Why are we replacing A-10's with F-35's?

Question

This is just stupid. The F-35 is a very capable aircraft, and can play many roles. But the only aircraft that can be an A-10 is, well, and A-10. The A-10 should stay in our arsenal and people need to stop getting stupid. The F-35 can not manuveur like the A-10, and it is too fast for circling the battlefield and tearing apart tanks. They are making a mistake. They are also replacing the F-16 with the F-35. The F-16 is also a very capable aircraft. So what are your thoughts?

Answer 1

The A-10 Warthog is not being replaced by the F-35. It is being replaced by too many flight hours on the airframe.
The last A-10 was made in the early 80ies. You can only rebuild them so many times. They are just worn out. If I was in a T-72 Tank and saw an A-10 coming toward me, I would pray it was an F-35 not an A-10. That 30mm Cannon would ruin my weekend.

Answer 2

The F-35 has multiple variant designs that will replace other aircraft as well. The F-35C, for example, will eventually replace the F-18. The fact that one basic design with variants can replace something like six other basic designs means that they can be built more cheaply and with more interchangeable parts by the manufacturer. In addition, the F-35s all have significantly longer range than the models they are replacing, and a couple of the variants have STOL and VTOL capability, making it a good carrier plane. Assuming the military doesn't treat it like a toy, and assuming that the policy of maintaining such types of fighters in the new types of wars we are fighting is actually a good idea, the F-35s are good replacements for what we have now.

Answer 3

They are not replacing the A-10 with the F-35.

They are currently upgrading the A-10's.

F-16's are old air planes,

F-35's are much more capable and have some stealth features.

Answer 4

Well, I knew an old aeronautical engineer who said that you could go down to the local Radio Shack and buy everything you need to pick up the signature of an A-10 on radar.

Apparently, that's not too popular with the pilots, and the military has a very difficult time getting folks to want to fly the A-10.

Sure, it's a tough plane and has firepower, but what can be seen can be killed, especially if it's big and slow.

Answer 5

a quick search shows there are 3 variants of the planes design. one is capable of vertical take-off and landing which means it can hover like a harrier. It doesn't have a integrated weapons system like an A-10s mini-gun. It has a weapons bay which can probably be equipped with various weapons systems.
My guess on justification is replacement parts. If your close combat support plane and your bomber and your interceptor are all the same basic plane then managing parts is a simpler task. Instead of maintaining parts inventories for several different types of planes, you could have a larger more complete inventory for one plane with different configurations. Space for parts is also an issue on carriers. My guess is that while the plane will be able to fill multiple roles, it probably wont perform as well as a plane designed from the ground up with a single combat role in mind.

Answer 6

Yes but I think they should keep the A-10 and have the F-35 because the A-10 Thunderbolts are still very useful!

Answer 7

I don't know much about the F-35, but I'm pretty sure nothing can kill a tank better than an A-10.

Answer 8

See the link...looks as if the A-10 will be here a while.

Answer 9

Change is the only thing that is permanent.

Expect "Change" to continue.

Fighting change will only frustrate you.