A new F15-EX comes with a lifetime of 25,000 flying hours. An F35 only has 9,000. We have extensive history that the F15 flying hours are a solid estimate, while the F35 estimate seems a bit high.
An F15 has much better range than and F35.
An F15 can carry a lot more armament than an F35.
F15s are much more suitable for the interceptor role than F35.
Do you really want to burn precious F35 hours to send a fast jet out over the Atlantic to take a look at something, or send an F15? The F15 will be able to reach out a lot farther, get there faster, be able to do more when it gets there. It may not be as survivable as an F35 in a near peer combat situation, but that's why we have the F35.
The F-15, F-16, and F-22 will still be used for the Homeland defense mission (looking at something out over the Atlantic). The F-35 is more intended for expeditionary warfare.
Do you have a source on the f15 having better range? My understanding was that the f35 was actually slightly better under combat conditions, because the weapons are stored internally and don't introduce drag. And it's a bit of apples and oranges, probably better to compare the f35 to the f16, where the f35 offers much better range than the f16.
But yeah the f35 is a dramatically worse price, not just in upfront cost but also maintenance. I'm not sure how much of that is due to the stealth coating and overall airframe, and how much of that is from the improved sensors. Regardless, I think it makes sense to use the f35 and f15 together in a high/low mix. Specialize the f35 for SEAD and interdiction in a high threat environment, opening the doors for the f15 to act as a "bomb truck". f15 is also probably a more efficient delivery vehicle for stand off weapons, like JASSM.
Those internal weapon bays are great for minimizing radar signature but also detract from internal fuel space. Drag is a secondary concern compared to fuel capacity.
AF has public fact sheets on F-15 and F-35 ranges (3400 vs 1200 respectively). It’s trivial google search. The Navy and Marine version have worse ranges because of their mission profile.
Not quite. In most cases that number you quoted is an F-35 without an engine. You might as well say “Here is a $78 million paperweight!”
From Air Space Forces:
“The unit cost of the fighters will average about $75 million a copy, but that is without the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. With the engine, the last three-lot deal achieved a unit cost below $80 million per jet. The JPO did not provide Air & Space Forces Magazine an all-up cost for the fighters in Lots 15-17.
For the airframe and mission equipment only, the Lot 15-17 cost of F-35s ranges “from $70.2 million to $69.9 million for the F-35A, $80.9 million to $78.3 million for the F-35B, and $90 to $89.3 million for the F-35C,” a Lockheed spokesperson said.”
I figured why not go on a research tear while I’m doublechecking your numbers.
Another research paper states the US government would save 14.1 Billion keeping the A-10s flying.
“The current selected acquisition report for the F-35 proposes to acquire 1,763 aircraft. Posit, on a very conservative basis, that 10% of them will be used for CAS in low-intensity conflicts. Not building those 176 planes, over a 15 year period, would save a minimum of $18.3 billion.144 The Air Force estimates that retiring all of the A-10s would save $4.2 billion. Posit that only the 173 A-10s whose service lives have been extended to 2035 were retained, virtually one for one with the F-35s that were cut, and that no dollars were saved by cutting the other 110 A-10s. This budget would still save a minimum of $14.1 billion. More importantly, the United States would retain a far superior capability to fight low-intensity conflicts.”
I think that's the crux of the problem. Who needs stealth for CAS? You're putting wear/tear on an expensive airframe that best serves at air-to-air interdiction.
Even in lets say a theoretical Ukraine scenario, with overwatch from enemy S400 systems, is it realistic we'd run CAS missions without SEAD first?
I'm firmly in the camp that the F35 is actually a great multirole jet; however, it's not suited well for CAS due to its payload capacity, stall speed, loiter time, and hourly operating cost. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your main threats during CAS are AAA and ManPADS, something that stealth does not protect you against, so it just serves to increase costs for operating in that role.
It does appear to have the sensor suite for CAS, so it's possible it may be better served in a CAS protection role and target acquisition role. wdyt?
The Air Force has been wanting to get rid of the A-10 for a long time. It's not a true fighter jet and it isn't sexy. Besides, it's not the Air Force's butt that's on the line for CAS. I think that the Army and/or Marines should own the A-10. They're the ones that really have skin in the game for CAS, and therefore will do what's best for the mission.
The army is prohibited from operating fixed wing aircraft. This was part of the deal creating the air force out of the army. The air force is therefore on the hook to provide CAS.
The army has no qualms about operating helicopters even though they're vulnerable to fast jets and manpads, but the air force keeps raising the issue like its a deal breaker. The A10 can be thought of as an attack helicopter with much better range, armament, speed, and survivability. It is pretty dumb not to keep it going or replace it with something in the same category.
The air force position is that the F35 is the thing to do it. That's the case they made for the F35 - its a single aircraft that can take over these missions: A10, F16, F15, F18, F22. Completely bonkers.
The Air Force would be happy to operate a new replacement CAS platform if they had funding for it. But Congress hasn't shown any willingness to allocate hundreds of billions to procure a new build "Super Warthog" with the range and speed that would be necessary for a Pacific Theater conflict. So they'll have to make due with a variety of alternatives as described in the article.
They have provided funds to rewing the A-10s to extend their lives, but the Air Force has slow rolled that and done everything they can to retire them. Just like they've done time and again throughout the lifetime of the A-10.
Because the A-10 would be mostly useless in a conflict against China. Slow rolling major upgrades is a smart decision which preserves funding for more relevant programs.
If the Army doesn't pick up the A-10, then the Marines certainly would.
In my opinion, the only way the A-10 goes away is if the Air Force comes up with a direct replacement for the A-10's CAS, and the "Swiss Army Knife" F-35 isn't it.
Never underestimate petty political squabbles between the branches. I could see the Air Force retiring the A-10, not providing a viable replacement, and simultaneously working to prevent other branches from using them.
Those discussions took place during the GWOT when the Marines were still engaged in the Middle East. Now they are pivoting to confront China and expect to fight on islands in the western Pacific Ocean. They have no bases in the area where an A-10 could even use to reach the expected battlefields. Marine Corps leadership has clearly stated that going forward they only want aircraft that can operate from amphibious ships. Most of the airframes are also getting worn out and will be increasingly expensive to maintain; the Marines simply don't have the budget for that.
The military is pivoting away from the Middle East to focus on China instead. The A-10C simply lacks the range and speed to reach from airbases to the battlefields where ground troops are expected to be engaged. If it can't get to the fight then what's the point?
Uh, an a10 can outrange an f35, it's just slower to get there. It also can carry a heck of a lot more munitions than an f35 at 50% less cost per hour, with a longer service life.
I'm not saying that the 35 isn't an excellent platform, nor am I saying the A10 would be a great asset in a conflict with china, but saying the f35 is a drop in CAS replacement for the A10 is kind of missing the larger picture of what it's used for today.
I am of the opinion that the f35 is a gerber multi tool and while it's super versatile, it doesn't do everything as well as purpose built platforms. The obsession with a one tool fits all is kind of silly. In every category, the f35 is objectively not the winner, there are faster fighters, fighters with greater a2a payloads, CAS with better loiter/payload capacity, bombers with better capacity.
One of the primary goals of CAS should be the ability to stay on station for extended periods of time. Part of the likelihood aircraft are on station is directly related to the cost to maintain and maintenance requirements. F35s have huge costs and require a significant amount of maintenance.
That is not accurate. The F-35A is not only able to reach the battlefield faster than the A-10C, it also has a greater unrefueled range. It doesn't matter what payload an aircraft carries if it can't get there in time. And the remaining A-10's are aging rapidly; maintenance costs are going to accelerate just to keep them flying at all.
Sure, in a world of unlimited resources the Air Force would be better off with a new dedicated CAS platform. But the reality is that there will never be funding for that, so here we are.
We might be talking about different ranges... I was talking about repositioning/ferry range, which the a10 has about 2500 miles vs the f35s 1500 miles.
Combat ranges are like 250-300 for a10 and maybe 500-700 for the 35. The big reason the 35 outranges the 10 is they calculate intercept missions as the combat profile vs the a10 operating in much more dense air in a CAS role. I would be willing to put money the range increase is negligible once you put it in a similar CAS mission.
That cannon was an anti-tank weapon, but according to part 2 of the video series in this thread, it accounted for maybe 20% of their kills.
However the video also claims the avionics are garbage and misidentified targets were common. Civilians and friendly fire were often attacked by the A10 during Desert Storm I.
I honestly think it makes sense. In a high intensity conflict, the a10 just isn't survivable. That doesn't mean we should replace it with an f35 though. Dropping a JDAM 10 miles away isn't the same. You're still going to have a need for something flying low and slow over the battlefield, even if just providing forward air control for the fast jet dropping the heavy ordnance. And that mission is just so risky (I believe CAS is by far the most dangerous mission to undertake). I think this is where UAVs are going to shine. We should replace the a10 with some additional UAVs capable of providing the CAS and FAC missions. Ideally this should be done with a relatively attritable airframe, something cheap and easy to maintain, and being able to take off from improvised or degraded airfields would be a nice plus. Make them networked so that the grunts on the ground can see what the operator is seeing, and can point them in the right direction.
The Russians haven't just invested in ground-to-air systems, they've also invested heavily in electronic warfare, it's going to be a challenge to keep the communication link to a close air support UAV working.
The US has a secure, jam resistant com link that will be used by the F35 to control a squadron of drones.
I’m blanking on the name right now but it was displayed in a public demo so I’m sure someone else on here has seen it.
If they are investing in it, they sure as hell aren't getting a big bang for their buck from what I have seen. Their man portable counter UAS systems are a fucking joke and only work on common stuff that isn't designed for heavily contested EW environments.
Their bigger systems look reasonable on paper, but I doubt they would be up to the task of dealing with high end comms in an actual combat environment. They can barely keep them alive in Ukraine and from what open sources are reporting are either not very effective or deployed in such small quantities to be effectively nonexistent for the majority of areas seeing combat.
Sure, Iran was able to down a stealth drone years ago by messing with the electronic nav systems, but it wasn't like there was actual combat happening, and I don't think they have repeated that since then.
> I honestly think it makes sense. In a high intensity conflict, the a10 just isn't survivable. That doesn't mean we should replace it with an f35 though
Why not ? I heard that the F35 is the best aircraft ever. /s
UCAVs have worked pretty well for CAS in low-intensity, counter insurgency type conflicts but they are totally dependent on satellites for control and navigation. Potential near-peer adversaries are investing heavily in as anti-satellite weapons so in any future high end conflict those satellites will probably be the first casualties.
The US military and allies have been working to develop "loyal wingman" type UCAVs that can operate under the control of a crewed aircraft. Those show promise, but still require the controller to get fairly close in order to allow for reliable communications in a hostile EW environment.
Autonomous flight control software is nowhere near being able to perform CAS. That's probably decades away.
It does, but the fact that SU-25s, which are effectively the same vintage, are still flying in Ukraine is pretty amazing to me.
I could see a use of the a10s as a launch platform for 200-500lb loitering munitions to get them in range of frontlines, but using them for anything in the pacific would be suicidal.
A-10's replacement is drones, says the writing on the wall.
A-10 was developed for a Fulda Gap Cold War escalation, when Soviet Union had many many tanks at its disposal. China doesn't have near as many tanks as Soviets did, and now Russia's stocks are being depleted in Ukraine.
When you have drone/satellite coverage and know where everything is, you don't need loitering CAS as much, you can strike before threats are immediate with standoff munitions like what F-35 deploys, or artillery. Anything else you can clean up with drone Hellfires etc. loitering with less risk.
Close Air Support is controlled and managed by the guys on the ground. The pilot has to have situational awareness, and capture the nuances of where the dangers are prior to releasing ordinance.
When you 'pop yellow smoke' and need a bomb planted there now, it is not the time to be in satellite comms asking for a drone tasking and then explaining to the operator what you need (being the drone has a soda straw sized view into the situation).
IMO you're both right in the sense that A10s replacement is basically, let's not fight another major land war now that focus has shifted to indopac. If situation can't be avoided, drone authority will just become a lot more permissive until the next IVAS or whatever expensive augmented reality program finally puts grunts in charge of tasking.
The war in Ukraine has shown that highly integrated drone operator's with small UASs can fill that role. In the future, it isn't going to be a USAF or CIA operated drone circling at 40,000 ft, launching a $200,000 missile or dropping a $25,000 bomb... it will be a platoon or battalion level loitering munition operated by the people on the ground that costs $3,000 or $5,000.
44 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 61.8 ms ] threadIt seems the direction we are going is fewer aircraft types in general.
I know that people love how the A-10 goes brrrrrrrrrrrtt...but it is also 2023.
An F15 has much better range than and F35.
An F15 can carry a lot more armament than an F35.
F15s are much more suitable for the interceptor role than F35.
Do you really want to burn precious F35 hours to send a fast jet out over the Atlantic to take a look at something, or send an F15? The F15 will be able to reach out a lot farther, get there faster, be able to do more when it gets there. It may not be as survivable as an F35 in a near peer combat situation, but that's why we have the F35.
But yeah the f35 is a dramatically worse price, not just in upfront cost but also maintenance. I'm not sure how much of that is due to the stealth coating and overall airframe, and how much of that is from the improved sensors. Regardless, I think it makes sense to use the f35 and f15 together in a high/low mix. Specialize the f35 for SEAD and interdiction in a high threat environment, opening the doors for the f15 to act as a "bomb truck". f15 is also probably a more efficient delivery vehicle for stand off weapons, like JASSM.
AF has public fact sheets on F-15 and F-35 ranges (3400 vs 1200 respectively). It’s trivial google search. The Navy and Marine version have worse ranges because of their mission profile.
From Air Space Forces:
“The unit cost of the fighters will average about $75 million a copy, but that is without the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. With the engine, the last three-lot deal achieved a unit cost below $80 million per jet. The JPO did not provide Air & Space Forces Magazine an all-up cost for the fighters in Lots 15-17.
For the airframe and mission equipment only, the Lot 15-17 cost of F-35s ranges “from $70.2 million to $69.9 million for the F-35A, $80.9 million to $78.3 million for the F-35B, and $90 to $89.3 million for the F-35C,” a Lockheed spokesperson said.”
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-billion-f-35-deal-will-....
I figured why not go on a research tear while I’m doublechecking your numbers.
Another research paper states the US government would save 14.1 Billion keeping the A-10s flying.
“The current selected acquisition report for the F-35 proposes to acquire 1,763 aircraft. Posit, on a very conservative basis, that 10% of them will be used for CAS in low-intensity conflicts. Not building those 176 planes, over a 15 year period, would save a minimum of $18.3 billion.144 The Air Force estimates that retiring all of the A-10s would save $4.2 billion. Posit that only the 173 A-10s whose service lives have been extended to 2035 were retained, virtually one for one with the F-35s that were cut, and that no dollars were saved by cutting the other 110 A-10s. This budget would still save a minimum of $14.1 billion. More importantly, the United States would retain a far superior capability to fight low-intensity conflicts.”
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publi...
Even in lets say a theoretical Ukraine scenario, with overwatch from enemy S400 systems, is it realistic we'd run CAS missions without SEAD first?
The F-35 is no longer an expensive aircraft; the unit cost is quite low now.
It does appear to have the sensor suite for CAS, so it's possible it may be better served in a CAS protection role and target acquisition role. wdyt?
The army has no qualms about operating helicopters even though they're vulnerable to fast jets and manpads, but the air force keeps raising the issue like its a deal breaker. The A10 can be thought of as an attack helicopter with much better range, armament, speed, and survivability. It is pretty dumb not to keep it going or replace it with something in the same category.
The air force position is that the F35 is the thing to do it. That's the case they made for the F35 - its a single aircraft that can take over these missions: A10, F16, F15, F18, F22. Completely bonkers.
https://archive.today/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews....
Meanwhile, the Marines are trying to figure out how to utilize the A-10 even more.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2019...
If the Army doesn't pick up the A-10, then the Marines certainly would.
In my opinion, the only way the A-10 goes away is if the Air Force comes up with a direct replacement for the A-10's CAS, and the "Swiss Army Knife" F-35 isn't it.
The A-10 is dead. Time to let it go.
I'm not saying that the 35 isn't an excellent platform, nor am I saying the A10 would be a great asset in a conflict with china, but saying the f35 is a drop in CAS replacement for the A10 is kind of missing the larger picture of what it's used for today.
I am of the opinion that the f35 is a gerber multi tool and while it's super versatile, it doesn't do everything as well as purpose built platforms. The obsession with a one tool fits all is kind of silly. In every category, the f35 is objectively not the winner, there are faster fighters, fighters with greater a2a payloads, CAS with better loiter/payload capacity, bombers with better capacity.
One of the primary goals of CAS should be the ability to stay on station for extended periods of time. Part of the likelihood aircraft are on station is directly related to the cost to maintain and maintenance requirements. F35s have huge costs and require a significant amount of maintenance.
Sure, in a world of unlimited resources the Air Force would be better off with a new dedicated CAS platform. But the reality is that there will never be funding for that, so here we are.
Combat ranges are like 250-300 for a10 and maybe 500-700 for the 35. The big reason the 35 outranges the 10 is they calculate intercept missions as the combat profile vs the a10 operating in much more dense air in a CAS role. I would be willing to put money the range increase is negligible once you put it in a similar CAS mission.
The F-15 has <checks> a 20mm gun with 15% less ammo.
However the video also claims the avionics are garbage and misidentified targets were common. Civilians and friendly fire were often attacked by the A10 during Desert Storm I.
Their bigger systems look reasonable on paper, but I doubt they would be up to the task of dealing with high end comms in an actual combat environment. They can barely keep them alive in Ukraine and from what open sources are reporting are either not very effective or deployed in such small quantities to be effectively nonexistent for the majority of areas seeing combat.
Sure, Iran was able to down a stealth drone years ago by messing with the electronic nav systems, but it wasn't like there was actual combat happening, and I don't think they have repeated that since then.
Why not ? I heard that the F35 is the best aircraft ever. /s
The US military and allies have been working to develop "loyal wingman" type UCAVs that can operate under the control of a crewed aircraft. Those show promise, but still require the controller to get fairly close in order to allow for reliable communications in a hostile EW environment.
Autonomous flight control software is nowhere near being able to perform CAS. That's probably decades away.
I could see a use of the a10s as a launch platform for 200-500lb loitering munitions to get them in range of frontlines, but using them for anything in the pacific would be suicidal.
A-10 was developed for a Fulda Gap Cold War escalation, when Soviet Union had many many tanks at its disposal. China doesn't have near as many tanks as Soviets did, and now Russia's stocks are being depleted in Ukraine.
When you have drone/satellite coverage and know where everything is, you don't need loitering CAS as much, you can strike before threats are immediate with standoff munitions like what F-35 deploys, or artillery. Anything else you can clean up with drone Hellfires etc. loitering with less risk.
When you 'pop yellow smoke' and need a bomb planted there now, it is not the time to be in satellite comms asking for a drone tasking and then explaining to the operator what you need (being the drone has a soda straw sized view into the situation).