4 ms·

I wonder what is more cost effective long term - keeping the A-10s as they are, or training the F35 pilots to do CAS. It seems the direction we are going is fe

I wonder what is more cost effective long term - keeping the A-10s as they are, or training the F35 pilots to do CAS. It 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.

_boffin_ 3y ago
That GAU does help with morale though.
- gnu8 3y ago
  Put a loudspeaker on a drone.
master_crab 3y ago
Probably could keep a whole fleet of A-10s in the air for the price of a few F-35s.
- ancientworldnow 3y ago
  F-35 ($78M) costs less than a new f-15 ($80M) currently. It's oy marginally more than a modern f-16 ($65M) with hugely more capability.
  - tomohawk 3y ago
    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.
    - nradov 3y ago
      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.
    - openasocket 3y ago
      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.
      - master_crab 3y ago
        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.
  - master_crab 3y ago
    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.” https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-billion-f-35-deal-will-see-prices-rise-deliveries-dip/#:~:text=The%20unit%20cost%20of%20the,fighters%20in%20Lots%2015%2D17 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/publication/green-zeckhauser031416.pdf https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publi...
exabrial 3y ago
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?
- dharmab 3y ago
  >an expensive airframe The F-35 is no longer an expensive aircraft; the unit cost is quite low now.
  - exabrial 3y ago
    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?

_boffin_ 3y ago

That GAU does help with morale though.

gnu8 3y ago
Put a loudspeaker on a drone.

master_crab 3y ago

Probably could keep a whole fleet of A-10s in the air for the price of a few F-35s.

ancientworldnow 3y ago
F-35 ($78M) costs less than a new f-15 ($80M) currently. It's oy marginally more than a modern f-16 ($65M) with hugely more capability.
- tomohawk 3y ago
  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.
  - nradov 3y ago
    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.
  - openasocket 3y ago
    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.
    - master_crab 3y ago
      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.
- master_crab 3y ago
  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.” https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-billion-f-35-deal-will-see-prices-rise-deliveries-dip/#:~:text=The%20unit%20cost%20of%20the,fighters%20in%20Lots%2015%2D17 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/publication/green-zeckhauser031416.pdf https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publi...

exabrial 3y ago

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?

dharmab 3y ago
>an expensive airframe The F-35 is no longer an expensive aircraft; the unit cost is quite low now.
- exabrial 3y ago
  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?