{"id":21261,"date":"2018-07-13T19:25:29","date_gmt":"2018-07-13T19:25:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/uncategorized\/2018\/07\/13\/a10-vs-f35-close-air-support-fly-off-shrouded-in-secrecy\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T20:35:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T20:35:52","slug":"a10-vs-f35-close-air-support-fly-off-shrouded-in-secrecy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/news\/your-air-force\/2018\/07\/13\/a10-vs-f35-close-air-support-fly-off-shrouded-in-secrecy\/","title":{"rendered":"A-10 vs. F-35 close-air support ‘fly off\u2019 shrouded in secrecy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The much-anticipated A-10 vs. F-35<\/a> close-air support fly-off<\/a> has wrapped up before many people even realized the tests were happening, but a government watchdog group claims the tests were rigged in favor the Lightning II, a fifth-generation multirole fighter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Project On Government Oversight revealed Tuesday<\/a> that the tests were underway at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma<\/a> in Arizona and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake <\/a>in California. According to a testing schedule POGO reviewed, the one-week fly-off began July 5 and concluded Thursday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing sources \u201cclosely associated with the fly-off,\u201d POGO reported that large-scale Army and Marine ground units did not participate in the fly-off. Given those services\u2019 significant stake in receiving effective close-air support, their absence was conspicuous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA close-air support test should involve large numbers of ground troops in a highly fluid combat simulation in varied terrain, across many days,\u201d wrote POGO\u2019s Dan Grazier. \u201cIt should test the pilot\u2019s ability to spot targets from the air in a chaotic and ever-changing situation. The test should also include a means of testing the program\u2019s ability to fly several sorties a day, because combat doesn\u2019t pause to wait for airplanes to become available.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than consulting the service\u2019s own experts on close-air support, the Air Force turned over test design to a consultant that has a contract to provide adversary aircraft for air-combat training, \u201cespecially F-35 squadrons,\u201d POGO reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The testing schedule, according to POGO\u2019s sources, allotted the same amount of time and sorties to both aircraft, despite the A-10\u2019s ability to loiter over the battlefield, a major strength. It also downgraded a second major strength of the Warthog: limiting its GAU-8\/A 30-mm Gatling gun to a third of its usual ammunition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tests also hid the F-35\u2032s weaknesses, according to POGO. Bomb loads were reduced in one test to improve the plane\u2019s maneuverabilty at lower altitudes; the operating ceiling of 10,000 feet ignored that fact that close-air support missions are often carried out at an altitude of 1,000 feet or less, where the A-10 excels; and the high-visibility targets made them easier to hit for the F-35, \u201cwhere visibility from the cockpit is inferior to the A-10\u2032s,\u201d POGO wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A-10 supporters on Capitol Hill, notably Rep. Martha McSally<\/a>, R-Ariz., a former Warthog pilot<\/a> and squadron commander, have said a fly-off would prove the F-35 is not capable of fully replacing the A-10, which was purpose built for the close-air support mission and has been in use since the 1970s.<\/p>\n\n\n\t