There is an order backlog of hundreds from various countries, and due to economy of scale the price went down significantly ($200 mil -> $80 mil)
French is upset that EU countries are ordering this instead of an EU made plane.
> F-35 Production Challenged to Keep Up with Demand
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-35-production-challenged...
It's the right plane at the right time (Ukraine war, EU militaries pathetic state)
Military contracts are a lot more complicated than a mere comparison between technical specs. For example: - Interop with the rest of the equipments
- Training costs for the pilots/mechanics
- NATO interop
- Will buying F35 lead to a better deal for another XYZ equipment?
- Will buying F35 lead to a better political deal on XYZ non-defense-related topic?
- Will buying F35 lead to technology transfer? Jobs created because (partly) manufactured on their country?
- Will buying F35 makes their country army more/less independent of external supplies/intelligence?
The main reason western countries are buying F35, regardless of its pro/cons is that it is manufactured by the US, a superpower with currently the biggest army in the world (in terms of budget).
Put in another way, even if China suddenly made F35 clones for a cheaper price, the EU countries would no buy them.
This also sways other countries in the region towards buying from SK, because Poland will become a very close and convenient support center. Poland will get extra business from nearby countries (lowering unit cost), and nearby countries will obtain superior support.
One of its roles is Close Air Support. A quick search finds that it is inferior to its predecessor in that role:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2023/11/air-force-f...
As for symmetric conflicts, the F-22 is far better for handling those. Its production was discontinued because the military had no need for it. Having the F-35 for a role where there is no need seems silly. It isn't even as good in that role as the existing F-22 fleet.
The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. Of course it's going to be better in that specific role. But which is better at operating from aircraft carriers, the F-22 or F-35? The F-35 costs half as much as F-22, too.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-16s-cas-variants-fai...
The F-22 is labelled as a multirole fighter. Its ability to handle other roles is limited, and its main role is not needed. You claimed that the F-35 is good at air superiority as a way of demonstrating its value, but the F-22's discontinuation demonstrated that a fighter for that role is not needed. Consequently, the F-35 theoretical competence in air superiority is not in any way an indicator of its value.
That said, the F-35's ability to handle all roles seems limited. It tries to be able to do so many roles that all of its competencies are handicapped. That is why it has criticism as being a jack of all trades. If it were multirole in the sense that the F-22 is multirole, it would not have that criticism. :/
Modern CAS doesn't involve strafing tanks. Planes are staying well above the altitude small arms are capable of reaching, dropping LGBs, CBUs, and air to ground missiles on targets. The notion that resistance to small arms fire makes the f-16 terrible at CAS is a very odd point to make.
The f-22 was discontinued because it was very expensive, much moreso than the f-35. It was also due to the end of the cold war, and no real global competition with peer adversaries. Would the f-22 have been cancelled if we knew what geopolitics in 2023 would look like? Not so sure about that.
That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/
By the way, dropping bombs is being a bomber and there are actual purpose built bombers for that. :/
Then your understanding is deeply wrong. The F/A-16 discussed in that article was a specific variant of the F-16 that mounted a 30mm gun pod. Which failed horribly. During the gun produced vibrations that broke avionics, and the targeting software didn't even work with the gun.
The normal F-16 is a multirole fighter that can drop bombs, missiles, and rockets on ground targets just fine. It can shoot HARMs, too. It has performed in a CAS role just fine for decades. Not to drag contemporary events into this thread, but I guarantee you many of the Israeli planes dropping bombs in Gaza are f-16s. And yes, this is close air support: ground forces are pushing in, and when they take fire from a position they're calling in strikes. This is textbook close air support.
> That being said, for CAS, being able to shoot bullets at dozens of targets is more useful than dropping a handful of bombs. It is also more cost effective. :/
No, it is not. 30mm cannons aren't going to demolish trenches or penetrate that far into fortified buildings. You also have to get really close to the target to be effective. It was an effective way to conduct CAS against armored targets specifically in the 1970s and 80s before laser and gps guided bombs became ubiquitous. And today, the proliferation of IR guided SAMs that are fairly resistant to flares make strafing too dangerous, even for the a-10.
If you were under the impression that the abortive F/A-16 was the only version of the F-16 ever fielded for CAS then your statements in this chain make sense. But it's a totally false understanding.
Seriously, if the purpose of CAS was only to hit 1 target, then any plane that could drop a bomb would work, but nobody cares about being able to hit a single target when they have many targets that need to be hit.
An a-10 strafing targets is also going to take multiple passes to destroy a dozen targets. Unless they're all in a column, in which case the f-16 can destroy them too with a cluster bomb.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the f-16 has a very limited air to ground payload. And the 30mm canon in the a-10 is not nearly as impactful as you make it out to be. There's enough public information on f-16's operational history to make your claims demonstrably false.
As for making multiple passes, that is better than multiple trips to/from base.
I do not know what I am supposed to be reading at your link.
Your understanding is incorrect. Close air support means engaging targets in close proximity to friendly forces. It does not refer to the altitude at which aircraft are deploying munitions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support
From my link, you're supposed to read the fact that the f-16 can carry a dozen air to ground munitions. The f-16 does not have a payload that much smaller than the a-10.
Anyway, the original complaint here is about the F-35, not the F-16. No matter how much you think of the F-16, the F-35 is being pushed into this role and it is just not fit for it. I do not think the F-16 is fit for it either, although it is certainly more fit than the F-35.
The f-35 can mount as much external stores as the f-16. The only way it's unsuitable in a CAS role is the fantasy world where modern close air support involves strafing targets.
1. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551...
By the way, MANPAADs are pricy in comparison to bullets.
> Contrast this with the cost of an infrared guided MANPADS available on the black market for $5,000 to $250,000.18
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/11/2002115503/-1/-1/0/37M...
They are comparable to the precision guided munitions in cost. That makes sense considering that they are precision guided munitions.
Most short range air defenses are infrared guided, radar cross section is not relevant there.
The problem in Ukraine is that the ground is not clear (mobile air defense and MANPADS). So neither side is using planes for CAS.
The F-35 can take off from an LHD (not a full-fat carrier) which means they can be anywhere. Scary for an adversary.
The F-35 has a much faster response time than the A-10--and, more importantly, survivability. In a contested environment, "suboptimal" CAS from an F-35 dropping precision munitions is much better than none at all (A-10 would get shot out of the sky by any near-peer before it could approach the theater). The A-10 also has high maintenance costs and a relatively low loiter time. For fighting terrorists in flipflops, something like a super-tucano does its job for a tenth of the operating cost. Fundamentally, the A-10 was not built for CAS. It was built as a last-ditch, suicide strafer of Soviet convoys during a land war in Europe. Very few were projected to survive past the first week.
That said, unless the military plans to have people fighting on the ground without air superiority, there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.
> How survivable is the F-35 when taking hits?
the point of the F-35 is that it is less likely to take these hits (hits which would destroy both planes) in the first place
> there is no need for CAS aircraft to face interceptors or other things that would shoot them down. They only have to worry about small arms fire.
exactly, so in a COIN scenario the super-tucano, which has a tenth of the A-10's operating cost and longer loiter time, is the better choice
This is why there are decoy flares.
Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised. Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire. Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.
That being said, it is lousy in all of its roles. Multirole aircraft that are capable of fewer roles are far better than the F-35 in just about every role imaginable. The F-22 is an excellent example of this. :/
..are you serious. chaff/flare is a last-ditch countermeasure for when the missile is completely depleted of energy for final evasive maneuvers, not a first line of defense after a modern missile. against a manpaad there's a higher success rate but even then it's not 100%.
> Anyway, WWII-style antiair guns would easily down a F-35 in a CAS role unless it is so high that its ability to handle that is compromised.
are you under the impression the f-35 is going on strafing runs???
> Things that shoot bullets are the real threat to CAS aircraft. Also, the F-35 has so few shots that it can only fire a fraction of the bullets that the A-10 could fire.
...
> Combine that with reduced accuracy from having to fly higher up and it is almost useless in a CAS role.
i'm not sure how to even respond to this
They did try to replace the A-10 with the F-16, but failed:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-f-16s-cas-variants-fai...
Apparently, when they get close to the ground, they can be shot down, while the A-10 keeps flying.
> In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as aerial warfare actions—often air-to-ground actions such as strafes or airstrikes—by military aircraft against hostile targets in close proximity to friendly forces
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support
With guided munitions and better targeting pods, close air support has shifted to dropping precision munitions from further away to minimize the risk from short range air defenses.
You need to be close to the ground if using bullets.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12_Paveway_II
2. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a41956551...
https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everyth...
Lets say we have 6 targets and a 2 hour mission. Let us assume that the F-16 and A-10 both cost $20,000 per hour to fly. That would be $160,000 for the F-16. Lets assume the ammunition for the warthog costs $1 each. That would be $40,780 for the A-10.
Oh, and the F-35 costs about $40,000 per hour to fly. For that, the same mission costs $200,000.
> The idea that precision munitions are prohibitively expensive to use for close air support is a fantasy.
Unfortunately, the math does not favor those munitions.
Except they don't don't $1 each. They cost $136 : https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-30mm-GAU-8-round-cost
That's not counting wear on the gun.
And if flying low to strafe results in even one additional loss, all those savings are even more than offset.
But more importantly, this whole comparison is moot because for every hour flying a combat mission, a pilot is flying many more hours in training.
While those are pricy, the military does not fire those from the A-10 anymore:
> Armor-piercing incendiary rounds “go through soft targets very cleanly and don’t do much damage unless they hit a critical component,” said the former A-10 pilot. “The type of targets in Iraq and Afghanistan did not warrant using API.”
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a-10-warthog-armor-piercing-...
Non-incendiary rounds are much cheaper. I cannot find an exact price on it, but I imagine that they are negligible in comparison to fuel.
That being said, I do not think the cost to the USAF is public. I picked $1 since no figure that was reasonable would make any difference.
And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons.
3900 rounds per minute / (60 minutes per hour) * 2 seconds per shot * 6 shots * $53 = $41340, compared to $20,000 * 6 = $120,000.
The total cost is half for the A-10 after you add the cost of fuel. However, keep in mind that this does not consider that they also fire the "dummy" ammunition that is just regular bullets.
> And again, the point is moot because there way more flight hours to train a pilot than spent flying combat missinons.
Assuming that a nation is able to keep funding these missions during peace time, then the only real concern would be the costs during war time, which will undoubtedly be prohibitive.
That being said, the A-10 has a history of doing far more in CAS roles than other aircraft. That is because the A-10 is simply better at it.
Military pilots in peace time average 150 hours of flying per year: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/11/fighter-pilots-aren...
And that's abnormally low hours. With a $20k an hour operational cost, that's $3 million a year. You're going to have to do a lot of strafing to make even a dent in total costs by saving money on munitions.
And again, this is not even including the costs of additional losses from low level flying overy enemies to conduct strafing runs.
Of course the A-10 does more close air support: it can't do anything else! Whereas the f-16 can also do combat air patrols, SEAD, search for ships with its radar, shoot Harpoons, etc.
We barely afford the military budget in peace time while our war time costs are insane. Being stuck with enormous bills after "winning" is not a real victory.
The F-35 that the military wants to use in place of the A-10 costs twice as much per hour to fly, carries a fraction of the munitions and if it is given a decent load out, it loses its stealth capabilities that were the reason for adopting it in the first place.
If flying low saves the life of 1 additional solider, it would be worth it.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-how-the-...
And again, the flares are meant to handle them.
The F-22 is also far better at that than the F-35. Its production was discontinued precisely because there is no need for aircraft to fill that role. :/
Note that the F-22 is also considered a multirole aircraft, but it really is suited for just 1 role, which is why it was discontinued, since that role was not deemed necessary in modern conflicts. The F-22 also outperforms the F-35 in that single role.
And it was truly exceptional when it was new. One has to wonder how the FB-22 (a bomber variant) would have fared.
jack of all trades and master of none, much better than a master of one
https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508907
Whereas the "master of none" part goes back to 1732 in meaning, and 1785 in exact wording.
It's just some people recently trying to falsely invent a notion that "jack of all trades, master of none" is "really" supposed to be something positive. It's not.
It also shows, if needed be at this point, that the war in Ukraine has been the jackpot for US interests at the expense of Europe.
Now obviously, the F-35 is not going to be bad in global competition terms because few, if any, countries have the US' capabilities and tech, but that does not invalidate any of the criticisms against it.
Uneducated opinion: Personally, I think it's also overused to a silly extent, but that's a question that it's good enough for many roles over more specialized planes. It's slower and more expensive than a 1954 f104, and I think cheap drone versions of many airplanes would be good enough for many missions, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Do you have any evidence of the former thesis?
Those things are not governed by the "free market".
"Desirable aircraft" is a subjective term. They bought it so it was 'desirable' by the metrics and considerations at play which go way beyond tech specs and cost.
Force design is a question of what the force will be used for. A military for a counterinsurgency in Iraq, will look very different from one for a peer-level conflict between superpowers. A military designed for force projection will look very different than one used for domestic defence. Etc.
There is a fairly standard way of doing the analysis for what makes sense for a given country's specific defence needs and wants:
* Most of India's defence needs center around Pakistan, as well as skirmishes of various sorts. I can think of few things an F35 can do which India needs done which can't be accomplished by a much cheaper plane.
* Japan's primary goal issue is China's growing military base. I can think of few uses Japan would have for a much cheaper plane.
India's answer to all-out war with China are nukes. Aside from that, it has no chance for military parity in the next half-century or so.
Agreed, all products, especially industrial and military products, are purchased based on their complete offering. The US is able to make very strong complete offers for a variety of reasons (e.g. the supply chain for replacement parts). I don’t think it’s fair to ascribe this to “flexing geopolitical muscle,” which IMO reads like “the US is strong-arming its customers into inferior products.”
Even if Japan were 100% US aircraft it wouldn’t obviously be indicative of your broader point given Japan’s unique post-war restrictions on its military (enforced by the US).