November 24, 2024

US Military Aircraft Part 1 - Fighters and Bombers

I am going to attempt a very brief and somewhat opinionated guide to the aircraft of the US military, for those who don't marinate in military aviation. Obviously, there will be many simplifications for those who do, but they already know this stuff, so I will simply ignore them.

Before I go further, I should say a word on designations. The US military has a (reasonably) consistent way it designates airplanes. There's a letter or set of letters that tell the mission, a dash, then a sequence number for the specific type of plane, then a submodel letter for variants of that type. The mission letter(s) are things like F for fighter, B for bomber, C for cargo, H for hovering and so on. They can be combined, so you might use CH for a cargo helicopter and RB for a bomber converted to do reconnaissance. If a plane is given with two letter designations below, the first one is the standard single-seat version and the second one has two seats. For more details on the system, see here.

Fighters

The fighter is the backbone of the modern air force, and its name comes from the original mission of the type, to do battle with other airplanes so that your side's planes can do stuff and the other side's can't. Through a complicated chain of events that we don't need to get into here, it also ended up as the default type for delivering air-to-ground weapons. A modern fighter has one or two people in it and is equipped with one or two engines that can propel it to supersonic speeds, although usually not for very long. Weaponry is usually a few air-to-air missiles, a mix of Sidewinder short-range and AMRAAM long-range missiles. Air-to-ground ordnance varies more widely, from dumb and laser-guided bombs to GPS-guided bombs, short-range missiles and long-range cruise missiles. Almost all fighters also carry a 20mm gatling gun, although its effectiveness is controversial.

F-15C/D Eagle

By kill ratio, the greatest fighter ever made. A twin-engine, single-seat fighter designed entirely for air superiority, "not a pound for air-to-ground". The Eagle is big and fast and remains quite capable even after 50 years, but the existing fleet is very old and it's currently just about been phased out of the active force, with effectively all of the remaining ~150 planes in the hands of the Air National Guard. Also in use by Japan, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

F-15E Strike Eagle

A two-seat derivative of the F-15, modified to deliver air-to-ground weapons in all weather, with the guy in the back seat serving as a weapons operator. It's the heaviest of the "fighter" types, with a ton of fuel and a big weapons payload, and although it focuses on the ground attack mission, it is capable of shooting down other aircraft, and F-15Es participated in the defense of Israel from the Iranian attack back in April. The US operates about 200, with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and Qatar also flying the type. It remains in production, and serves as the basis for the F-15EX Eagle II, which the US has recently ordered to replace the F-15C/D fleet, with improved engines and radar, and more focus on air-to-air missions.

F-16C/D Fighting Falcon

Also known as the Viper, this is more or less the generic western jet fighter. Single-seat and single-engine, it is one of the most versatile platforms around, fully capable against both other aircraft and ground targets. The first operational airplane to be aerodynamically unstable (which means it needs computers to keep it flying), it often specializes in shutting down enemy air defenses, in addition to carrying the weapons of the two Eagle variants. It has been a wild export success, currently flown by 25 different countries, and while the US isn't planning to add to the 700-odd we have, it is still in production for export sales, and a number of retired aircraft have been passed to Ukraine.

F/A-18C/D Hornet

The Navy's answer to the F-16, but with two engines instead of one and somewhat better range. The rather unusual designation is the result of combining the planned F-18 and A-18, thanks to improved computers which allowed a single airframe to perform both missions. It's now in the twilight of its career, as the USN has replaced it with the Super Hornet (see below), but it soldiers on with the Marines for the next few years in a few squadrons before being replaced by F-35Cs. Designed to fly from carriers, it was bought by 8 foreign countries for use from land bases, too, although many are also looking to replace it in the next few years.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

Developed as a "derivative" of the Hornet during the years after the end of the Cold War, the Super Hornet is essentially a new aircraft designed to look like the old one. But it was bigger, longer-ranged and all-around better than the "legacy" Hornet, and today forms the backbone of USN aviation, with four squadrons on most carriers, taking care of not only air defense and ground attack, but also tasks like aerial refueling. The Super Hornet is also the basis of the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, which provides jamming support for the entire US military. Production is winding down, but the 400 or so in service will soldier on for many years to come alongside planes in Australia and Kuwait.

F-22 Raptor

Originally intended as a replacement for the F-15 in the air superiority role, the twin-engine Raptor is the first of what are called fifth-generation fighters. It's stealthy and extremely maneuverable (seriously, the airshow demo it does is unbelievable), and capable of supercruise (flying faster than Mach 1 without using afterburners, which are terrible for fuel efficiency). Unfortunately, while it is probably the best pure fighter in the world, the decision to end production was made in 2009, so only 180 or so are available, and restarting the production line would be horribly expensive. So far, it has only killed balloons.

F-35 Lightning II/Joint Strike Fighter

The JSF is the latest thing in military aviation, intended to provide the US and its allies with a stealthy fighter/ground attack aircraft capable of taking advantage of the latest in computer technology to give its pilots an unparalleled view of the battlefield. In an attempt to save costs, it's being built in three variants: the F-35A for the Air Force, which is mostly replacing the F-16, the F-35B for the Marine Corps, which can take off and land vertically at a substantial cost in payload and range, and the F-35C for the Navy, capable of operating from a normal carrier. The F-35 program has been controversial to say the least, but with over 1,000 built so far for the US and about 20 other nations, it will be a mainstay of Western air power for decades to come, and looks to be turning out pretty well.

Attack Aircraft

These are basically fighter-sized, but dedicated for the ground attack role. They come in two varieties, turboprop planes for beating up on people who have no air defenses and jet-powered ones that are like fighters, but without the fancy electronics. The turboprop versions are becoming increasingly common because they're cheap to operate, while the jet versions are dying off because they cost about as much as a fighter, but are less versatile (and less fun to fly). Weapons are generally about the same as on a fighter set up for ground attack.

AV-8B Harrier II

The Harrier was the first true STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) combat aircraft, and it was rapidly adopted by the US Marine Corps, who liked having something with a pointy nose they could fly off their ships, despite its short range. The AV-8B is almost a fighter, with a radar and AMRAAM capability, but it's not supersonic and it has an A in the designation, so it's classified here. It's currently being retired in favor of the F-35B, which has overtaken it in the Marine inventory.

A-10 Thunderbolt

Also known as the "Warthog", this is a supremely ugly and much-beloved plane developed to provide close air support (blowing up things that are shooting at ground troops). Advocates point to its impressive 30 mm gun and the fact that it is much tougher than anything else flying, and claim that the Air Force mostly wants to retire it because they don't like supporting the Army and it isn't fast enough. While there is some truth to that, detractors point out that flying around at low altitude is very dangerous, and it's really not that much cheaper to operate than much more versatile fighters, so the 280 A-10s could be replaced by a fairly similar number of other aircraft. I tend to fall into the latter camp, although I will freely admit that it's a very impressive bit of engineering.

OA-1K Skywarden

A modified cropduster recently ordered to support SOCOM, this is the current US entry in the "turboprop attack aircraft category". Generally a decent airplane except that they gave it the A-1 designation for "heritage" reasons, ripping off one of the greatest brands in aviation.

Bombers

These are bigger than fighters and designed entirely to kill ground targets. Their greater size means greater range, and they're what you want if you would like to fly a mission from the Continental US to launch missiles and drop bombs on foreign parts, although you'll probably need forward-based tankers. Bombers almost universally have two pilots, and most have additional crew to operate weapons and electronic warfare systems.

B-52H Stratofortress

Right for Eisenhower's America, right for today. The B-52, usually known as the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat ... Fellow) was America's third jet bomber, with the first prototype flying in 1952, and it's still going strong, with recent programs announced to replace the engines and give it a new radar. While it is listed in the dictionary as an antonym of stealthy, the 72-aircraft fleet is useful because it carries a lot of bombs or cruise missiles (20 tons is a fairly standard loadout) and is cheaper and more reliable than either of the other two bombers. Not bad for airframes that date back to the early 60s.

B-1B Lancer

Clearly the prettiest of the bombers, the B-1, also known as the Bone, is the only remaining swing-wing aircraft in the US inventory. Capability-wise it's not too different from the B-52, although it is technically supersonic. The downside is that pilots tend to fly it like it's a fighter, and that, combined with the complex wing sweep mechanism, means that it's quite expensive to operate and reliability isn't great for the 64-plane fleet. Also, unlike the other two bombers, it does not carry nuclear weapons.

B-2 Spirit

The famous "stealth bomber", capable of penetrating air defenses to deliver bombs directly onto bad guys. Unfortunately, while all stealth aircraft are expensive to operate because stealth features require constant maintenance, the B-2 is particularly notorious for this, and costs an eyewatering amount to fly. Also, the buy was capped at 21 planes, 19 of which remain in service. It is slated to be retired over the next decade as the B-21 Raider, which looks pretty much the same aside from being slightly smaller and (hopefully) a lot cheaper to operate, enters service.

That wraps up the airplanes which actually go around and deliver bombs and missiles to targets. Next time, we'll start our look at the weird and wonderful world of support aircraft.

Comments

  1. November 24, 2024Mike Kozlowski said...

    ...Concise and well done.

  2. November 25, 2024Telnar said...

    I have to admit, if you had asked me 20 years ago what the niche was for a high end, stealth, twin engine, thrust vectoring fighter, I wouldn’t have come up with “flying high enough to shoot down balloons,” but perhaps that’s just a side effect of being lucky enough not to fight anyone with an air force since then.

  3. November 25, 2024Anonymous said...

    The B-52, usually known as the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat ... Fellow)

    Something seems a bit off there.

    was America's second jet bomber

    After the B-45 and B-47 had both entered service.

  4. November 25, 2024bean said...

    Dangit. Forgot about the B-45. Will fix.

    Something seems a bit off there.

    It's not that I don't know the other version, it's that the other version doesn't comply with my policy on language.

  5. November 25, 2024hnau said...

    As a non-military-geek it took me a minute to work out that the "greatest brands in aviation" link is a reference to the Douglas A-1 Skyraider ("A-1" doesn't actually appear in the linked post, apparently because that wasn't the designation at the time).

  6. November 25, 2024redRover said...

    detractors point out that flying around at low altitude is very dangerous

    Because of CFIT, or because it's an easy target?

    Also, not that this is really the main point of the exercise, but it would be interesting to have an article on how close air support in contested airspace has evolved (or is likely to evolve) in light of the experience in Ukraine and elsewhere. It seems like most of the CAS heretofore has been driven by either uncontested airspace (basically COIN), or is a relic of the Cold War era, when MANPADs and so on weren't as developed. Obviously this plays into the A-10, but also for the AH-# and AC-130 missions.

  7. November 25, 2024bean said...

    @hnau

    This is what happens when I get cute twice in different ways. Yes, it was an A-1 reference, which I think I didn't mention by name in that post as a sort of vague protest against the 1962 renumbering of Navy aircraft.

    @redRover

    Because it's an easy target.

    More broadly, the Ukraine war has been a reminder of the importance and power of ground-based air defense. Apparently, Army ADA is getting a lot more attention this year than it was three years ago. And yeah, the A-10 community in particular has had to learn hard lessons about the dangers of flying at low altitude near hostile people both times we went into Iraq. I do intend to look more deeply at that at some point, but it might be a while.

  8. November 27, 2024Watson said...

    The first step in CAS in contested airspace is to make the airspace decontested. The other step is to drop a JDAM from outside the MANPAD envelope, rather than have to fly close.

    We are seeing this in Ukraine where Russia is dropping PGMs rather than fly closer to a frontline bristling with air defenses.

  9. November 27, 2024Anonymous said...

    redRover:

    Obviously this plays into the A-10, but also for the AH-# and AC-130 missions.

    The AC-130 can fly high enough to be out of range of anything grunts can carry, attack hoverings (or at least that's what the article says the H stands for) are basically only useful against enemies that only have rifles.

    It looks like the main case for dedicated CAS craft is that it results in pilots who specialize in one of the harder missions.

  10. November 30, 2024Basil Marte said...

    Regarding AH-#, let me copy:

    Sorry, mate, but I really think you missed the point of the attack helicopter concept, at least in the modern Western concept. I can't speak as to either how the Russians think they should be using their helicopters in doctrine, or how they actually are using their helicopters in doctrine, but you seem to have completely ignored where the attack helicopter fits in as far as we in the West are concerned. The days of using attack helicopters in a troop support role to aid ground forces are long gone, except in cases of extreme emergency or very permissive environments. Instead, they are used as the division and corps commander's maneuver asset. MG Isenhower last week publicly described an evolution during an NTC rotation for a corps-level mission, the 1AD CAB sending both battalions from Fort Irwin to a target area over 250km away, (Conducted with incorporation into a Red Flag exercise to replicate the air and SEAD problem) and this sort of operation pretty much matches what I've seen helicopters be used for over the past four years' worth of division and corps level exercises. You can imagine the level of havoc which can be wreaked by one battalion, let alone two in the division and corps deep areas, by a unit capable of identifying and engaging its own targets in real-time from (relatively speaking) close range, whilst itself emitting a rather limited EM signature, and, of course, being entirely unjammable unlike long-range loitering munitions.

    From a comment under a Perun video

  11. December 04, 2024Basil Marte said...

    Aand just around the same time, Chieftain put up a proper video of the point.

  12. December 08, 2024Emilio said...

    Thunderbolt II, unless the USAF still has P-47s in service...

  13. December 08, 2024Emilio said...

    There was a short period when the Italian Navy had AV-8Bs with AMRAAMs, while the Italian Air Force had F-104 with Aspide and that drak called the Tornado F1 on loan by the RAF because the EFA was delayed.

    During that period the MM could have shot down the AMI with little risk, as the land based AAM in the hands of the AMI was not much better.

    Then the F1 was dumped and replaced with USED F-16s, and then the EFA started arriving in decent numbers.

    Also, the days of the SAMP/T arrived for the AMI.

  14. December 09, 2024Anonymous said...

    Emilio:

    During that period the MM could have shot down the AMI with little risk, as the land based AAM in the hands of the AMI was not much better.

    Though Italy was in a time and place of low military risk so having the mission of the Air Force be keeping the expertise to operate warplanes instead of actually fighting wasn't so bad.

Comments from SlateStarCodex:

Leave a comment

All comments are reviewed before being displayed.


Name (required):


E-mail (required, will not be published):

Website:

You can use Markdown in comments!


Enter value: Captcha