F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

The two F-135s had the reflectors installed so that the ground FAA type radars could track them. Plus, while your system was in operation, both F-35s stayed on the ground as static displays. At no time was your system ever tried when the F-35s were in the air being flown by Air Force Pilots without the Radar Reflectors installed.

This is from your very own cite. Your article means nothing, says nothing and does nothing. It only tries to sell an unproven German portable Radar Detection System.

Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.

Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone. How's that going? I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective. Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection. But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections. But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is. In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade. And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone. The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough. Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way. The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will. Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22? You praise the F-22. This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.

It is because the F-22 has an actual purpose. It is more stealthy then the F-35 is or ever can be.
The F-35 is being developed since 1996. That´s long even for a military aircraft. The problems you have with its multi-purpose role will certainly be solved but do you think it´s worth the effort when em-waves detect the plane and S-200 takes it down? The plane is good for limited warfare only.

Actually, the F-22 is LESS stealthy than the F-35 since they went to the matted Stealth coating for the F-35. And the F-35 can make 2 and 3 flights per day while the F-22 can only make one flight per 3 days since it has to be taken in to have it's stealth covering redone and cured.

The S-200 hasn't got a clue it's even there. Maybe the S-400 and 500 has a chance at close range but that's about it. Or maybe, if you know it's there, a heat seaker has a good chance since it does have a very hot rear quandrant but you have to be close. Close is within 35 clicks. And if you are doing a search you have been a target for at least 50 clicks before that.

It can be shot down. But the conditions have to be absolutely perfect for the shooter. And the Shooter is in serious jeopardy long before he gets the chance. The shootdown of the F-117 showed that. The Shotgun approach still is a valid, if not an expensive and dangerous, method of shooting down a stealth aircraft. You have a tendency to shootdown birds you don't want to shoot down in the process. Ask the Russians on that one.

Limited warfare only? Israel is making overflights over Iran almost on a daily basis with their F-35s. The Iranians are going nutz over it. And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Lucky for Iran, the Israelis are just doing camera and sensor runs. Israel can hit Iran anytime it wishes and there is nothing the Iranians can to stop it. The Threat of the an Aircraft is better than if you actually have to use it. And the threat of the F-35 from Israel keeps Iran at least somewhat honest when dealing with Israel. Sounds like a pretty good Fighter and Attack Bird to me.

There are strong indicators that no F-35 ever entered Iranian airspace.

Here’s Why The Claim That Two Israeli F-35 Stealth Jets Entered Iranian Airspace Does Not Make Any Sense

And the F-22 is a total stealth plane. It is not just a feature like for the F-35.

There is an area in Syria that is hotly contested. The Iranians have tried to move in Surface to Air installations and had them taken out. This area is used by the Israelis to inflight refuel to reach Iran. The Refuelers aren't stealth and would be suseptiple to the SAs. No, the F-35A does not have quite the range to go everywhere in Iran unrefueled. But it can go into Iran quite a ways without refueling in a Sensor and Camera mode. But in a war situation, it would be needed to be refueled as would all the other birds including the loaded down F-15s and 16s. So Israel keeps that one area in Syria SA clean. Both Iran and Syria cry to high heaven about it but Russia stays mute about it.

Those flights have been complained about by Iran, itself. You can try and discount them but Iran says they happen and claims they are against International Law. Iran complaining about another country violating international law is a real hoot.

 

[DrainBamage]

They tracked stealth planes that were flying with luneberg reflectors, broadcasting their position with ADS-B transponders since in civilian airspace, and they knew exactly when/where they would be beforehand. That sure sounds like a valid real world test.

Congrats on eating up the marketing hype of a company trying to sell a product.

This reminds me of when some other pilots were saying they could see B-2s on radar when it turned out they were flying with radar reflectors, B-2s went on to bomb well defended targets in Iraq and the Balkans with impunity and never even having a shot taken at them from the IADS defending the targets. Serbians thought US was hitting them with waves of cruise missiles, which turned out to be a new type of bomb (JDAM) dropped from B-2s.

 

[Bleipriester]

Words don´t change anything. Search the webs. They are all developing this type of radar. "Stealth" is done.

Matter Transmission is also being worked on by everyone. How's that going? I will admit that within 10 years, Stealth will have to be upgraded in order to continue to be effective. Right now, Stealth is about 3 steps ahead of detection. But the current stealth won't stay that way with the improvements in detections. But you keep banking on Stealth staying like it is. In the last 5 years, Stealth has made a remarkable upgrade. And the bird that has benefited from it has been the F-35 alone. The next gen Stealth will make even a bigger breakthough. Meanwhile, your detection will also become better but it's still about 3 gens behind every step of the way. The F-22 will become outdated far before the F-35 will. Why aren't you dogging the older, non ungradeable F-22? You praise the F-22. This is why the 6th gen US Fighter isn't to replace the F-35. It's to replace the F-22 while the F-35 continues to go forward.

It is because the F-22 has an actual purpose. It is more stealthy then the F-35 is or ever can be.
The F-35 is being developed since 1996. That´s long even for a military aircraft. The problems you have with its multi-purpose role will certainly be solved but do you think it´s worth the effort when em-waves detect the plane and S-200 takes it down? The plane is good for limited warfare only.

Actually, the F-22 is LESS stealthy than the F-35 since they went to the matted Stealth coating for the F-35. And the F-35 can make 2 and 3 flights per day while the F-22 can only make one flight per 3 days since it has to be taken in to have it's stealth covering redone and cured.

The S-200 hasn't got a clue it's even there. Maybe the S-400 and 500 has a chance at close range but that's about it. Or maybe, if you know it's there, a heat seaker has a good chance since it does have a very hot rear quandrant but you have to be close. Close is within 35 clicks. And if you are doing a search you have been a target for at least 50 clicks before that.

It can be shot down. But the conditions have to be absolutely perfect for the shooter. And the Shooter is in serious jeopardy long before he gets the chance. The shootdown of the F-117 showed that. The Shotgun approach still is a valid, if not an expensive and dangerous, method of shooting down a stealth aircraft. You have a tendency to shootdown birds you don't want to shoot down in the process. Ask the Russians on that one.

Limited warfare only? Israel is making overflights over Iran almost on a daily basis with their F-35s. The Iranians are going nutz over it. And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Lucky for Iran, the Israelis are just doing camera and sensor runs. Israel can hit Iran anytime it wishes and there is nothing the Iranians can to stop it. The Threat of the an Aircraft is better than if you actually have to use it. And the threat of the F-35 from Israel keeps Iran at least somewhat honest when dealing with Israel. Sounds like a pretty good Fighter and Attack Bird to me.

There are strong indicators that no F-35 ever entered Iranian airspace.

Here’s Why The Claim That Two Israeli F-35 Stealth Jets Entered Iranian Airspace Does Not Make Any Sense

And the F-22 is a total stealth plane. It is not just a feature like for the F-35.

There is an area in Syria that is hotly contested. The Iranians have tried to move in Surface to Air installations and had them taken out. This area is used by the Israelis to inflight refuel to reach Iran. The Refuelers aren't stealth and would be suseptiple to the SAs. No, the F-35A does not have quite the range to go everywhere in Iran unrefueled. But it can go into Iran quite a ways without refueling in a Sensor and Camera mode. But in a war situation, it would be needed to be refueled as would all the other birds including the loaded down F-15s and 16s. So Israel keeps that one area in Syria SA clean. Both Iran and Syria cry to high heaven about it but Russia stays mute about it.

Those flights have been complained about by Iran, itself. You can try and discount them but Iran says they happen and claims they are against International Law. Iran complaining about another country violating international law is a real hoot.

There is a border crossing between Syria and Iran that the US wants to remain closed. Can you imagine the Beelzeboob raging? Making ISIS, then SDF, all the efforts. And then there is now that open border crossing...

"“Daesh’s attempts to launch attacks came from the American military’s orders because the U.S. has kept Daesh units in the region; they also support them and use them for special plots,” a Syrian field source told the Sputnik News Agency on Monday."
US attempting to block new Syrian-Iraqi crossing from opening: Russian media

"According to local sources, the Syrian and Iranian forces that were positioned northeast of Albukamal city were the targets of an airstrike along the Iraqi border; this attack would lead to several casualties.
No group has claimed responsibility for the attack; however, the Syrian military believes the strikes were carried out by the Israeli Air Force."
Syrian, Iranian forces come under attack by unknown warplanes near Iraqi border

There is no glory for the F-35 to be earned.

 

[Pilot1]

The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18. Is it better than these? Yes.

 

[DrainBamage]

Interest AMA from a AH-1Z pilot here: IAmA USMC Cobra Pilot and FAC(A) and back to answer your questions on CAS : WarCollege
Some of the responses mentioned F-35s and might surprise the folks who've been in this thread claiming fast movers can't do CAS or that CAS = gun runs.

Q: What’s your opinion, as a pilot and CAS-specialist, on CAS-specialised fixed-wings today and for the years to come, and what do you think will be the future for them post A-10?

A: Tricky question. I love the A-10 and I love A-10 pilots, but the writing is on the wall for that platform (much in the way it is for mine depending on who you talk to). There's a saying in aviation that "the man in the box mattters"; which I'd say is the single biggest misconception I see regarding attack aircraft on reddit; the machine helps, but ultimately how effectively a squadron trains to a given mission set, to include CAS, will drive its proficiency. The best FW shooter I've ever controlled was a F-35 flown by a former Harrier guy.

Q: In elaboration on the last question - the cannon will almost certainly still be a needed part of the CAS package. With the 30mm considered obsolescent with today’s armor technology, what will the future of calibers for the CAS cannon be, along with its capabilities?

A: I'd disagree with this, or at least as an absolute must. Like you say, it is certainly useless for armor. 25mm is a pretty good intermediate caliber IMO but frankly I'd rather keep a jet at altitude and far away and plink with APKWS - I'm of the opinion that lightweight PGMs are the way of the future for jets.

Q: That begs the question ... what makes a good CAS aircraft?

A: My cop-out answer is a good CAS squadron. My far the best CAS players I've controlled were F-35s flown by former Harrier pilots. But on a technical side, a good sensor (or sensors) and long legs are the two things that make my life easier. A legacy Hornet checking in with an ATFLIR makes things significantly tougher than an A-10 with a Sniper pod.


Okay "only A-10 with 30mm gun can do CAS" folks, you may return to reading your defense blogs written by "experts" who are fat guys sitting in their basements and have never served in the military.

 

[DrainBamage]

As Japan did earlier this year, Netherlands has decided to up their order after getting their hands on seeing what the plane can do.

The Netherlands to buy nine more F-35s for $1.1 billion

COLOGNE, Germany – The Dutch government on Tuesday announced plans to purchase nine more of Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets, a move that would bring the country's inventory to 46.The envisioned €1 billion acquisition will “lay the foundation” for a third F-35 squadron in the Dutch air force, a plan that government officials first floated in late 2018, according to a statement posted on the defense ministry website.

 

[DrainBamage]

Korea doubles down as well. They currently have eight F-35s (out of the initial order of 40)

South Korea to buy 20 more F-35 jets

South Korea to buy 20 more F-35 jets
SEOUL — South Korea will begin the second phase of its plan to acquire stealthy fighter jets, code-named F-X III, by acquiring 20 more F-35s, the country’s arms procurement agency has confirmed. The Asian economic power had ordered 40 F-35As for Air Force operations under a 2014 deal worth about $6.4 billion, with the delivery of the fifth-generation fighters starting earlier this year. “The government is preparing to launch the second phase of the F-X III in 2021 for the five years to come,” the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, or DAPA, said in a report to the National Assembly on Oct. 7. About $3.3 billion will go toward buying the additional Lockheed Martin-made aircraft, the report noted.


Let's have an encore of the resident expert:

yes thats why our friends are abandoning us.

 

[DrainBamage]

DoD and Lockheed Martin have just closed a deal for a massive block buy for next three production lots, bringing flyaway cost of F-35A under 80 million next year and less than 78 million in 2020. This is possible because of the large quantity 478 aircraft over three years, and puts F-35A at lower price point than the last F-18 contract which ran about 78 million per aircraft.

Bonus = with F-35 you don't need spend millions more for targeting or ECM pods.

 

[WorldWatcher]

DoD and Lockheed Martin have just closed a deal for a massive block buy for next three production lots, bringing flyaway cost of F-35A under 80 million next year and less than 78 million in 2020. This is possible because of the large quantity 478 aircraft over three years, and puts F-35A at lower price point than the last F-18 contract which ran about 78 million per aircraft.

Bonus = with F-35 you don't need spend millions more for targeting or ECM pods.

"<<SNIP>>puts F-35A at lower price point than the last F-18 contract which ran about 78 million per aircraft.<<SNIP>>"

While technically correct, and I have no problems with the F-18 or the F-35 as maintaining a technological edge as a force multiplier is perfectly valid.

The correct comparison would have been the F-18 to the F-35C as the C is the carrier version. Comparing one that has to meet the requirements of carrier operation with one that can operate only from land based runways seems inappropriate.
.
.
.
.^^^^

 

[DrainBamage]

F-35C isn't competing with F-18, USN is continuing with their plans to continue buying Super Hornets and start filling in with F-35C squadrons until carriers have a mix of the two aircraft. They will eventually start replacing the oldest F-18s Super Hornets with whatever 6th gen fighter comes along in the 2030s to serve alongside the F-35Cs.

F-18s are usually seen as part of the usual cast of candidates offered to countries using them as land based fighters, where they do compete against F-35As. Switzerland is currently evaluating F-35, Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Germany will probably be buying F-18s to replace Tornadoes because they are already nuclear certified. Canada is mired in their endless upgrade drama that includes both F-35 and F-18.

 

[Manonthestreet]

“The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”
Even with that 2020 target approaching, analysis to date shows that neither the Marine Corps nor Navy F-35 models are currently “on track” to meet their reliability metrics even as they log more hours, according to the latest assessment. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

“The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below service expectations,” Behler said in the prepared remarks. “In short, for all variants, aircraft are breaking down more often than planned and taking longer to fix.”
Even with that 2020 target approaching, analysis to date shows that neither the Marine Corps nor Navy F-35 models are currently “on track” to meet their reliability metrics even as they log more hours, according to the latest assessment. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Your cite has nothing to do with your post. And we already know the A model will have the highest rate of service and the lowest maintenance rate. It's the simplest and already equals that of the F-16. The A is still fairly new and is still having teething problem like shortage of parts but if it had the parts it would would exceed the other fighters in dependability.

The C is the newest and is still ironing out the kinks and also has a bad parts shortage. It's more complicated than the A. Plus, it's a carrier based bird. It's going to have a lower sortie rate than the F-18. BTW, when you compare the F-18 with the F-16 the F-18 looks like a flying junk pile. But that's the way ALL carrier based birds look compared to land based birds.

The B model is the most complicated of the three. And it has the hardest mission. Like the other two, it also has a shortage of replacement parts. Right now, the B is flying missions that the C model should be flying plus flying it's own missions. And it's a front line fighter. Again, comparing it to the F-16 or even the F-18 for dependability is just wrong. When you can get a F-18 to fly like the F-35B and be treated as poorly then you have the right to compare it unfavorably.

I've had experience with shortage of parts. The F-4 as it neared the end of it's life had a real problem with that. They still were flying the wings off of it. Going to war with that shortage may mean that a Squadron of F-4s, you might have a flight of 5 where only one had working Radar. And they would get the ordinance on target. The F-4 was the last Front Line Fighter that could do that. Today, if you lose your radar, you abort. In fact, there are a lot of things that you will abort today that the old Phantom would just slug along. No Radar, mount a Weaver 7X scope and do it mark 2 eyeball and listen to the growl. The way they retired that bird wasn't fitting to a fine lady she was.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I'll fix link tomorrow ..don't know what happened there..seems all the stuff you know isn't so

 

[DrainBamage]

In other news....

Shanahan: Super Hornet on track to meet readiness goals, but F-16s and F-22s still struggling
“The Navy has made significant progress with the F/A-18s. I think they’re on track to meet the goal in September,” he told lawmakers. However, Shanahan suggested the F-22 and F-16 are unlikely to hit the 80 percent goal, adding that the F-22 “has struggled” and the F-16 “is a bit of a high bar” to clear.

The Air Force’s B-1 bombers are in more dire shape than we thought
Just six of the Air Force’s fleet of 62 B-1B bombers are now fully mission-capable, Gen. John Hyten told lawmakers Tuesday. That equates to a readiness rate of a little less than 10 percent of the 62 Lancers the Air Force reported it had in fiscal 2018.

Clearly meeting readiness metrics isn't unique to F-35. Don't get me started on the history of F-14s....

 

[DrainBamage]

Funny I've seen claims of combat but no descriptions of said combat

Check out the strike decals on this USMC F-35B, makes one laugh at your delusional denial of reality.

 

[Andylusion]

The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18. Is it better than these? Yes.

Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost? Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget. But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.

My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million. You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price. Can that be justified?

Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.

What do you think? I assume you have more knowledge on this.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18. Is it better than these? Yes.

Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost? Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget. But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.

My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million. You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price. Can that be justified?

Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.

What do you think? I assume you have more knowledge on this.

You compare the A-10 for just the Ground Attack. Let's look at just that and then compare it to the REAL ground attacks.

The A-10 has limited range. With a real combat radius of just about 300 miles, that limits it's usefulness. And that is with limited fuel and limited ordinance. If it is in Heavy Load status, it may be reduced as low as 150 mile radius because it has to sacrifice fuel for ordinance heavily. When it's in FAC or Search and Rescue, it has to limit it's ordinance by a large margin for fuel load to have loiter time. In order to get that 2 hour loiter time, it may have to sacrifice it's external stores and just use it's gun. And the Gun has limited uses. The A-10 can only operate where total air and ground superiority has been established. Meaning, there are no Air to Air threats and there are not SAMs or AA threats. Works well against a bunch of ragheads but against something like the Syrians or Iranians, the A-10 would be grounded. With the A-10 having to get down into the weeds to use it's gun, it would be sitting duck. Other options would be sought.

Now enter the real Ground Attack Bird for Special Ops. The AC-130 of 3 different types are the primary ground attack for pinpoint support. They don't EVER get down into the weeds. They are above the AA and Ground fire. They are susceptible to SAMS but that's where other AC comes into play to take them out. The AC hits targets within 10 feet with some pretty impressive weapons including 25, 30, 40, 105 and even air to surface missiles. They operate from 20K to 30K in altitude. Unlike the A-10, the AC works in conjunction with a Command bird and verifies every target before it takes them out. They can take out a single truck, an entire warehouse, building, even single running people. All the while, leaving a Mosque totally untouched in the area. All in a matter of seconds. The bad guy doesn't see them, they don't hear them. The bad guy just knows his world just went to hell in a hand basket fast. The AC also requires that the area be totally swept of bad buy air assets. And USAF is buying more of these nasty things every year. They aren't buying anymore A-10s because the AC is many times more effective and is less likely to do friendly fire. The AC can hit many different target areas in just one flight and has loiter time that is astounding compared to even a lightly loaded A-10. The A-10 was originally designed as a tank buster but that mission can't be done by the A-10. The AC was originally designed as a Ground Attack but during Vietnam, it got sidetracked because there weren't any A-10s out yet. They use the AC for what it was originally designed for and there is NOTHING that can compete with it.

Now, let's talk about contested airspace. You now have the SAs, AAs and Bad Guy Air Fighters to contend with. You can't use either the AC or the A-10 without losing almost every one you send into the contested area. What then? Do you send them in anyway? Do you hold the ACs because they cost to much and send in the lower cost A-10s because they are cheap? No, you use the other assets like the F-16, F-18 and F-15E if you don't need stealth. Or you may use the B-52 or the B-1. All of these can launch smart weapons that can be controlled by external sources whether it be by other AC like Command Birds or even troops on the ground. It ain't your Grand Daddies War anymore.

But if you need Stealth, then there are only two AC in existance that can do that job and that's the F-22 and the F-35. It's not that they are invisible, they can just get closer without being detected and hit their targets more accurate because they can get closer. That means that Ground Support is already being done by the F-35 with the F-22 flying Top Cap. Or you may have the F-15C flying Top Cap over the F-35B. Or even the F-18 flying Top Cap. The Top Cap is out of harms way and are just there to keep the bad guys fighters away from your ground attack birds. It works.

Why do they fly the A-10 when they do? Simple. When the perimeters are right, the A-10 is there and it's paid for. In other words, why the hell not.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35 is essentially a multi role replacement for the F-16, and some variants of the F/A-18. Is it better than these? Yes.

Yeah, but is it better enough to warrant the cost? Anyone can design something better when you have a nearly unlimited budget. But once designed, if they are too expensive to deploy in quantity, then it doesn't matter.

My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million. You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price. Can that be justified?

Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.

What do you think? I assume you have more knowledge on this.

You compare the A-10 for just the Ground Attack. Let's look at just that and then compare it to the REAL ground attacks.

The A-10 has limited range. With a real combat radius of just about 300 miles, that limits it's usefulness. And that is with limited fuel and limited ordinance. If it is in Heavy Load status, it may be reduced as low as 150 mile radius because it has to sacrifice fuel for ordinance heavily. When it's in FAC or Search and Rescue, it has to limit it's ordinance by a large margin for fuel load to have loiter time. In order to get that 2 hour loiter time, it may have to sacrifice it's external stores and just use it's gun. And the Gun has limited uses. The A-10 can only operate where total air and ground superiority has been established. Meaning, there are no Air to Air threats and there are not SAMs or AA threats. Works well against a bunch of ragheads but against something like the Syrians or Iranians, the A-10 would be grounded. With the A-10 having to get down into the weeds to use it's gun, it would be sitting duck. Other options would be sought.

Now enter the real Ground Attack Bird for Special Ops. The AC-130 of 3 different types are the primary ground attack for pinpoint support. They don't EVER get down into the weeds. They are above the AA and Ground fire. They are susceptible to SAMS but that's where other AC comes into play to take them out. The AC hits targets within 10 feet with some pretty impressive weapons including 25, 30, 40, 105 and even air to surface missiles. They operate from 20K to 30K in altitude. Unlike the A-10, the AC works in conjunction with a Command bird and verifies every target before it takes them out. They can take out a single truck, an entire warehouse, building, even single running people. All the while, leaving a Mosque totally untouched in the area. All in a matter of seconds. The bad guy doesn't see them, they don't hear them. The bad guy just knows his world just went to hell in a hand basket fast. The AC also requires that the area be totally swept of bad buy air assets. And USAF is buying more of these nasty things every year. They aren't buying anymore A-10s because the AC is many times more effective and is less likely to do friendly fire. The AC can hit many different target areas in just one flight and has loiter time that is astounding compared to even a lightly loaded A-10. The A-10 was originally designed as a tank buster but that mission can't be done by the A-10. The AC was originally designed as a Ground Attack but during Vietnam, it got sidetracked because there weren't any A-10s out yet. They use the AC for what it was originally designed for and there is NOTHING that can compete with it.

Now, let's talk about contested airspace. You now have the SAs, AAs and Bad Guy Air Fighters to contend with. You can't use either the AC or the A-10 without losing almost every one you send into the contested area. What then? Do you send them in anyway? Do you hold the ACs because they cost to much and send in the lower cost A-10s because they are cheap? No, you use the other assets like the F-16, F-18 and F-15E if you don't need stealth. Or you may use the B-52 or the B-1. All of these can launch smart weapons that can be controlled by external sources whether it be by other AC like Command Birds or even troops on the ground. It ain't your Grand Daddies War anymore.

But if you need Stealth, then there are only two AC in existance that can do that job and that's the F-22 and the F-35. It's not that they are invisible, they can just get closer without being detected and hit their targets more accurate because they can get closer. That means that Ground Support is already being done by the F-35 with the F-22 flying Top Cap. Or you may have the F-15C flying Top Cap over the F-35B. Or even the F-18 flying Top Cap. The Top Cap is out of harms way and are just there to keep the bad guys fighters away from your ground attack birds. It works.

Why do they fly the A-10 when they do? Simple. When the perimeters are right, the A-10 is there and it's paid for. In other words, why the hell not.

I intentially left out the B-2. At 2 billion a copy and so few in numbers, don't look for them to be used for ground attack very often. They are very capable of it but the cost is ridiculous.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Two decades into F-35 development and production, prime contractors Lockheed Martin and engine maker Pratt and Whitney would like to sign multi-year production contracts.

However, the F-35 program is still plagued by what Garamendi called high operating costs, inadequate repair capacity, spare part shortages and poor replacement part reliabilities. Ongoing challenges running the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which was created to deliver parts to aircraft maintainers, are compounding the spare parts problems. Lawmakers Cooling on F-35 Multi-Year Production Contracts - USNI News Two decades and still not rdy for prime time

 

[DrainBamage]

My limited understanding, is that each F-35 is $90 Million per unit, whereas an F-16 costs just $25 Million. You can almost get 4 times as many planes for the same price. Can that be justified?

Actual fly-away costs are hard to pin down but the last contract for F-16s (Bahrain?) they ran about 65 million each. A new F-18 is about 78 million.

Still cheaper than an F-35 but nothing like the 25 million you're talking about, aircraft advance in capabilities over time, and with that comes the cost.

Meanwhile an A-10 unit, is only $18 Million, and as far as I can tell, is still superior in close air-support for ground units, which at this time appears to be the majority of our engagements.

They are paying almost this much per plane to replace the wings on A-10s, which pretty much tells you how unrealistic this 18 million is in 2019. It also isn't superior in CAS, it depends on what aspect of CAS is being presented.