The military is bored and loves to spend money on shinies.
Everyone works hard to un-learn the most important lesson of war: In war, more of something beats less of something.
And it isn't simply a "morer is betterer" argument, even strategically if you can place assets in multiple concurrent locations even if those assets are "dumber" then you're forcing the enemy to split their force into multiple beachheads.
Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano ($18M~) Vs. F-35A ($79M~). One F-35A obviously beats one Super Tucano but does it even have enough weapons onboard to beat 4.3? What if you split your Super Tucanos between two locations, which one is the F-35A going to defend?
And the Super Tucano is even the endgame here, the endgame is drone swarms. $1M~/ea and you have a 79-1 ratio, and it is indefensible and laughably so.
Not this again. You'd have to have an army of suicidal fanatics to get them to take off in Super Tucanos against a squadron of F-35s or any American jet really. The F-35 is just going to BVR lob unavoidable AMRAAMs. Add some F-15/18/22s to the mix as well and it will be a good old turkey shoot.
> And the Super Tucano is even the endgame here, the endgame is drone swarms. $1M~/ea and you have a 79-1 ratio, and it is indefensible and laughably so.
"Drone Swarms" You either are just describing guided missiles which already exist or an actual drone aircraft capable of threatening an F-35 which would require similarly capable sensors and engines. It's not going to cost $1M.
Take this as a grain of salt because it's a player in a sim fighting AI. But I love it as an example of what a lone fighter can do against less capable aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5FrxsBG_H8
The primary threat is surface-to-air missiles, not other aircraft. A Super Tucano is simply not survivable against modern SAMs, nor does it have the sensors necessary to attack hardened ground targets. The F-35 at least has a chance.
The F-35 isn't completely stealth, it only offers a reduced sized signature for an aircraft of its size (no aircraft is completely, but the F-35 isn't even the best the US has in terms of stealth it isn't even in the top three).
Before stealth small nimble aircraft avoided anti-aircraft fire by flying low where the horizon and or terrain would keep them shielded or provide physical barriers against missile intercept. That of course requires good low altitude, long duration flying which is also something the Super Tucano happens to excel at.
I'd argue that the SAMs is an argument for "morer is betterer" since you're essentially pretending that the F-35 has perfect stealth instead of limited stealth, and relying on it being never shot down as your win condition (as opposed to building in losses and utilizing strategies not dependent on a technological advantage).
That's just complete nonsense and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. There is no such thing as "completely stealth" or "perfect stealth" , just varying degrees of observability. Terrain masking is only even possible in limited areas, and flying at low level (dense air) drastically reduces range. Turboprop aircraft like the Super Tucano also can't carry the sensors necessary to strike certain targets in all weather conditions; there's no place to even put a large radar.
The days of building mass quantities of cheap, expendable tactical aircraft are simply over. Even if we were willing to tolerate higher aircrew casualty rates that approach is no longer cost effective. It's just too expensive to train more pilots and maintain larger numbers of aircraft in peacetime even if the initial procurement cost is lower. You have to look at the full lifecycle cost to achieve the target level of capability.
For naval aviation the constraints are even stricter. A carrier can only fit a fairly small air wing, so it's essential that every aircraft be highly capable. Even if that means the aircraft are extremely expensive, it's still more cost effective than building another carrier.
> Before stealth small nimble aircraft avoided anti-aircraft fire by flying low where the horizon and or terrain would keep them shielded or provide physical barriers against missile intercept.
Yeah, and then they started to be shot down and had to be ordered to stop flying low while the stealth aircraft kept flying right over the capital, like in the case of the A-10 and F-117 over Iraq in 91.
"The F-35 can carry up to two AIM-9X missiles on its wings and four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles internally."
Also- in the future:
"Lockheed Martin is developing a weapon rack called Sidekick that would enable the internal outboard station to carry two AIM-120s, thus increasing the internal air-to-air payload to six missiles"
Everyone works hard to un-learn the most important lesson of war: In war, more of something beats less of something.
And it isn't simply a "morer is betterer" argument, even strategically if you can place assets in multiple concurrent locations even if those assets are "dumber" then you're forcing the enemy to split their force into multiple beachheads.
Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano ($18M~) Vs. F-35A ($79M~). One F-35A obviously beats one Super Tucano but does it even have enough weapons onboard to beat 4.3? What if you split your Super Tucanos between two locations, which one is the F-35A going to defend?
And the Super Tucano is even the endgame here, the endgame is drone swarms. $1M~/ea and you have a 79-1 ratio, and it is indefensible and laughably so.