The A-10 was designed to fly low and slow over the battlefield and offer troops sustained fire support.
With the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II slated for retirement, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is being conceived as the Air Force’s long-term replacement for close air support (CAS) missions. But the two aircraft were built with fundamentally different design philosophies, raising questions about whether the F-35—fifth-generation or not—has the capability to truly replace the A-10’s renowned CAS performance.
Impossible to Replace
The A-10 was designed in the 1970s for one thing and one thing only: to fly low and slow over the battlefield and offer troops sustained fire support. Every single feature of the aircraft was designed with that purpose in mind—from the massive 30mm rotary canon to the titanium “bathtub” encasing the pilot, offering protection from ground fire. Even the engines are mounted (above the wings) to offer protection from ground fire. The wings and control systems are rugged and redundant and have proven capable of operating despite extreme damage. The end result is an aircraft that, arguably, is the best CAS platform of all time—fully capable of loitering for hours, absorbing immense punishment while doling out immense punishment in turn.
The F-35, meanwhile, while more modern and more sophisticated, was designed primarily as a multirole fighter, capable of surviving in denied airspace, conducting air superiority and strike missions, and serving as a data node. The F-35 can perform CAS missions, but the F-35 was not designed solely for performing CAS. Instead of a rotary cannon and a titanium bathtub, the F-35 gets by with advanced sensors, stealth shaping, and the ability to fuse battlefield information so seamlessly that the pilot has fantastic situational awareness. But the F-35 was not built to loiter at low altitudes for extended periods of time, an aerial extension of the troops below. Rather, the F-35 can engage threats from high altitudes using precision-guided munitions. Alternatively, the F-35 can delegate to drones and other aircraft, thanks to its advanced networking ability. And in that respect, by coordinating with the wider force, the F-35 surpasses the A-10. But the tradeoffs are obvious.
What The F-35 Is Lacking
The F-35 lacks the A-10’s armor, ruggedness, and massive cannon load. The F-35 does carry an internal 25mm gun, but the gun carries fewer rounds and is not calibrated for long strafing runs (and does not carry depleted uranium Pepsi-can-sized shells). The F-35 also suffers from shorter endurance than the A-10, reducing loitering time and thus increasing the likelihood of the F-35 departing the battlefield while troops are still vulnerable.
Understandably, given the F-35’s CAS tradeoffs, critics are arguing that the stealth fighter is not an adequate replacement for the A-10. But the Air Force counters that the battlefield has changed and that the A-10 would not survive against the advanced air defenses the United States is expecting to encounter in future conflicts, which the F-35 could. Essentially, the Air Force is saying: What good is a shot-down A-10 at providing CAS? That logic makes sense against a near-peer adversary like Russia or China—but it depends on the United States avoiding the sort of conflict that has dominated the last 30 years of its foreign policy.
About the Author: Harrison Kass
Harrison Kass is a senior defense and national security writer at The National Interest. Kass is an attorney and former political candidate who joined the US Air Force as a pilot trainee before being medically discharged. He focuses on military strategy, aerospace, and global security affairs. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in Global Journalism and International Relations from NYU.
Image: DVIDS.
