‘s-80’s Fulda Gap scenario, including more countries having such technology.

Yeah. The Iraqis (or any enemies) are using more modern technology. Today’s low altitude threats are higher on NATO sides. To my understanding, most of our enemies are still using the same-old ancient technology.

Even then, it wouldn’t matter. The A-10 can take a substanial amount of punishment and fly in places fighter-bombers wouldn’t dream of. The other thing is that the A-10 has 11 hardpoints. Most other aircraft can’t carry that amount of payload. B-52, and Lancers, B-2s, yeah, but those are strategic bombers and used for something else.

-Response time for emergency CAS requests. The A-10 is… slow.

What the heck do you think makes it so great? It’s awesome speed? Because its slow and low on technology is why its great. Besides, its ruggedness allows it to take off on airbases right on or near the battlefield. The F-35 wouldn’t be able to afford to be dispatched at an improvised airbase.

-CBU-105_SFW_BLU-108b ( A B-52 at 40,000ft and miles away took out a large tank formation threatening a Marine GFAC and the troops he was with.
Today, an A-10 is not the greatest tank killer.

If that’s the case, then no; nuclear missiles are the best tank killers.

The A-10 is the only CAS aircraft I know of that can blow up tanks with its standard machinegun, or rip men to shreds with impact, shrapenel, and force from a meter away on a straffing run. The F-35 is commiting suicide doing that.

-Most of today’s CAS requests are being serviced, without the A-10. And even if low level ground threats like trashfire, AAA, MANPAD’s, Small battlefield SAMs etc were around, they still couldn’t reach the fast mover.

Check your information again. One of the few and only aircraft for CAS in Iraq is the A-10. Like I said, because its old, crusty, and rugged, it can afford landing in Iraq with terrible ground conditions or terrain (like sand).

It’s much like the AK-47 vs the M-16. Drop an AK-47 in a river or six feet of sand. Leave for a week. Come back, dry (or brush off), stick in a new magazine, shoot. It works. You wouldn’t dream of doing that with an M-16.

-The C model ( P.E. precision engagement ) package, isn’t even widely fielded yet. This takes A-10 right off the planning table when targets have to be hit in poor weather/bad visually obscured situations. OIF 2003, JSTARS and fast fixed wings with JDAMs stopped a whole Iraqi formation that thought they had cover from a sandstorm. They didn’t they died.

— And? The reason it has poor avionics adds to the great lowness of its cost and need for maintance. Remember, the more computers you put on something, the more chances you have of something breaking down. And I highly doubt the A-10s would’ve died without the sandstorm.

You’re talking about a flying tank here (4″ of titanium steel around the pilot, or more specifically, nearly 900lbs of it. Try destroying 900lbs of titantium steel some time and tell me how easy it is). The MINIMUM caliber to damage the A-10 is 23mm (high explosive, armor peircing 23mm). In addition, name me an aircraft DESIGNED (not can, designed) to fly with 1 wing, 1 tail fin, the elevator, and land without landing gear.

Even as it matures… AESA Super Hornet Block II and Block III of JSF will have this extra improved moving target ability. A-10 won’t and even with the P.E. package can’t even get out of engagement range of ground threats.
-That A-10 is very useful, but far from always being the first tool out of the bag when CAS is needed.

Ok. Send in a AESA Super Hornet Block II (or any JSF for that matter) when there’s an innumerable amount of SAMs, high threat territory with unknown numerous other defenses to strike a small group of tanks… IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. Oh, btw, MiGs might be patrolling too.

That’s suicide even for a squadron of Harriers, helicopters, or anything really. We need the targets cleared without the help of ground support (thus, no combat controllers with their little lasers).

Nope. A-10 isn’t going away.

CAS comes in many forms. After long range SAMs and enemy aircraft are killed off, legacy or stealth aircraft doesn’t matter…. dropping JDAM, Paveways, and CBU-105s from 35-40k ft means AAA, medium SAMs, Small SAMs/MANPADs ( some newer MANPADS have some nice range now )…. anyway… none of these threats can touch an aircraft dropping from that high and out. Dropping sub 4 meter precision guided munitions in near any weather. I can touch you, but you can’t touch me.
A-10. It can take a lot of punishment because it ….. has no choice. Even with the up coming PGM upgrade, it still won’t be able to go high enough with munitions loaded on, to avoid those medium-to-low altitude threats. That is part of the reason we buried some of the airframes that were shot to pieces in the desert post Desert Storm. The fast movers from up high can avoid a Tor 1 with PGMs. The Tor 1 will kill every thing it looks at that fits a helicopter or A-10 like altitude set. Where… even when the JSF goes down for a guns pass on CAS after using up all of it’s PGM’s. ( Quite common today with todays CAS …. after the PGMs are used up and the GFAC still needs support, it’s guns time ). … at least the JSF has a slightly better chance at avoiding a Tor1 ( at distance ) coming down for a guns pass…Because of it’s sensors (if the threat emits )…. and that the Buick of Stealth is a narrow band stealth jet tuned for emitters that direct weapons (AAA, SAM, fighter aircraft) Fast movers expose themselves less ( time) on a guns pass. Swoop down and zoom climb up. An A-10 is slow and orbits around and if it runs into a flak/battlefield SAM/MANPAD threat… like the redcoats in the line, it just has to stand there and take it.
Fast movers have better response time out of the JSTARS stack. A-10 is kinda slow when a GFAC is asking for help. A-10s are better for pre-planned ops with short response areas (time). The most important thing to a GFAC is time when an ambush pops up and the ground troops he is with need fire support. A B-1 or teen fighter or someday JSF arriving in 10 minutes or less, beats an A-10 arriving in 15-20. And a GFAC doesn’t care much what airframe shows up as long as it can help kill what is hurting his troops he is embedded with.
You also may need to consider looking at the full JSF sensor suite. The ESM kit on it, basically makes it, it’s own little local_area Rivet Joint. Where with it’s incredible suite of diverse sensors it is also just a portable sensor node collecting and recording the electronic order of battle and passing that to anyone else on the network that is interested. If something emits, it can geo locate it quickly and accurately, pass that along on the network to other interested platforms/decision-makers, or kill it for itself.
Again, A-10 is very useful… but more for lower ground fire threat ops. A full blown ground war scenario and TOR-1_like threats will have a feast on low flying anything.

…. Yeah, and new information I don’t is … where? The A-10 is only, in my opinion, the sexiest and best plane ever!! I never said it was going away. I said compare COSTS. Those reasons you gave are why I personally believe, the F-22 couldn’t dogfight the A-10… couldn’t take down if it launched everything at it.

I thought this part was interesting”

“Bergeson said he and a captain, flying F-22s, engaged six F-16s at close range, but it was “no problem.” “We have a lot of capability in the close-in regime,” noted Smith.”

— “No problem” should’ve said, “with eyes closed”.

The F-16s never even saw the F-22s EVER, much less grab a missile lock of any kind.

Even though USAF is much better of with f22 than other branches of the military, superhornet seems quite capable of going against best of what potential enemies might offer in the next ten years.

— Potential enemies? You mean, China, North Korea, and Iran? 🙂
Seriously, our “potential enemies” are still using far outdated MiGs and have a hard time producing any aircraft of their own. (Tell me the names of a few “capable” aircraft the North Koreans have developed, then tell me where they’re going to find pilots with the same skills or better than American.)

Our “ancient” aircraft that we have used for the past 20-30 years have a kill ratio of 1:400. I highly doubt in ten years any “potential enemy” is going to develop something that will be able to beat the crap (or close) out of anything we have.

Unless they somehow manage to get our pilots to all fall asleep and crash. (Yeah. That’s it. North Korea sends MiG-17s to try and dogfight with F-18s or F-22s. They get so bored they fall asleep and crash. MiGs win!)

.
.
.
As per the topic, I find it utterly ridiculous anyone dreams that we’ll replace everything with the F-35 and the F-22 (essentially the same aircraft, but the F-22 is more designed for A-A, and the F-35 is more an “all-rounder”). ESPCIALLY CAS (Close Air Support) aircraft (namely, IMHO, the sexiest aircraft on planet earth: A-10 Warthog).

The F-22 and F-35 are riddled with delicate systems that cover the aircraft. A few shots from the enemy, and they probably burst into flames.

And yeah, I’m sure cost is a terrible issue. Compare the 2.8 million A-10s to the nearly 2 billion F-22.