The F-35A currently costs $45,000 an hour to fly, and the Air Force may decide that the mission should go toward a cheaper unmanned aircraft capable of flying missions over contested airspace. Still, the F-35 may not keep the close air support mission for long. The F-35 can carry more bombs on wing mounted pylons, but doing so increases the jet’s visibility to enemy radars. The F-35, on the other hand, is armed with the GAU-22 “Equalizer” 25-millimeter gun (with just 181 rounds) and can carry just two laser- or satellite-guided bombs in its internal payload bays. The A-10 Thunderbolt bristles with weapons, from the GAU-8/A Avenger 30-millimeter Gatling gun (with 1,174 rounds) to Maverick missiles, 70-millimeter rockets, and guided and unguided bombs. The problem with the F-35 in the close air support role is that it lacks armament. Its sensors and communications allow it to collect data on ground threats so the pilot can effectively counter them. The F-35 is faster and more responsive to the fast-moving ground battle, and its stealthy qualities make it less of a target. In one respect that’s the correct decision-despite America’s fondness for the A-10, it would probably get shot down in droves by a competent enemy fielding modern air defense guns and missiles. What will replace the A-10 in the skies over America’s “peer” adversaries? The F-35, of course. Air Force F-35A flying with its internal weapons bays exposed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |