To push the what if scenario a little farther: One of the sides has dozens of Badgers fully modified with a big-belly BUFF type treatment, and enough Wild Weasel type aircraft to make ground to air a willy-nilly hit and miss affair.

While the BUFF in “Nam blew up a lot of people, what the raids did to the enemies minds was just as effective.

According to ACIG, Iraqis did alright using Tu-16/H-6 Badgers with ECM as escorts for Tu-22 Blinders.

The interesting thing about Iran-Iraq is that not one side had an IADS that covered the whole front due to lack of resources. So they loaded up defences around critical targets but even then breakthrough’s were made.

The facts show it:

UK: 160 Typhoons (initial requirement 232). Also only 107 to be operational in 2020.
Germany: 140-ish Typhoons (initial requirement also 230)
Italy:96 Typhoons (initial requirement 121)
Spain: 73 Typhoons (initial requirements 87). Also only 54 planned in service
France: 180 Rafale (initial requirement 334)

Sweden has come out stating it needs up to 60 JAS-39E/F to replace JAS-39A-D and has already gutted JAS-39A-D fleet from 204 delivered to 100-ish. For comparison a total of 329 Viggens were produced even without export.

Similar stories have occurred with procurement programs for NH-90, A-400M and Tigre/Tiger.

Developing a jet for a confirmed requirement of a mere 60-100 airframes is risky business in the 21st century, especially when competing against American designs ala F-35 which even with cutbacks will still be produced in hundreds, if not thousands.

This is why Europeans do joint programs – economies of scale.

Problem with future European aircraft programs is small order quantities per customer. And these quantities are decreasing every year.

France developing a jet for a mere 150-200 airframes is too costly (i.e. look at Rafale). Sweden’s requirement is down to 50-60. Italy’s is down to 96. Etc etc.

Joint programs are the best way to achieving economies of scale and keep airframe acquisition costs at a reasonable level.

From what I’ve read, US Army prefers A-10 support to F-15/-16 as well. The A-10 guys do it better.

Apparently issue here is one of mindset – A-10 jocks live and breathe CAS, F-15/-16 pilots are ultimately A2A focused and CAS is a secondary role.

In any human endeavour, cultural values and human expectations play a massive role.

As for PGMs, I think they’re fire for limited expeditionary warfare against limited opponents. Like so much Western equipment, I don’t have much faith that the industrial complex can support sophisticated weapons in a general war setting.

Remember in WWII, one area of advantage for both Western Allies and Russians was overall simplicity of production.

Problem there is lack of customers.

Those that can afford aircraft generally go for new build.

And those that only buy second hand often have certain components removed for national security reasons, so hot transfer isn’t that easy!

Also with A-10, not many operators are willing to utilise an orphan aircraft, especially one that requires re-winging.

We may well need many many more bombers then fighters…basically take out the opponent before he can launch his babies…

Seems we’re going back to WWII when fighter-attack/bomber ratios usually favoured the bombers.

I think instead of bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with conventional (maybe individually targetted) MIRV type warheads.

Another thought – if 350 A-10s are retired without replacement, does that mean F-35A planned buy also drops by 350 aircraft?!?