Controversy over the secret match between 'Thunder God' and 'Lightning' America

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) recently revealedThe United States Air Force (USAF) is conducting a competition toEvaluate the close air support capability between the F-35 Lightning fighter and the A-10 Thunder attack aircraft from July 5 to July 12.

However, the USAF seems to want to keep this long-awaited competition a secret, causing much controversy among experts, according toDrive.

Based on data collected from four days of field competition between the two aircraft models, experts believe that the USAF arranged the test in a way that favored the fifth-generation stealth fighter.

During the first day of testing at the Yuma base in Arizona on July 5, two F-35 fighters and two A-10 attack aircraft spent an hour practicing attacks, bombing train cars and containers, which were assumed to be buildings near an enemy military airport.

Each A-10 carries two 500-pound laser-guided bombs, two AGM-65 Maverick missiles, several rockets, and 400 30mm cannon rounds. Meanwhile, each F-35 carries one 500-pound laser-guided bomb and a maximum ammunition load of 181 25mm cannon rounds.

During the last 20 minutes, the maximum flight ceiling was restricted to 3 km, believed to be to assess each aircraft's ability to operate below low cloud levels.

The first day’s attack scenario was to counter the enemy’s “almost unshootable” air defense system, consisting of shoulder-fired missiles and light anti-aircraft guns, which close-air support aircraft often encounter when supporting infantry.

However, expert Dan Grazier of the POGO Project believes thatThe mock air defense system at Yuma base did not have the precision machinery to track, aim, or guide anti-aircraft missiles.

This leaves virtually no quantitative data on the combat performance of the A-10 and F-35. The lack of performance charts allows evaluators to report their own results of the competition without any way to verify them.

During the second day of testing on July 9, four F-35B fighters and four A-10 attack aircraft carried out a one-hour mission to protect two MV-22 helicopter pilots who were shot down over enemy territory.

On the third day, the A-10 attack aircraft and F-35 fighter jets spent 75 minutes conducting a mission to attack a fixed target that was easy to observe on open terrain similar to the first day, but the scenario was more realistic as the planes only simulated attacks without using weapons.

On the final day, two A-10 attack aircraft and two F-35s will assess forward airspace control capabilities, directing attacks to at least three F-18C fighters to bomb uncamouflaged targets, while having to deal with short- and medium-range air defense systems alike.

The pair will also conduct close-in fire support missions at night against similar targets and air defense systems.

Expert Grazier said that such testing method makes the A-10 attack aircraft lose its significant advantage in flight time compared to the F-35, because the close-range fire support mission requires a long time in the air to support infantry in a war that can last for many hours or many days.

The test also did not assess the frequency of sorties each fighter could fly, an important factor because ground combat is continuous, and aircraft that can fly more often will give more advantages to the ground troops.

In addition, the establishment of a 3 km ceiling on the first day of testing is too biased in favor of the F-35 fighter because low cloud cover often forces the aircraft to fly below 300 m, an environment where the A-10 attack aircraft excels. The lack of specialized equipment to accurately assess many simulated air defense threats can lead to subjective assessments when analyzing the results of the 4 days of testing.

For some reason, neither the A-10 nor the F-35 carried the maximum amount of weapons during the test. Notably, the A-10 carried less than half of its 30mm ammunition. In addition, equipping the F-35 with only one 226kg bomb may be to reduce the weight, increase maneuverability and hide the limitations of this aircraft.

The placement of fixed and mobile targets or containers at Yuma is close to a close air support scenario, but the relatively open and flat strike area makes the simulated threat easy to detect.

This appears to be intended to assist F-35 pilots in using the Electro-Optical Targeting System, as in real-life battlefields, the enemy always tries to camouflage and change target locations, not exposing themselves in such open terrain.

Despite the ability to receive additional information from other sensor systems such as radars and other aircraft, the F-35 fighter is unlikely to gain much advantage in a close air support situation. The fact that the test parameters are based on a simulated air defense system gives the F-35 an advantage in avoiding threats.

The F-35 fighter also lacks the ability to attack moving targets because it is not equipped with precision-guided bombs nor is it equipped with an infrared target designation system to confirm targets with teammates on the ground. These are important tools in all close air support missions that the A-10 possesses.

"Instead of testing the F-35's ability to provide close air support for infantry against hard-to-detect, heavily defended targets, this test can easily lead to incorrect conclusions that are unfavorable to the A-10 attack aircraft," expert Dan Grazier emphasized.

Duy Son