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
...Concise and well done.
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.
Something seems a bit off there.
After the B-45 and B-47 had both entered service.
Dangit. Forgot about the B-45. Will fix.
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.
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).
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.
@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.
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.
redRover:
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.
Regarding AH-#, let me copy:
From a comment under a Perun video
Aand just around the same time, Chieftain put up a proper video of the point.
Thunderbolt II, unless the USAF still has P-47s in service...
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.
Emilio:
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.
Here's a question that might fit here. I always read that restarting production of the F-22 would be impossibly expensive and so we can't do it. You're saying it, too, and I'm sure it's true.
However, the Russians several years ago managed to restart production of the Tu-160, the "Blackjack." It's an older design, not stealth, but they did restart it, they are making the things, and it seems to have been decades since the last brand-new one had rolled off the production line.
What gives? Are old Soviet planes just easier to make to spec? Are American workers just that much more specialized or expensive? Production does sound pretty slow, which might suggest that this is a vanity project--or that Russia is for some reason in a position where restarting a modernized version of an old design, though expensive, is still cheaper than starting something genuinely new, e.g. if they can't afford extensive new design studies, need more for their immediate military ambitions and would eventually pay too much in blood or money by waiting, etc.
It does make one wonder, though, whether there are cultural constraints on U.S. airplane production that some other countries don't face.
It's probably some combination of "vanity project" and Russia being under rather different constraints from the US. The issues with restarting the F-22 line is that all the subcontractors are gone, as is a lot of the tooling. There are some things where you can just call up the contractor and say "dust off the plans and make more of X", but there are far more where you can't because they don't make that kind of chip any more, so you're going to need to certify a new box, or where they've redeployed all of their tooling and personnel to make other things or merged and so on and so forth. Russia's industrial sector is a lot less dynamic, I think a lot more state-owned, and I could also see them being a lot less picky about certification. "Yes, this steel might be different, but who cares, it's good enough" and all that. Also, I don't think the Blackjack line was ever closed down in quite the same way the Raptor's was. Nobody was told "go home, we're done here", they just stopped buying them for a while. (It's also possible that a lot of the production is/was enabled by leftover parts from the Soviet era, which the orderly shutdown of the Raptor line means we definitely don't have.)
Would keeping the tooling around really be that expensive?
To be clear, not all of the tooling is gone. The special jigs and stuff are in warehouses. But there's a bunch of stuff involved in building an airplane which is (a) fairly expensive and (b) reasonably easy to reuse. Everything from work stands to rivet guns to heat treatment equipment. And if we're not planning on building more F-22s, then we might as well use that stuff on other projects. And the building itself appears to now be a heavy maintenance facility for F-22s and C-130s. Keeping the special jigs and such is pretty cheap, so that stuff only gets thrown out if the plane is long gone or someone senior really wants the program dead. But that stuff is not an active production line, and setting up one of those is pretty expensive even if you have the bespoke tooling.
@Goose of Doom:
As I recall, the Russian announcement that they were resuming Tu-160 construction outright said that the first new aircraft would be assembled from parts left over from the 90s, and that new production of the various components necessary would take a little longer but was already underway.
AFAICT, a lot of the Soviet-era military industry just sat idle from sometime in the 90s (when it wasn't so much "shut down" as "the factories stopped paying the workers, so the workers stopped showing up") until fairly recently - sites weren't repurposed the way they would have been elsewhere, because a) there were plenty of other, more convenient factories that sufficed to meet the new, much reduced demand, and b) nobody had the money to do anything else with them. So "all" you have to do is reconstitute the work force to restart the line(s). Easier said than done, but at least the lines themselves still exist.