3 ms·

The F15 has more than double the combat range of the F35. They are pulling the F15 out of Okinawa, and there is no way the F35 can replace it. It lack the ran

The F15 has more than double the combat range of the F35. They are pulling the F15 out of Okinawa, and there is no way the F35 can replace it. It lack the range, among other things. The F15 can carry way more ordinance than the F35. The F35 was claimed to be able to do what the F15 does and it is not even close in many areas. Sure, the F35 can do more in some cases, but it cannot replace what the F15 does. The A10 is similar. They claimed the F35 could perform that role, and there's no way anyone in their right mind would put an F35 in as close air support for troops on the ground. The A10 can also carry a wider array of ordnance, and a lot more ordance than the F35. Both the F15 and A10 cost a lot less per hour to operate, and have much higher availability than the F35. Do we need the F35? Probably. But it is not a replacement for other aircraft that are much more suitable in more situations. What we really need are a large number of light fighter/attack aircrat like the S Korean FA50, with a smaller number of F15/F16/F18 type aircraft, and then a very few F22/F35s.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
The F35 can be anywhere a carrier or LHD can be though.
ranger207 4y ago
While the F-15C does have more range than the F-35, the F-35 has more payload. The F-15E does have more payload, but that's a twin seat fighter-bomber that leans more towards the "bomber" part and isn't directly comparable The A-10 is, frankly, a terrible close air support platform. Its only advantages are lower cost per hour and the fact that by being low and slow it's more visible to grunts on the ground. However, it's slower to respond to CAS requests; more vulnerable to MANPADs which the F-35 can simply fly over and radar-guided SAMs that the F-35 can avoid with stealth; and lacks modern electronics like the F-35's electro-optical sensor suite (aka cameras) making it more likely to cause friendly fire incidents. The gun has been too small to destroy tanks since the T-72, and too big be efficient killing BMPs and trucks, and also requires the plane to come in low and slow in the optimum flight path for getting shot down by MANPADs For the close air support mission, you're either doing it in contested airspace in which the A-10 is too vulnerable compared to the F-35, or in uncontested airspace where a drone can do the dame job just as well if not better for cheaper
- elabajaba 4y ago
  Not to mention that the vast majority of CAS missions by NATO countries over the last 10+ years has been dropping guided munitions from 20000 feet. Or how 4th gen aircraft range is due to drop tanks, which further decrease their payload. Or how the US is gearing up for a near peer conflict, in which light attack aircraft are essentially useless due to how vulnerable they are. edit: The US should probably adopt some light attack aircraft, but for counter insurgency operations. And for something like that, midweight drones with hellfires/brimstones and modern prop planes will be significantly cheaper than even the A-10 or the FA50.
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    Afghanistan was a NATO mission. A10s were used heavily there.
    - elabajaba 4y ago
      Not nearly as heavily as you probably think, considering B1s, F-15s, and F16s performed the majority of CAS missions.
mhh__ 4y ago
Which F-15 would that be?

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

The F35 can be anywhere a carrier or LHD can be though.

ranger207 4y ago

While the F-15C does have more range than the F-35, the F-35 has more payload. The F-15E does have more payload, but that's a twin seat fighter-bomber that leans more towards the "bomber" part and isn't directly comparable The A-10 is, frankly, a terrible close air support platform. Its only advantages are lower cost per hour and the fact that by being low and slow it's more visible to grunts on the ground. However, it's slower to respond to CAS requests; more vulnerable to MANPADs which the F-35 can simply fly over and radar-guided SAMs that the F-35 can avoid with stealth; and lacks modern electronics like the F-35's electro-optical sensor suite (aka cameras) making it more likely to cause friendly fire incidents. The gun has been too small to destroy tanks since the T-72, and too big be efficient killing BMPs and trucks, and also requires the plane to come in low and slow in the optimum flight path for getting shot down by MANPADs For the close air support mission, you're either doing it in contested airspace in which the A-10 is too vulnerable compared to the F-35, or in uncontested airspace where a drone can do the dame job just as well if not better for cheaper

elabajaba 4y ago
Not to mention that the vast majority of CAS missions by NATO countries over the last 10+ years has been dropping guided munitions from 20000 feet. Or how 4th gen aircraft range is due to drop tanks, which further decrease their payload. Or how the US is gearing up for a near peer conflict, in which light attack aircraft are essentially useless due to how vulnerable they are. edit: The US should probably adopt some light attack aircraft, but for counter insurgency operations. And for something like that, midweight drones with hellfires/brimstones and modern prop planes will be significantly cheaper than even the A-10 or the FA50.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  Afghanistan was a NATO mission. A10s were used heavily there.
  - elabajaba 4y ago
    Not nearly as heavily as you probably think, considering B1s, F-15s, and F16s performed the majority of CAS missions.

mhh__ 4y ago

Which F-15 would that be?