The F-15 an F-18 are getting new flight control computers that Boeing subcontractors will be providing; BAE Systems, the original flight computer manufacturer.

I don't think I'd want to be a test pilot on initial flight tests. Aren't these planes getting little long in the tooth for expensive upgrades considering the new aircraft that have come out?

Keeping the Warthog flying made more sense to me, but I'm not in the loop.

luckily we have F-15 and F-18 pilots here who can correct all the mistakes I'm about to make, but anyway.

Upgrading the computers saves weight, adds capability, and may reduce the total lifecycle cost. As the fleet ages, it gets harder to keep old electronics running. In the specific case of the military's embedded systems, in many cases the suppliers that made the original parts are now gone so they can't even build new-old-spec items if they want to. (That's what originally happened with the Stinger, for example.) Putting in new flight control computers restarts the clock on the sustainment lifecycle.

This is the same philosophy that leads people to pull out a functioning Century III and put in a GFC600. You end up spending a bunch of money up front but get a (potentially) much more capable system with a longer lifecycle.

One might also imagine that these newer computers were designed and built with particular attention to the software and hardware supply chain to reduce the chances of any Chinesium sneaking in anywhere.

^^^this

The Government’s acronym for this is DMS. Diminishing Manufacturing Supply

But how much of the F-15 and F-18 fleet is approaching their fatigue life limit? I imagine that the retrofits will go into the latest iterations of the two planes. The article did mention that part of the upgrade was hardening against cyber attacks, and that would be a good thing.

Also it would make previous models sold to foreign countries obsolete and substandard in capability. I think that's how we sell our fighters to others, they get the airframe with legacy avionics, but we keep the latest and greatest avionics.

Edit: I looked it up;the upgrades will go into the F-15EX and F/A-18E/F

The F/A-18E/F is approaching its mid-life point. I'd expect that they'll extend the air frames well past the 8k hour "life expectancy." F-15EX has just started IOC and new airframes are being delivered to frontline units.

I don't know the particulars of this upgrade, but there are likely a few reasons. Upgraded FCCs likely take up less physical space in the side panels where all of the various processors reside. That frees up spaces for other boxes (which equates to increased capabilities). While sole vendor reliance is generally a negative, the fact that BAE isn't furnishing new FCCs might mean they no longer support/have no interest in supporting that particular hardware and software.

The point about FMS airframes isn't totally correct. There are different levels of sales and classification, but in some cases (such as Australia), they make advances to the airframes which in turn benefit American airframes.

This is from the perspective of a reserve bum EA-18G pilot, so take it with a grain of salt.

Edit: also the Warthog, while an absolutely bad-ass plane with an impressive combat record, is out of pace with today's threat environment and is rightfully headed for museums.

There have been a lot of arguments against mothballing the Warthog. What do we have that can do what it can do? It's hard to believe that warfare has changed so much that it's mission capabilities are obsolete.

The war machine analysts say that the things the unique things the A-10 can do are less relevant in the modern battlefield. It has to get within range of enemy fire to use the big gun, so most of the time it employs stand-off weapons. Well... so does every other plane in the inventory. Modern guided bombs are almost as accurate as the Maverick missiles that were the top of the heap when the A-10 was designed. Because of this, some of the CAS missions are done with B-52s and B-1s from altitude.

The A-10 was designed in a time when we had an almost endless supply of warplanes and wars were fought with "acceptable losses," and strike pilots were being sent deep into harm's way. We don't do it exactly like that today. With a smaller force, pilots and aircraft are more precious than they were 50 years ago.

The war machine analysts say that the things the unique things the A-10 can do are less relevant in the modern battlefield. It has to get within range of enemy fire to use the big gun, so most of the time it employs stand-off weapons. Well... so does every other plane in the inventory. Modern guided bombs are almost as accurate as the Maverick missiles that were the top of the heap when the A-10 was designed. Because of this, some of the CAS missions are done with B-52s and B-1s from altitude.

The A-10 was designed in a time when we had an almost endless supply of warplanes and wars were fought with "acceptable losses," and strike pilots were being sent deep into harm's way. We don't do it exactly like that today. With a smaller force, pilots and aircraft are more precious than they were 50 years ago.

Most of the arguments against mothballing it are emotionally driven (e.g. they were so good in Gulf War 1/2, Afghanistan, troops love the sound of them etc.). Yet they aren't a Swiss knife platform. They're good at CAS and little else. Other platforms are far more versatile.

Combat has changed, and so has the baseline threat. A-10s were designed to blow up T-41 tanks in the Fulda Gap. That lent itself to blowing up tanks in Iraq and taking out insurgents in various sandboxes. The baseline now is China, Iran, or North Korea. Those environments are not compatible with the A-10. Not least of all because of the distances involved and weapons required.

AT-802, F-18/15/16, MQ-9 can all do CAS quite well and aren't going anywhere. AT-802 isn't multi-role but is very cheap to operate and being funded by the SOCOM slush fun.

I don't have a lot of faith in our generals determining what the threat environments are. They don't have a stellar record and are influenced by the arms industry, which some of them go to work for leaving the military.

I'd go with who can put ordnance on target to save my butt.
And if you were on the radio denying a B-1 with JDAMs and good coordinates while waiting for an A-10 with bullets then I'll handle the radio now

With today’s weapons, I think an Arc Light strike about 200 yards from my trench line would be just peachy. Let me grab some hearing protection.

A-10s put something like 80% of their rounds in a 15 meter circle. JDAMs accuracy is something like 90% inside a 5 meter circle.

If I was a grunt on the ground, I think I'd rather have the more accurate weapon that arrives before anyone hears or sees the jet dropping it. I'd want the bad guys knowing that they explode without warning any time they got too close to me.

I'd go with who can put ordnance on target to save my butt.
And if you were on the radio denying a B-1 with JDAMs and good coordinates while waiting for an A-10 with bullets then I'll handle the radio now

You're being absurd and inflammatory, and grand standing writing about denying coverage when I only expressed my preference.