6 ms·

The F-22 isn't built anymore. And as far as F-35 alternatives go, the Eurofighter and the Rafale come to mind. Not that the F-35 is a bad plane, so. Edit: One

by hef19898 4y ago

The F-22 isn't built anymore. And as far as F-35 alternatives go, the Eurofighter and the Rafale come to mind. Not that the F-35 is a bad plane, so. Edit: One thing the F-35 has that the other planes don't: Interoperability across basically all NATO nations and beyond. And it is the most up to date, and still in volume production, model.

Dalewyn 4y ago
If we speak of specific capabilties: The F-22, F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority. The F-15E and -EX are better at ground attack. The A-10 is better at close air support. The F-16 (all its variants...) is on par with the F-35 on all counts except for stealth and STOVL. The only thing the F-35 has a decisive advantage in is STOVL capability. Everything else is compromised to achieve the "one plane fits all" vision; the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none.
- hnav 4y ago
  I thought it’s not one plane but at least 3 with enough parts commonality to amortize the cost?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority It's like you give zero credit for either stealth or that fancy radar, which are pretty important in a modern air superiority role.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The A-10 is obsolete. Its airframe literally can’t hold the power systems required to support modern defensive and offensive capabilities. It would get wrecked against any modern air defense environment. It was designed for the threat environment from half a century ago with no upgrade path. F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times. The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding. You don’t seem to understand the criteria against which military aircraft are judged.
  - rnk 4y ago
    Yet we keep using the a-10 to fight against non-modern air defenses over and over again. It has a use. If ukraine had them, would russia be able to shoot them all down? The answer should be yes, but russia should have waxed ukraine theoretically.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      Russian AA is killing Ukrainian Migs very well when they're not careful. No one is flying over Ukraine very much because both sides have AA dominating all engagement altitudes.
    - fnrslvr 4y ago
      I don't think you understand the kinds (and volumes) of SAM firepower a Soviet hangover can leave you with. Ukrainian skies are the most dangerous skies in the world right now, for both sides.
      - rnk 4y ago
        I wasn't trying to say that a10s should be used in Ukraine (because they'd be shot down). But a10s are still really useful in many other circumstances, most recently when fighting countries without air superiority. So if the us fights China, it doesn't seem like they'd be that useful because the us might not have air superiority and it won't be a tank war.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >The A-10 is obsolete. Its airframe literally can’t hold the power systems required to support modern defensive and offensive capabilities. It would get wrecked against any modern air defense environment. It was designed for the threat environment from half a century ago with no upgrade path. Yet we keep flying it in the face of repeated attempts to retire it, with the USAF even going on the record that the A-10 will be kept in inventory "indefinitely"[1]. The A-10 is clearly not obsolete and continues to proudly serve the USA and its friends and allies, and enjoys much adoration from its pilots, mechanics, infantrymen, and civilian fans. >F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times. The F-15 has suffered no airframe loss to enemy combat action in its entire service history, that is a feat not easily met. The USAF even went as far as to procure new F-15s, the -EX model, because F-35 production wasn't keeping up. As for the F/A-18, the Hornet boasts superior flight range and payload capacity besides being significantly cheaper, to say nothing of its proven air superiority and multirole capabilities. >The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding. That is patently false. The F-35 must sacrifice what little stealth it has to carry more payload, otherwise it can only carry a small handful within its internal weapon bays. Even accounting for carrying payload on its wing pylons, it still can't hold a candle to the other fighters; the F-15EX in particular can carry patently ridiculous payloads. As for range, it pales in comparison to air superiority fighters (eg: F-15C/D/E/EX, F-22) or 4th gen naval fighters (the F/A-18C/D/E/F). [1]: https://archive.ph/20170912212105/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/a10-warthog-a-badass-plane-with-a-big-gun-saved-from-scrapheap/news-story/fe24d72a11c0da2b5e467833d6c0602c https://archive.ph/20170912212105/http://www.theaustralian.c...
- trashtester 4y ago
  The F-35 massively outperforms any 4th gen at Red Flag in air-to-air. F-15E and A10 have advantages in ground support vs enemies without proper anti-air defense, but the F-35 has massive advantages against enemies with serious air defences, such as S300 and S400. (Just look at how both Russian and Ukrainian air forces have to stay at low altituteds and stick to friendly air space in the Ukraine war). The only nation that is a realistic threat to Finland, is Russia, and against Russia, the F-35 is a near-perfect aircraft. By having F35, Finland also has much improved capabilities to interoperate with Nato nations. If the US needs to reinforce Finland's air bases, US planes can be serviced locally. Or if Finland is being overwhelmed, their fighters can fall back to Norway, Denmark or Germany. Apart from operating costs, there are very few disadvantages to the F-35.
- XorNot 4y ago
  In an extremely unlikely close range dogfight with an F-16, where the F-35 has no missiles, the F-16 could win. If the F-35 has any of its weapons though, then the F-16 gets pasted by a missile the F-35 fires whenever it wants because it can essentially shoot behind itself. In reality the F-16 gets killed without ever knowing it's being tracked.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  The A-10 is better at close air support Sure, if you're fighting adversaries without antiaircraft defenses. That doesn't leave you with many viable use cases. But yeah... if you've wiped out your enemy's air defenses (or they never had them) including man-portable rocket launchers and all they've got left is a column of unarmored trucks then absolutely, the A-10 going to be devastating.
  - unwind 4y ago
    I'm not in the US, or even in a NATO country (yet, heh) and I read all the comments about how obsolete the A-10 is but I guess you're exaggerating a little for dramatic effect. :) I'm pretty sure the A-10 would be at least "greatly annoying" to far heavier vehicles than unarmored trucks. The Gun [1] penetrates 76 mm armor at 300 m range, which would surely hurt a bit. I'm not sure how successive rounds interact with thicker armor, but would hate to be the one to find out on the ground. :/ I find it almost hard to believe that it can fire 65 rounds per second, where each round weighs almost 400 g, and all of that while flying. It's an incredible piece of Very Angry Engineering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      The infantry on the ground also love the A-10 coming in to lay down support fire, it's a great morale booster. The US Army is even on the record that they would fly the A-10 themselves if the USAF retired them[1], which played in to USAF keeping the A-10 "indefinitely". >Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.[1] The A-10 is adored and respected by our service members, so it's absolutely not obsolete and not retiring any time soon. [1]: https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004 https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com...
    - justsomehnguy 4y ago
      No matter how many people fap on Brrrrtt it's a 50 year old design currently capable only for running amok against guerillas with rusted AKs and allied supply convoys. Any theater with enough MANPADs makes A-10 an angry fireball on the ground.
- thexumaker 4y ago
  yea those speaking points about the F-35 not doing well in air superiority were mostly russian/chinese misinformation lol. The plane is no f-22 for sure but almost all 4th gen and even 4.5 gen planes would be long shot down before even getting in range for a dog fight.
Maursault 4y ago
> The F-22 isn't built anymore. It could be, if necessary, spun back into production. It would be very expensive and take time, at least $50B to produce 200 more and a few years to get restarted, but it's not like it would need to be designed again. We know how to make them. The issue seems to be the concern that future threats will make F-22 a poor match, and that it will compete financially against new programs that may be a better match. But who really knows what the threat will be in 2035? Maybe the F-22 is just right, and if it is and we need more, we'll make more.
- touisteur 4y ago
  Will probably need updates to a whole bunch of electronics and computerstuff, even with military HW timeliness. And probably porting. I have no doubt second system syndrome will creep in.
  - Dennip 4y ago
    Pretty sure the F-22 has had multiple upgrade cycles over its lifetime, so its not really all old 90's tech. I think in reality spinning up production again would essentially be a new fighter based on the same core design, maybe reusing a lot of the parts.
Xylakant 4y ago
One reason that germany has selected the F35 as it’s next gen multirole aircraft is that it’s certified to carry US nuclear weapons. Other planes are theoretically capable of doing so, but would require adaptions and certification, increasing cost. With Finland on a path to join the NATO, this could be one consideration here as well.
- hef19898 4y ago
  US nukes, of the free-falling kind, were exactly why Germany went for a US model. And of those options, F-15, F/A-18 and F-35, the F-35 is the most modern. The F-15 was more or less obsolete at the time (the go for the -X uograde came later), and the F-35 prpably has the longer service life ahead of it. The Eurofighter could of course carry and drop US nukes. The issue is that it would need US cwrtification to do so, and for rather obvious reasons that certification was close to impossible to get. Again, the F-35 is a great plane. There are reasons so why it is not not even for the USN and USAF, only one.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    Not to sound presumptive but... In the event of an actual nuclear war, why would anyone worry about the certification?
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Because you still need to test that stuff before using it. And yes, if it was accute, testing and certification would go fast (see COVID vaccines), but it would still be tested. In reality, having a platform able to carry nukes is Germanies way to be, and stay, part of NATO's nuclear weapon councils. For sure, Germany could also buy Rafales and use French nukes, but that would create such a public outcry that the only result would be no nukes at all anymore for Germany regardless of whose nukes Germany is borrowing. Edit: The reason for the outcry over French nukes is not that they are French, but rather the need to change the laws around nuclear participation to allow the switch. And that legislative changes would lead to a ton of public debate everyone wants to avoid, as this debate would kill nuclear participation in general. So nobody in governmant wants to take this risk, hence the procurement of a US platform to replace the aging Tornado fleet as a carrier of US nukes.

Dalewyn 4y ago

If we speak of specific capabilties: The F-22, F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority. The F-15E and -EX are better at ground attack. The A-10 is better at close air support. The F-16 (all its variants...) is on par with the F-35 on all counts except for stealth and STOVL. The only thing the F-35 has a decisive advantage in is STOVL capability. Everything else is compromised to achieve the "one plane fits all" vision; the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none.

hnav 4y ago
I thought it’s not one plane but at least 3 with enough parts commonality to amortize the cost?
mlyle 4y ago
> F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority It's like you give zero credit for either stealth or that fancy radar, which are pretty important in a modern air superiority role.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
The A-10 is obsolete. Its airframe literally can’t hold the power systems required to support modern defensive and offensive capabilities. It would get wrecked against any modern air defense environment. It was designed for the threat environment from half a century ago with no upgrade path. F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times. The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding. You don’t seem to understand the criteria against which military aircraft are judged.
- rnk 4y ago
  Yet we keep using the a-10 to fight against non-modern air defenses over and over again. It has a use. If ukraine had them, would russia be able to shoot them all down? The answer should be yes, but russia should have waxed ukraine theoretically.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Russian AA is killing Ukrainian Migs very well when they're not careful. No one is flying over Ukraine very much because both sides have AA dominating all engagement altitudes.
  - fnrslvr 4y ago
    I don't think you understand the kinds (and volumes) of SAM firepower a Soviet hangover can leave you with. Ukrainian skies are the most dangerous skies in the world right now, for both sides.
    - rnk 4y ago
      I wasn't trying to say that a10s should be used in Ukraine (because they'd be shot down). But a10s are still really useful in many other circumstances, most recently when fighting countries without air superiority. So if the us fights China, it doesn't seem like they'd be that useful because the us might not have air superiority and it won't be a tank war.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >The A-10 is obsolete. Its airframe literally can’t hold the power systems required to support modern defensive and offensive capabilities. It would get wrecked against any modern air defense environment. It was designed for the threat environment from half a century ago with no upgrade path. Yet we keep flying it in the face of repeated attempts to retire it, with the USAF even going on the record that the A-10 will be kept in inventory "indefinitely"[1]. The A-10 is clearly not obsolete and continues to proudly serve the USA and its friends and allies, and enjoys much adoration from its pilots, mechanics, infantrymen, and civilian fans. >F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times. The F-15 has suffered no airframe loss to enemy combat action in its entire service history, that is a feat not easily met. The USAF even went as far as to procure new F-15s, the -EX model, because F-35 production wasn't keeping up. As for the F/A-18, the Hornet boasts superior flight range and payload capacity besides being significantly cheaper, to say nothing of its proven air superiority and multirole capabilities. >The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding. That is patently false. The F-35 must sacrifice what little stealth it has to carry more payload, otherwise it can only carry a small handful within its internal weapon bays. Even accounting for carrying payload on its wing pylons, it still can't hold a candle to the other fighters; the F-15EX in particular can carry patently ridiculous payloads. As for range, it pales in comparison to air superiority fighters (eg: F-15C/D/E/EX, F-22) or 4th gen naval fighters (the F/A-18C/D/E/F). [1]: https://archive.ph/20170912212105/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/a10-warthog-a-badass-plane-with-a-big-gun-saved-from-scrapheap/news-story/fe24d72a11c0da2b5e467833d6c0602c https://archive.ph/20170912212105/http://www.theaustralian.c...
trashtester 4y ago
The F-35 massively outperforms any 4th gen at Red Flag in air-to-air. F-15E and A10 have advantages in ground support vs enemies without proper anti-air defense, but the F-35 has massive advantages against enemies with serious air defences, such as S300 and S400. (Just look at how both Russian and Ukrainian air forces have to stay at low altituteds and stick to friendly air space in the Ukraine war). The only nation that is a realistic threat to Finland, is Russia, and against Russia, the F-35 is a near-perfect aircraft. By having F35, Finland also has much improved capabilities to interoperate with Nato nations. If the US needs to reinforce Finland's air bases, US planes can be serviced locally. Or if Finland is being overwhelmed, their fighters can fall back to Norway, Denmark or Germany. Apart from operating costs, there are very few disadvantages to the F-35.
XorNot 4y ago
In an extremely unlikely close range dogfight with an F-16, where the F-35 has no missiles, the F-16 could win. If the F-35 has any of its weapons though, then the F-16 gets pasted by a missile the F-35 fires whenever it wants because it can essentially shoot behind itself. In reality the F-16 gets killed without ever knowing it's being tracked.
JohnBooty 4y ago
The A-10 is better at close air support Sure, if you're fighting adversaries without antiaircraft defenses. That doesn't leave you with many viable use cases. But yeah... if you've wiped out your enemy's air defenses (or they never had them) including man-portable rocket launchers and all they've got left is a column of unarmored trucks then absolutely, the A-10 going to be devastating.
- unwind 4y ago
  I'm not in the US, or even in a NATO country (yet, heh) and I read all the comments about how obsolete the A-10 is but I guess you're exaggerating a little for dramatic effect. :) I'm pretty sure the A-10 would be at least "greatly annoying" to far heavier vehicles than unarmored trucks. The Gun [1] penetrates 76 mm armor at 300 m range, which would surely hurt a bit. I'm not sure how successive rounds interact with thicker armor, but would hate to be the one to find out on the ground. :/ I find it almost hard to believe that it can fire 65 rounds per second, where each round weighs almost 400 g, and all of that while flying. It's an incredible piece of Very Angry Engineering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    The infantry on the ground also love the A-10 coming in to lay down support fire, it's a great morale booster. The US Army is even on the record that they would fly the A-10 themselves if the USAF retired them[1], which played in to USAF keeping the A-10 "indefinitely". >Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.[1] The A-10 is adored and respected by our service members, so it's absolutely not obsolete and not retiring any time soon. [1]: https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004 https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com...
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    No matter how many people fap on Brrrrtt it's a 50 year old design currently capable only for running amok against guerillas with rusted AKs and allied supply convoys. Any theater with enough MANPADs makes A-10 an angry fireball on the ground.
thexumaker 4y ago
yea those speaking points about the F-35 not doing well in air superiority were mostly russian/chinese misinformation lol. The plane is no f-22 for sure but almost all 4th gen and even 4.5 gen planes would be long shot down before even getting in range for a dog fight.

Maursault 4y ago

> The F-22 isn't built anymore. It could be, if necessary, spun back into production. It would be very expensive and take time, at least $50B to produce 200 more and a few years to get restarted, but it's not like it would need to be designed again. We know how to make them. The issue seems to be the concern that future threats will make F-22 a poor match, and that it will compete financially against new programs that may be a better match. But who really knows what the threat will be in 2035? Maybe the F-22 is just right, and if it is and we need more, we'll make more.

touisteur 4y ago
Will probably need updates to a whole bunch of electronics and computerstuff, even with military HW timeliness. And probably porting. I have no doubt second system syndrome will creep in.
- Dennip 4y ago
  Pretty sure the F-22 has had multiple upgrade cycles over its lifetime, so its not really all old 90's tech. I think in reality spinning up production again would essentially be a new fighter based on the same core design, maybe reusing a lot of the parts.

Xylakant 4y ago

One reason that germany has selected the F35 as it’s next gen multirole aircraft is that it’s certified to carry US nuclear weapons. Other planes are theoretically capable of doing so, but would require adaptions and certification, increasing cost. With Finland on a path to join the NATO, this could be one consideration here as well.

hef19898 4y ago
US nukes, of the free-falling kind, were exactly why Germany went for a US model. And of those options, F-15, F/A-18 and F-35, the F-35 is the most modern. The F-15 was more or less obsolete at the time (the go for the -X uograde came later), and the F-35 prpably has the longer service life ahead of it. The Eurofighter could of course carry and drop US nukes. The issue is that it would need US cwrtification to do so, and for rather obvious reasons that certification was close to impossible to get. Again, the F-35 is a great plane. There are reasons so why it is not not even for the USN and USAF, only one.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Not to sound presumptive but... In the event of an actual nuclear war, why would anyone worry about the certification?
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Because you still need to test that stuff before using it. And yes, if it was accute, testing and certification would go fast (see COVID vaccines), but it would still be tested. In reality, having a platform able to carry nukes is Germanies way to be, and stay, part of NATO's nuclear weapon councils. For sure, Germany could also buy Rafales and use French nukes, but that would create such a public outcry that the only result would be no nukes at all anymore for Germany regardless of whose nukes Germany is borrowing. Edit: The reason for the outcry over French nukes is not that they are French, but rather the need to change the laws around nuclear participation to allow the switch. And that legislative changes would lead to a ton of public debate everyone wants to avoid, as this debate would kill nuclear participation in general. So nobody in governmant wants to take this risk, hence the procurement of a US platform to replace the aging Tornado fleet as a carrier of US nukes.