[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.

[ryao]

My point about 1 target is to emphasize that quantity matters. I said that the F-16 was bad at CAS and the F-35 is even worse. This is true. First, the F-16 carries less ammunition than the A-10, while the F-35 carries even less than the F-16. Second, CAS means Close Air Support. If the airplane is not close to the ground, then it is not doing CAS.

As for making multiple passes, that is better than multiple trips to/from base.

I do not know what I am supposed to be reading at your link.

[Manuel_D]

> Second, CAS means Close Air Support. If the airplane is not close to the ground, then it is not doing CAS.

Your understanding is incorrect. Close air support means engaging targets in close proximity to friendly forces. It does not refer to the altitude at which aircraft are deploying munitions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support

From my link, you're supposed to read the fact that the f-16 can carry a dozen air to ground munitions. The f-16 does not have a payload that much smaller than the a-10.

[ryao]

I think this is a waste of money compared to what the A-10 gives people. Bullets are cheaper than explosives and can be manufactured in far greater quantities. Winning a war is pyrrhic if the victor is impoverished by the price of all of the ammunition. :/

Anyway, the original complaint here is about the F-35, not the F-16. No matter how much you think of the F-16, the F-35 is being pushed into this role and it is just not fit for it. I do not think the F-16 is fit for it either, although it is certainly more fit than the F-35.

[Manuel_D]

Bullets are cheap. And so are MANPADS and other short range air defenses. But airplanes are expensive. So are pilots. That's why close air support has shifted towards dropping guided munitions to minimize exposure to short range air defenses. Losing more planes because you want to save money on munitions is a net greater expense than dropping precision munitions. A laser guided bomb costs about $20,000 less than the operation cost for one hour of an f-16's flight time [1]. This idea of precision munitions being prohibitively expensive for CAS is just a wild fantasy.

The f-35 can mount as much external stores as the f-16. The only way it's unsuitable in a CAS role is the fantasy world where modern close air support involves strafing targets.

1. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551...

[ryao]

Use the external mounts on the F-35 and it loses its low radar profile that you seem to think is important for CAS.

By the way, MANPAADs are pricy in comparison to bullets.

> Contrast this with the cost of an infrared guided MANPADS available on the black market for $5,000 to $250,000.18

https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/11/2002115503/-1/-1/0/37M...

They are comparable to the precision guided munitions in cost. That makes sense considering that they are precision guided munitions.

[Manuel_D]

MANPADs are still way cheaper than the aircraft they shoot down. You're also shooting a lot more shells to down an aircraft than missiles. On the order of thousands.

Most short range air defenses are infrared guided, radar cross section is not relevant there.