Why "Attritable" Is the Most Important Word In Air Combat Right Now

Published Aug 2, 2026, 12:00 PM EDT Aaron is an aviation enthusiast and world traveler with a deep interest in aerospace history and technology. He has traveled around the world numerous times, often incorporating visits to aviation museums and historic aircraft collections into his journeys. A native of New Zealand, he is an expert in aviation and maintains a broad interest in a variety of other subjects. Like other aviation sectors, the military aviation sector has its fair share of fads and buzzwords, many of which are often not well understood by the general audience, reporters, or sometimes military acquisition personnel themselves. Before 2022, one of the most notable buzzwords in military drone procurement was "swarming," but by mid-2026, this has at least largely been supplanted by "attritable" as well as "affordable" and "scalable." Those last two words directly relate to the broader concept of attritable. "Attritable" is something that means very different things in different contexts. As explained below, it has a very different meaning in Ukraine compared to how military planners are conceiving it in the Asia-Pacific. Here is what to know about why "attritable" has become such an important word in military aviation recently and why it doesn't mean the end of high-end fighter jets or hypersonic munitions. Buzzwords In Military Aviation Credit: Department of Defense Modern militaries are complex organizations and operate in a fluid environment. During times of conflict, that fluidity is turbocharged, and what was relevant just a few months ago can become outdated. Current buzzwords include "stealth," "fifth-generation," "sixth-generation." "hypersonic," and others. As has been previously explained by Simple Flying, each of these concepts is context-dependent and nuanced. They are often used for clickbait, bad faith marketing, and propaganda value. That said, there are real trends and meaning in each of these words. Another important buzzword is "attritable." This is perhaps less of a pie-in-the-sky word (compared to Russia's use of "hypersonic") as it is being actively driven in real time by conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. In these conflicts, exquisite, expensive, and limited stocks of munitions are quickly exhausted. Ukraine now appears to be outproducing Russia in drones. Russia's larger one-way attack Shahed-type drone (Geran) appears set to be outproduced by Ukraine's Fire Point FP-1/-2 drones by a ratio of 2:1 in 2026. Attritable means that militaries are free to use them and lose them. It means they can be easily replaced, and they do not have to be shackled by the need to preserve the system. For example, the F-35 costs hundreds of millions (with pilot training, spares, support equipment, etc.) and takes years to replace. The Royal Air Force/Royal Navy only has 47 of them with around 40–50 trained pilots. It takes years to replace them, with replacements possibly arriving long after the end of a conflict. These are the opposite of attritable. Suddenly Everything Is Attritable Credit: US Air Force Military contractors will often market their products to suit the needs of the procurement offices and pander to the buzzwords in vogue. Often they stretch the definition. Examples include Russia marketing its Kh-47M2 Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile as "hypersonic." While it does react at hypersonic speeds (Mach 5) at some phases of flight, basically all ballistic missiles have done this since the German V-2 rocket. To be hypersonic as it is typically implied, it needs to be hypersonic in terminal flight while also being maneuverable. It is neither; the US Army has previously said it reenters at Mach 3. Today, it seems almost every new drone unveiled is advertised as being affordable, attritable, and scalable. However, it is very important to understand that these terms can mean very different things. One company may produce a new FPV drone that costs $200 each and claims to be able to deliver a million of them a year. That would be attritable, affordable, and scalable by any definition. In fact, it would be more attritable and cheaper than modern 155 mm artillery shells. Another company may produce a very high-end collaborative combat aircraft (loyal wingman drone) that costs $30 million and that it can produce at a rate of 200 a year. That would be more attritable than a fighter jet that costs three times the price (flyaway cost), but it is also not exactly attritable. Theater Dependent Discussion Credit: US Air Force What counts as attritable varies massively by theater. In Ukraine, air defenses are keeping both Russia and Ukraine's fighter jet fleets at bay. Neither side is able to establish air superiority over the other, and so fighter jets are relegated to somewhat secondary roles. Here, both sides are in proximity, and the theater is conducive to massed small drones and medium one-way attack drones. However, each side's air defense networks are robust, making higher-level combat drones like Baykar Akinci and MQ-9 Reapers impractical. These higher-end combat drones cost too much (MQ-9s cost $30 million depending on configuration) and are not survivable in the Ukraine context. However, switching theaters, in May 2026, the USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, said: "For Epic Fury, perhaps the most valuable player was unmanned: the MQ-9." In that conflict, Iran's air defense was weakened to the point that the Reaper was survivable enough. For the massive defense base and budget of the US, losing a couple dozen MQ-9s in Iran was not ideal, but it was acceptable enough attrition. For the Asia-Pacific theater, the US (and China) are looking to very high-level collaborative combat drones. The US Air Force wants to acquire at least 1,000 of these aircraft, and these will significantly increase the attritability of its Air Force. But they will cost around $30 million each. By contrast, Ukraine's Fire Point recently stated it plans to produce 100,000 FP-1/-2 one-way attack drones in 2026. That said, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison as one is closer to a fighter jet and the other is closer to a munition. Munitions Vs Fighter Jets The development of drones in the last few years is blurring the lines between munitions and fighter jets. Some drones, like FP-1s, are better understood as navigable guided cruise missiles, while Anduril's FQ-44 CCA is better understood as an unmanned fighter jet designed to complement fighter jets. But even here it all gets confusing very quickly. The US Navy has spoken about its early quest to develop CCAs and has indicated it is interested in purchasing a CCA that can function as a loyal wingman drone, perform strike and ISR missions, and end its short life as a one-way attack munition. This would make it sort of a loyal wingman and cruise missile. Ukraine's FP-2 drones have been seen firing unguided rockets before kamikaze themselves as one-way attack munitions. Select fighter jet/munitions Production rates (per Dassault, etc.) Dassault Rafale fighter jet 26 (2025) Anduril Industries FQ-44 Up to 150 (planned) F-35 Lightning II 191 (2025 deliveries) Patriot PAC-3 MSE Approx. 600 (ramping up) Russian Geran drone Approx. 50,000 (estimated for 2026) Ukrainian FP-1/-2 drone Over 100,000 (targeted for 2026) It is also important to consider that in the Asia-Pacific, forces need to overcome the tyranny of distance. And distance requires higher fuel loads, which requires the aircraft to be larger. Additionally, there is the need for systems able to deliver heavy payloads. Ukraine's FP-1s and other long-range drones may be able to strike targets over a thousand miles away, but they do so by sacrificing payload. These can't be used as bunker busters or to dig out heavily defended targets. Attritability Is Particularly Important For Munitions Credit: Department of Defense Advanced air-to-air missiles can cost $500,000 to $1 million per missile. No air force can afford to have enough of these to sustain intercepting waves upon waves of cheap one-way attack drones costing $20,000 to $50,000 each. This was the arithmetic the US and other air forces faced in 2024. But they are also responding fast. The US has hurriedly gerry-rigged laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II rockets (APKWS II), costing between $15,000 and $20,000 each to their F-15Es and other fighter jets. Other air forces have been quick to follow. This has helped, but more permanent solutions are being developed. At the same time, high-end air-to-air missiles remain important as they are needed to counter increasingly capable and low-observable enemy fighter jets over greater ranges. Perhaps the most heavily reported example is the limited stocks of the US's Patriot interceptor missiles. The US is now racing to ramp up production and make cheaper variants. However, realistically, these missiles will likely never be affordable and attritable en masse. The aim is not so much to make these interceptors extremely cheap as to develop many complementary systems (e.g., lasers, interceptor drones, counter-UAS microwave systems, etc.) to relieve the pressure on the Patriots. Other, attritable systems can deal with lower-end threats, leaving Patriots to deal with higher-level threats like ballistic missiles. A Layered Approach Credit: US Air Force What the Air Force is looking forward to is not having all of its systems attritable. It is looking to create an appropriate balance. There is a requirement for ultra-high-end next-generation combat aircraft like the F-47 and the B-21. However, these will never be attritable. The Air Force also wants to procure a limited number of ultra-high-end hypersonic missiles that will cost around $15 million each. The Air Force will not be able to sustain a high-intensity conflict with these exquisite systems alone. The aim is to create a balanced force that has plenty of scalable, affordable, and attritiable munitions and aerial systems that can be used alongside other higher-level systems. The higher-level systems can still provide a key advantage. For example, hypersonic missiles can penetrate enemy air defenses and take out a valuable time-sensitive target. B-21s can dig out hardened bunkers deep behind the lines. So far, the lessons learned from the Middle East and Ukraine are not that exquisite systems and F-35s are infeasible, but that Western militaries had their balance wrong. In WWII, manned fighter aircraft were somewhat analogous to flying tractors, and countries could make them by the tens of thousands. Those days are gone and aren't coming back. There is no credible way air forces foresee making manned fighter jets attritable. Attrition will need to come from other systems, like CCAs, various lower-level drones, and munitions that often blend with drones.