[Manuel_D]

The F-16 has conducted CAS just fine for decades. What made the F-16 terrible at CAS that the A-10 did so much better? I'm tempted to say loiter time, but with conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks I think the F-16 may even be beating the A-10 at that. Both can mount the same targeting pods, so their ability to engage targets on the ground are effectively identical.

The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. Of course it's going to be better in that specific role. But which is better at operating from aircraft carriers, the F-22 or F-35? The F-35 costs half as much as F-22, too.

[ryao]

The F-16 is not used for CAS because it would be shot down by ground arms fire when the A-10 would continue flying, and flying the F-16 high enough to avoid ground arms fire made it lousy at CAS:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-16s-cas-variants-fai...

The F-22 is labelled as a multirole fighter. Its ability to handle other roles is limited, and its main role is not needed. You claimed that the F-35 is good at air superiority as a way of demonstrating its value, but the F-22's discontinuation demonstrated that a fighter for that role is not needed. Consequently, the F-35 theoretical competence in air superiority is not in any way an indicator of its value.

That said, the F-35's ability to handle all roles seems limited. It tries to be able to do so many roles that all of its competencies are handicapped. That is why it has criticism as being a jack of all trades. If it were multirole in the sense that the F-22 is multirole, it would not have that criticism. :/

[Manuel_D]

Your link isn't discussing the F-16 in a CAS role, it's discussing a specific variant of the F-16 where they attempted to mount a 30mm canon pod to it which yes, failed badly.

Modern CAS doesn't involve strafing tanks. Planes are staying well above the altitude small arms are capable of reaching, dropping LGBs, CBUs, and air to ground missiles on targets. The notion that resistance to small arms fire makes the f-16 terrible at CAS is a very odd point to make.

The f-22 was discontinued because it was very expensive, much moreso than the f-35. It was also due to the end of the cold war, and no real global competition with peer adversaries. Would the f-22 have been cancelled if we knew what geopolitics in 2023 would look like? Not so sure about that.

[ryao]

It discusses "F-16’S CAS VARIANTS". That is the F-16 in a CAS role as far as I am concerned.

That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/

By the way, dropping bombs is being a bomber and there are actual purpose built bombers for that. :/

[Manuel_D]

> It discusses "F-16’S CAS VARIANTS". That is the F-16 in a CAS role as far as I am concerned.

Then your understanding is deeply wrong. The F/A-16 discussed in that article was a specific variant of the F-16 that mounted a 30mm gun pod. Which failed horribly. During the gun produced vibrations that broke avionics, and the targeting software didn't even work with the gun.

The normal F-16 is a multirole fighter that can drop bombs, missiles, and rockets on ground targets just fine. It can shoot HARMs, too. It has performed in a CAS role just fine for decades. Not to drag contemporary events into this thread, but I guarantee you many of the Israeli planes dropping bombs in Gaza are f-16s. And yes, this is close air support: ground forces are pushing in, and when they take fire from a position they're calling in strikes. This is textbook close air support.

> That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/

No, it is not. 30mm cannons aren't going to demolish trenches or penetrate that far into fortified buildings. You also have to get really close to the target to be effective. It was an effective way to conduct CAS against armored targets specifically in the 1970s and 80s before laser and gps guided bombs became ubiquitous. And today, the proliferation of IR guided SAMs that are fairly resistant to flares make strafing too dangerous, even for the a-10.

If you were under the impression that the abortive F/A-16 was the only version of the F-16 ever fielded for CAS then your statements in this chain make sense. But it's a totally false understanding.

[ryao]

Okay. Lets say you want to take out a few dozen targets. Your F-16 dropping bombs will be useless for that, as it needs to fly back and forth so many times to keep getting bombs, by which point all of the ground troops could be dead. The A-10 on the other hand is fantastic for it. The A-10 does not need to return to base after hitting a few targets. Also, the A-10 can drop bombs too.

Seriously, if the purpose of CAS was only to hit 1 target, then any plane that could drop a bomb would work, but nobody cares about being able to hit a single target when they have many targets that need to be hit.

[Manuel_D]

The f-16 can also bomb a dozen targets without flying back to base: https://www.quora.com/Can-a-real-F-16C-fighter-jet-carry-6-A...

An a-10 strafing targets is also going to take multiple passes to destroy a dozen targets. Unless they're all in a column, in which case the f-16 can destroy them too with a cluster bomb.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the f-16 has a very limited air to ground payload. And the 30mm canon in the a-10 is not nearly as impactful as you make it out to be. There's enough public information on f-16's operational history to make your claims demonstrably false.