Interesting how you heard about that one dogfight, but not its record since then. Again, places like The Drive have been pushing bad F-35 news because it draws lots of clicks.
The F-35's k/d ratio since that dogfight in 2015, when pilots were just figuring the plane out:
> Since then, the F-35 has mopped up in simulated dogfights with a 15-1 kill ratio. According to retired Lt. Col. David Berke, who commanded a squadron of F-35s and flew an F-22 — the US's most agile, best dogfighter — the jet has undergone somewhat of a revolution.
I can't speak to what we should expect from a competition between planes with 30+ years of technology that cost 5x as much, but this sounds a lot like a demo for foreign buyers.
If you just read the wiki article, you get a distorted view of the exercise. Gen Van Riper was more interested in "winning" than he was in following the requirements to actually have the exercise result in usable data.
Examples: the wiki article mentions small boats. As in about the size of your average fishing boat. No, not your commercial fishing boat, your weekend fisherman fishing boat (Boston Whaler). And it would be carrying a conventional Soviet era anti-ship missile, weighing some 3 tons. This is not only enough to swamp the boat, but launching the missile would result in the boat turning into shrapnel. Or it mentions motorcycle couriers. But the sim wasn't setup to include the latency they involved, so he got effectively instant, unjammable comms.
There were simulation issues, like the Blue Force navy showed up teleported into being next to the coast, due to model limitations. Due to the fact that the real life location of this was in fact a very busy set of air and sea lanes, Blue Force navy also started with no defensive capabilities.
And of course, the whole point isn't for the red team to sink the blue force, but to see how the blue force can adapt to the red team during an amphibious/airborne invasion. It doesn't do much good to have tens of thousands of guys sitting around doing nothing because their ship got "blown up" or their landing zone got covered in "chemical weapons". MC2002 wasn't just a couple guys in a room doing a war game. It involved real ships, real people, real aircraft, and real money.
> For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior.
Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS, let alone a modern air defense network or their own air force, perhaps.
But the argument is that the US military should be designed for fighting the biggest plausible enemy, and that's Russia or China, not goat herders in Afghanistan. A major inefficiency in counterinsurgent air support is expensive and survivable, using A-10s against a major threat isn't.
MANPADS are not the end of the A-10. The A-10 was designed with them in mind. Note how the strange tail wraps around the engine exhaust. That is a tiny bit of stealth, blocking the IR seekers from seeing the engines from most angles.
Other factors also reduce vulnerability. MANPADS are essentially never radar-seeking for reasons of physics; they do not have a large enough diameter to carry a proper forward-looking antenna at radio frequencies. The A-10 has some redundancy and armor, and the MANPADS have very small payloads, so hitting a single engine isn't going to doom the aircraft. The A-10 is normally flown in a way that avoids dangerous exposure, with complicated undulating movement that would break an IR seeker lock. (now you see the engines... and now you don't) The A-10 doesn't have to fly alone against an enemy. Pairing it with the EA-18G Growler would be a decent idea.
Once you consider the enemy to be an advanced country, the standards for acceptable losses change. You're speaking of World War III. Look back to the bomber pilots of World War II to see what is accepted. At times, typical survival for a pilot was a month. In war with an advanced country, 1:1 loss ratios are to be expected.
I said "Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS", which I thought implied "enemies that have MANPADS in limited quantities". Yes, the A-10 does "fine" in that situation.
It does not do anything approaching "fine" against modern air-defense emplacements. Or against air-to-air missiles, whether radar guided or infrared. (those engine-hiding undulations won't do much against an all-aspect missile from the front)
And while accepting 1:1 losses against a peer state in a war might be the reality, I'm pretty sure the A-10 wouldn't manage such a record in hostile airspace. (That's if you count "tanks" or "infantry" on the opposite side of the ledger, of course - purely air to air the A-10 would lose to the average 3rd gen fighter as far as I'm aware)
There is no need for the A-10, or any other weapon system, to be used all by itself.
In hostile airspace, the EA-18G Growler brings the AGM-88 HARM, assuming those modern air-defense emplacements haven't already been hit by cruise missiles.
Plans for war get ruined upon contact with the enemy. Pessimists will assume that friendly plans get ruined, while optimists will assume that enemy plans get ruined. Asset diversity helps everything except logistics. Success or failure of a reasonable weapon system (the A-10, not knights on horseback) is far from certain. All sorts of unexpected factors come into play.
In a conventional war, "this weapons system works perfectly after we completely dismantle their air defenses" sounds pretty similar to "this works perfectly after we win", IMO. And, theoretically, the F-35 can be used for operations before that happens, which is part of why they're being put into service.
Not to mention "this plane works fine if we get the Navy to do the hard part first" is going to go over well with a rather limited subset of Air Force personel. (The Air Force has wild weasels too - generally F-16s though I believe the F-35 is planned for that role in the future)
Ultimately a lot of F-35 hysteria seems to derive from it being the first US aircraft developed entirely post-internet where news travels quickly - i.e. If your projects early tests and teething problems were being reported on publicly by everyone you'd probably look fairly bad too.
That's not to say the F-35 is flawless in any way, but these conversations usually end up in a reductive cycle of arguments we can't know the answer too without security clearance.
The F-35's k/d ratio since that dogfight in 2015, when pilots were just figuring the plane out:
15-1
https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-once-beaten-by-f-16s-sh...
> Since then, the F-35 has mopped up in simulated dogfights with a 15-1 kill ratio. According to retired Lt. Col. David Berke, who commanded a squadron of F-35s and flew an F-22 — the US's most agile, best dogfighter — the jet has undergone somewhat of a revolution.