VnomadHowever, using an analysis performed in DOD but not publicly reported, we calculated the likelihood of a nonstealthy aircraft being hit if it flew the same number of strikes as the F-117 (that is, 1,788), with a general probability of hit equal to 0.0017.40 This calculation showed that 0 hits would be the most likely outcome for a nonstealthy aircraft
.
.In sum, the factor most strongly associated with survivability in Desert Storm appears to have been the combination of flying high and flying at night—an environment that the F-117s operated in exclusively.
I did read that. However the report fails to explain the casualties sustained by the F-111F and the night time loss of the F-15E to a SA-2.
In sum: F-117 went from adding zero beside FUD in DS, to having a negative value in Yugoslavia a few years later.
Actually what the GAO report said was that the Iraqi IADS was not potent enough to to provide clear answer to the merits of the F-117 vis a vis conventional fighters. In addition, the USAF/DoD did not release details about threats identified during F-117 missions, prevent a level comparison with other aircraft. ‘Negative value in Yugoslavia’ is yet to be substantiated by any official analysis of the conflict.
On the effective range of Meteor, the requirements were 3 times as long effective range as amraam, indicating around 3 times as long burn time.
Yes, but those requirements were formulated at a time when only the earliest variants of the AMRAAM were in service.
On GaN, it is claimed here that Gripen E will be using GaN AESA to boot, which should AFAIK make it the first type
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116825-Saab-Gripen-amp-Gripen-NG-thread-3/page18
http://storm.zoomvisionmamato.com/player/saab/objects/726q4dsw/index.php
It’ll field GaN antennas for datalinks & EW, as will the Rafale (the first to field them might be USAF’s UAVs). For that matter even the SH will field GaN antennas (albeit pod-mounted) in the same time-frame. But a primary radar featuring GaN modules is still a long way off for any aircraft.
VnomadA four ton missile with a 4.5 metre wingspan & the RCS of a barn flying straight to its target at 500 metres or higher is easier to shoot down than a 1 ton missile with lots of RCS reduction flying an indirect course to its target at 30 metres altitude.
The AS-5s were indeed far easier to shoot down than modern cruise missiles. But then again the aircraft that shot them down were also 40 years older than today’s fighters equipped with AESA radars hooked into a 21st century C4I system (with look down/shoot down capability hardly being a novelty).
Vnomadthe reality is that today the F-35 can’t do it, while eurocanards have already a pretty good ability for that (Rafale for example) and keep developing it, and it will require a whole bunch software developments, tests etc, for several years to come to reach operational capability that you and LM EXPECT to reach… and by that time, others will have moved forward as well, so the difference there may eventually be will have to be measured (or at least estimated) when all of them are operational.. for now, it’s only just hopes and goals, nothing more
The philosophy behind the Neuron and Taranis revolves around those same hopes and goals. The Eurocanards’ ‘pretty good ability’ doesn’t change that fact that they’ll have slug away in a battle of attrition against an adversary with a comprehensive IADS and an air force equipped with the kind of force multipliers that NATO forces take for granted.
And for the record, I don’t recall any underlying hesitation when the the Rafale’s supposedly lower RCS was being touted as significant advantage over the Eurofighter.
Vnomad@ Tu22m
I think we both agree that stealth is useful for any aircraft, but disagree to the extent to which it will influence combat. In that context, it needs to be pointed out that the F-35, unlike the F-117, is still a fighter aircraft. While the air-frame’s performance has been lower than hoped for, it is still for example, more maneuverable than any CFT equipped fighter. To add to which the avionics and sensor fusion is a class apart. What it really comes down to is cost. At $150 mil+ (as the flyaway cost appeared at one stage) it would have been grossly overpriced even for the capability on offer, but at $90 mil per unit its no longer a ‘premium’ product vis a vis contemporary fighters.
With regard to the AMRAAM and Meteor, I guess I’m skeptical that the US having invested well over $50 billion into the F-35 would leave it armed with a grossly inadequate AAM. The Russians too appear to have shelved the ramjet variant of the R-77, upgrading it instead with a newer seeker, improved software and a higher impulse motor. In any case, I believe a dual pulse variant of the Aim-120D is under development, so that should even things out somewhat.
VnomadThs is what you initially claimed
and the numbers are clear, legacy fighters performed equally or better in Desert Storm. The whole reason the F117s didnt always have EW support was simple, they didnt want to alert IADS that something was going on so they tried to sneak in with the jets by avoiding the active early warning radars.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The F-35 can ingress highly defended airspace far better than any conventional aircraft and at SEAD it can close in for a higher pk shot, particularly important if there are long range SAMs and hostile aircraft in the vicinity. Those are fairly obvious facts and yes older generation aircraft are equally good when operating in sanitized air space.
Anyway, this is what GAO say…
I just went through the GAO, I must admit I was corrected on basic issue i.e. despite the prevalence of SA-2s and SA-3s, the threat from the IADS was a lot lighter than I thought. With regard to the F-117, it concludes that there isn’t enough data from Desert Storm to prove or disprove the assertion that the F-117 was a safer bet than other aircraft. However –
Evidence from the Air Force, DIA, GWAPS, SPEAR, and other expert sources shows that the principal deficiencies of the Iraqi IADS were that (1) it could track only a limited number of threats, and it had very limited capabilities against aircraft with a small radar cross-section, such as the F-117; (2) its design was easy to disrupt, and the key IADS nodes were easy to target, [DELETED]; and (3) many of its SAMs were old or limited in capability, and the Iraqi air force played almost no role in the conflict, although it had been intended to be a major component of air defenses.
And what exactly did it mean to stop sending strike packages over Baghdad?
Finally, the F-117 was not the only aircraft tasked to targets in downtown Baghdad, but after the third day, planners concluded that for the types of targets and defenses found in Baghdad, the F-117 was more effective.
ahh, so it was only daytime strikes…
17 casualties were sustained during night time operations. This included three F-111s, that flew only night time missions, and another two F-15Es that flew ‘mostly night, very few day missions’.
Just as daylight… Standoff missiles (which have greater range than SAMs), low alt night time penetration all enable a force to hit targets. I think operation Entebbe is the finest example here. IDF managed to penetrate IADS with three C130 just by flying low.
In 2003 we also saw a lot more standoff missiles being used for.. wait for it… strikes in downtown Baghdad. Yes, you heard me correctly, hundreds of warheads, dropped on the target without ever having to send in one single aircraft.
You could arguably fight the whole war that way i.e. without deploying a single aircraft. But couple of points here –
1. Surviveability – Cruise missiles are not that hard to intercept even if it was beyond Iraq’s capability. Israel shot down about 20 or so AS-5 Kelts in 1973. Theoretically, even a MANPAD can be used to bring one down.
2. Cost – At $1-2 mil/unit its an expensive proposition. An enemy saturating the field with dummies can make it far more expensive.
3. Time factor – Typically military campaigns are preceded by a fairly long phase of intelligence gathering. However for a rapid intervention, the time to identify and verify even fixed ground targets may not be available. In which, the air component will have start operating without the usual missile barrages leading the way.
So what you are saying is that unless the country already has a weapons program for the JSF that all other users wat (like… say country specific SEAD weapons), then the integration will be expensive as f**k. But as long as they stick to JDAMs its ok…
How many country’s are developing SEAD weapons today? None among the F-35’s customers AFAIK. And in the event that a weapon still has to be mated – it cost about $36 million to integrate the Paveway IV on the F-35 including flight testing. Even if the same exercise on another platform would have cost half as much, the balance is still not high enough to raise an affordability question on the aircraft itself.
Thats what is flying now, I know that SAAB are moving as much as possible to GaN. But we will have to wait and see. Regarding affordability… speculate as much as you wish. All I know is that the ones chosing something other than the F35 (like Rafale or Gripen) will actually have enough money left to afford upgrades.
This is the first I’ve ever heard about SAAB, or rather Selex, stealing a march over rest of the world by fielding a GaN fighter radar in the close future.
As for the Rafale being cheaper than the F-35, there aren’t enough figures to conclusively prove that. The operating cost figures that you quoted from Jane’s for the Rafale don’t appear low enough to mitigate the F-35’s lower procurement cost.
If we are playig the numbers game, as you obviously are, we get to one conclusion. The Aim120D has a NEZ of just 11km (powered range), after that it enters a glide where thrust lift doesnt exist any more and Pk starts to drop. One might say that the retained momentum for the next 2 seconds of light turning is still enough to call it within NEZ so we can extend the NEZ to 13km. It will still kill outside this range but Pk will drop substantially.
Since the Meteor is powered through its flight, the conclusion would then be that it has a 10 times larger NEZ.
Radar detection ranges, in good conditions, are as follows. APG-81 vs 0,1sqm sized target, un-jammed conditions: 110km, in EW environment this could be WVR.
By increasing the returned amount of energy in the correct radar frequency the desired signal gets untraceable. Basically it is the radar formula working here.
Hmm.. I’ll think learn Swedish and get back to you on that one. 😉
If the radar is expecting… say 0,15pW but the EW support if sending back drfm noise of 15KW in the general direction of the sender, lets say over an area of 10m sqm (10’000×1’000m) then we get a power density of 15’000’000W/10’000’000=1,5W per sqm.
Which would imply an AESA can be nearly disabled by barrage jamming from a 15kW source? (^ This isn’t a case of DRFM jamming as I understand it).
At sea level with propulsion, yes. At high alt… no. without propulsion, no.
Since all AAM save for the Meteor (and R-27 IIRC) have single pulse motor, the chances of outmaneuvering a missile are fairly high? Which would imply that the difference in surviveability between an F-16 and say F-18 or MiG-29 is huge, owing to the higher sustained turn rate on the former?
Lets see about that?
Given that every major air force with the exception of Saudi Arabia appears to be investing some type of stealth, I’m not as willing to bet it against the principle even on economic grounds.
VnomadIndia will operate the world’s premier air superiority fighter with FGFA too. And it’ll be just as distinct as Su-30MKI ever was. Just because Russia didn’t have the money to put its Su-30/35 work into practice itself and none of its other export customers felt like going to the expense doesn’t make Su-30MKI some unique achievement for Indian industry. FGFA will comfortably exceed Su-30MKI in terms of real Indian input.
The FGFA as it stands is merely a renamed PAK FA. And no point in my post did I talk about the MKI variant being developed by the Indian industry. And as it stands the ‘real Indian input’ into the FGFA consists of items like the datalinks and IFF. Perhaps EW elements to supplement the PAK FA’s. There is little scope for value addition.
So operating the world’s premier air superiority fighter is an ‘exercise in futility’, ok. And the scaling back of projected orders is because the project has failed — not because the Indian economy dropped back into second gear. And going for fewer airframe mods has NOTHING with the fact that the IAF wants the aircraft operational closer to 2020 than 2025 in order to shore up well known squadron strength issues. No, it’s all because the Russians won’t give them the necessary clearance/infos to add a second cockpit. :rolleyes:
This supposed ‘joint venture‘ is the exercise in futility. And funding for aircraft delivered twenty years from now, is not earmarked from this year’s defence budget. The current state of the Indian economy is no bottleneck to long term defence acquisitions.
Remainder on Tejas thread.
VnomadWe’re not talking about an IOU note passed across the table. The contracts governing India’s participation in T-50 were years in the making (and yet for some reason folk expect MMRCA to move faster…) In suggesting that India move past the ‘mirage’ of co-development you seem to be suggesting either that Indian negotiators are completely incompetent, or Russia is entirely disingenuous in fulfilling its contract obligations, neither of which are tenable positions.
For about five years (upto 2004 or so) the IAF operated arguably the world’s premier air superiority fighter. They hoped to recreate that with the FGFA, a variant just based on PAKFA but still very distinct (in the same way that the Su-30MKI is based on the Su-27).
You don’t need to read the fine print to conclude the FGFA is finished. Originally the idea was for the IAF to operate solely two seat FGFAs. Then it was modified to a ‘mix’ of single and double seats. Then came the news that all IAF aircraft would have the same airframe as the PAK FA. Same goes for numbers – formal acquisition numbers cut from 244 down to 144 aircraft. Given that participating in the PAK FA’s development is clearly not feasible, the entire effort has become an exercise in futility.
And the problem here is not Russian intentions or the competence of the Indian negotiators, its that the FGFA’s basic premise is untenable. And the Indian MoD like most fossilized bureaucracies is slow to recognize changing circumstances, slower still to adapt to them, to add to which its directed by a political class that loathes taking hard decisions.
Of course Russia will never ‘hand over the keys’ to T-50, so to speak, nor will France with Rafale, but this does not mean that India’s FGFA, MMRCA, and potential future such programs are without value in developing its aerospace capabilities. I fully support India moving forward insofar as is possible under its own steam — There is no ‘mirage’ — India is fully aware of what it is and isn’t getting with such programs
If India hopes to develop its military aerospace industry, it’ll need to invest the requisite time and resources just like others before it. It may be able to speed the AMCA program somewhat through foreign consultancy, but the hope to taking a shortcut of being spoon-fed technology through imports packaged as joint ventures, doesn’t lead anywhere.
that’s why in another thread I even suggested India would’ve been better off putting Kaveri into production for Tejas — but to deny the value of simultaneously engaging in co-development/production programs is nonsensical.
Developing a modern military turbofan engine is as big a venture LCA program for a country with no industrial base in that segment. Had the Kaveri not been delinked from the LCA program, the latter would have remained a research project rather than a war-fighting implement.
VnomadYou didn’t provide any serious sources, so your arguments are only poor speculation.
Right back at you.
1.Performance difference between the Aim-120D and Meteor is not much lower than between the Aim-120C and Aim-7:
-Meteor has 3 x NEZ of AIM-120C-5
-AIM-120D has 50 % better maximum range than C model (not NEZ)
The Meteor was required to have three times the NEZ of existing BVRAAMs. But the requirement was issued at a time when it was the Aim-120B that was in production. While the Meteor almost certainly has greater NEZ than the Aim-120D, there’s nothing to prove that its three times larger.
-AIM-7M NEZ is little worse than AIM-120B ( see BVR engagement difference betwen 1991 & 1999 – around 25-30 km for both missiles)
This is an anecdotal statement, to put it mildly. You can’t extrapolate NEZ range data from a disparate group of engagements, especially when one is an active missile and other employs semi-active guidance.
2. IRST will not required a LRF for totally passive BVR shoot (see last EF world). Dynamic ranging, sensor fusion, MIDS solve this problem (Ef-2000, Rafale, Su-35, F-35 can use IRST alone to fire BVRAAM).
Can it carry out dynamic ranging and MTT/TWS simultaneously? All the same, the range limitations of an IRST will still remain.
3.I don’t think that any 5th gen fighter ( including F-35, PAK FA, F-22A ) will totally dominate the sky in that way like f-22 in red flag… 144:0
Northern Edge not Red Flag. And even if the ratios are much smaller, a stealth fighter is still a worthwhile investment for an air force anticipating a hard fight.
-Pk of BVR missile will be rather much smaller than red flag 75-80% in EW environment (ex Ef-2000 pilot achieved 16 kills from 18 missile shoot… in red flag, in real life AMRAAM achieve ~50% in BVR vs poor targets)
There has been no ‘real life’ for almost 15 years now. It has minimal bearing on the performance of today’s missiles let alone those of tomorrow (the topic relates to aircraft that will be operational at least till 2050).
-advanced 4.5 gen fighter will detect, track 5th gen from military usefull range (+50km) by IRST + RWR + radar sensor fusion (Su-35, Rafale, EF-2000, Gripen NG, F-15SE, SH roadmap)
That’s an optimistic scenario. But even assuming that’s accurate, given that we’ve talked about modern radar ranges of 200-300km for fighter sized targets, a 50km range for the IRST isn’t exactly confidence inspiring.
VnomadIndia still pressing for 50% work share in R&D for FGFA. Suggestions on how they can get there anyone?
Its not going to happen. FGFA = PAKFA + Indian accessories (datalinks, IFF etc). The Indian MoD needs to move past this mirage of co-development and then see where it stands. The sooner the better.
VnomadI seem to recall that SAAB will be providing updates and support for the Gripen NG for sevaral more decades. If I’m wrong the Swedish and Swiss governments would be interested to hear about this very bad news.
I’m sure they will continue to support the Gripen E as best they can. However I’d very surprised if the upgrade program was anywhere as comprehensive as the F-35’s while retaining the economy that is the Gripen’s USP.
VnomadYou don’t have to agree with me, facts are what they are…
From the GAO summary of Desert Storm
There are a lot of goodies in the report, most of them will have you draw one conclusion. The biggest advantage of stealth was pschological.
Just one more quote for you…
Can we agree that my point actually is supported by facts?
Nothing in your link contradicts what I posted. To repeat –
A. The F-117 was the only aircraft that regularly hit the heavily defended Baghdad. Your report clearly says that only 50% of the strategic targets attacked by the F-117, were hit by other conventional aircraft.
B. The F-117 did operate with a much higher degree of autonomy. Your report states ‘F-117s occasionally benefited from jammer support aircraft’. In contrast, strike missions flown by other aircraft almost always had jamming and SEAD escorts.
Still, we saw the same development as we always see. The starting point is to use the latest toys, but in the end it’s easier to use older jets (and its cheaper too).
It does get easier, but the initial phases of the campaign cannot be wished away.
If you have a production line that is scaled for the production then larger numbers can actually mean higher unit costs. As always, reality isnt linear.
Only if it underutilized and the cost of infrastructure has to amortized over the smaller production run. None of which is applicable to the F-35 production. And this borne out by the current costs.
You are assuming all users will have the same software packages, that is not the case. Some will use Meteor, some will integrate the F35 with existing ground/air datalinks, some countries will want to make country specific IFF systems, jamming modes or further improve the datalinks capabilities. SAAB knows this and thats why they split the avionics core. It also speeds up the process of implementing new features.
Almost all customers will use the same avionics fit as the US with the only notable exceptions being Israel and Japan. Aside from that there’s the Meteor, Paveway IV, JSM and SOM to be integrated. Hardly a herculean undertaking.
* How many do you think will afford these radar upgrades? My guess is not that many. GaN will be standard in the ES05.
More than can afford GaN upgrades for the Eurocanards I’d imagine, given the likely lower costs of an American radar. The ES-05 is a GaAs based AESA.
* Well, if you use your radar the enemy will see your direction first. It’s easy to reply with a modern missile capable of LOAL or HOJ or why not autonomous target acquisition like the Python 5? Either way, using the radar in advance will increase the risc of a mission kill.
Can’t use the IRST (uses active LRF for ranging). Can’t use radar (gives away position to RWRs). It would appear BVR combat has become nonviable.
Fortunately, the missile launch platform doesn’t need to self designate the target. It can be done by a radiating aircraft at long range and targeting data safely handed off to the shooter.
* So they will have a stealthier fighter with shorter legged and worse performing missiles. I think that an F16 with Aim120C would be superior to a Typhoon with Aim7.
The RCS gap between the F-35 and the EF is much higher than between the EF and F-16. And the performance difference between the Aim-120D and Meteor is much lower than between the Aim-120C and Aim-7.
As far as an F-35 customer is concerned, the F-35’s weapons bay is being modified to carry upto 6 Aim-120s, the same is unlikely to be feasible for the Meteor. That said, the Meteor still remains an option.
* Gripen C can pull 10G at 3’000 ft with AA load at mach 0,4. F35 can pull that… never?
The AMRAAM can pull what… 40Gs or so. I’d imagine it would be something similar for advanced R-77 variants.
Yes, it will dominate the markets, but not the sky.
Against 4G & 4.5G aircraft it will certainly dominate the skies.
VnomadI think history has shown that older jets typically have performed better than stealth bombers (maybe the B2 could be called an exception).
In Iraq we saw it for the F111, A10, F16 vs the F117. Att types carried out more sorties, had better mission success ratio and cost a lot less while having the exact same losses when operated in the same mission profiles.
I Allied Force we saw that flying the F117 (with 1 damaged and 1 downed ac) was the least safe ac to operate. SEAD support came from older aircraft.
I don’t agree at all. In 1991, the F-117 was the only aircraft that continued to hit Baghdad after the Package Q Strike proved a bust. Most other aircraft had EW/SEAD assets embedded in their formations and were covered by long range C4I/surveillance aircraft from the rear. The F-117 (and B-2) operated far more autonomously. Also I’d like to point out that at the time of its shoot-down the F-117 was an ageing aircraft and would be retired just nine years later. The B-2 in contrast was in its prime and was never threatened AFAIK. Likewise, the F-35 program is the leading edge of stealth technology (some of it being implemented on the USAF’s F-22s). As far as air combat is concerned, there is a fair bit that can be extrapolated from training exercises involving the F-22, where results are far far more lopsided than can be explained by its superior kinematics.
We see today that older jets, with new avionics, are just as capable as new ones in the conflicts at hand (Libya, Syria etc). Carrying out SEAD/DEAD is more about having enough numbers in the sky rather than relying on a single gimmick/feature (as was proven in Allied Force).
The Libyan operation was rather tame compared to other NATO air campaigns and there’s been no significant air action over Syria. The same may not apply to other conflicts down the line.
But costs are not the same as for 4,5th gen fighters. Firstly, we already know that it will use more than 40% more fuel than the Rafale, just from going by weight. (relevant because weight –> more thrust needed for the same speed)
True. But then I specified in my post that it was the cost to acquire that was comparable or lower. Operational costs will be higher yes, but they’ll be offset to a large degree by lower upgrade costs over the aircraft’s lifetime.
We are also talking about an aircraft that will need 40% more building material than the Rafale (including more expensive materials due to the compromises in weight and space management internally).
Yes, but the production volume is almost 15 times larger than the Rafale’s.
And do note that Rafale is roughly 25-35% up from Gripen NG in terms of weight and fuel (F404/RM8 isnt the most fuel efficient engine).
?? The Gripen NG doesn’t employ the F404.
Regarding technological edge, that is highly speculative. Considering the messed up approach of software blocks with everything included I think that the upgrading of the F35 will be a lot more expensive and offer fewer advantages compared to say the Gripen Es approach with split avionics core. (in the F35 there is a physical split, but the software is still compiled in blocks meaning more bugs and longer TTM –> higher costs).
The software is more expensive to develop/modify yes, but the cost to implement it is negligible. And this development cost is distributed over hundreds if not thousands of aircraft, compared to maybe a few dozen for the Gripen E.
At the same time we already know that…
* the APG81 will use GaAs, and not GaN as the european fighters
* we know that the european fighters (at least Gripen) will use a moving plate on the radar, while the APG 81 is fixed
* we know that the IRST systems used will be designed with a focus on airborne targets for the eurobirds while the F35 EOTS is designed for ground targets
* we know that at least Gripen E will carry active decoys
* the eurobirds will use the actual Meteor and not the one with clipped control surfaces
* some things wont change, F35 will have lower RCS and the Eurobirds will have superior kinematic performance. The current Gripen C can pull +10G today just to mention one example (3’000ft, near corner speed). One target will be harder to see for the missile, the other will be harder to hit or get close to.
* The Super Hornet received an AESA upgrade after being in service for just seven years. GaN tech is still in the nascent stage but I wouldn’t be surprised if the F-35 fielded an operational GaN before any non-US aircraft.
* Yes, the EF and Gripen will probably have a wider scan limits. No dispute.
* In regular operating conditions expecting target acquisition at ranges over 50km for IRST system would optimistic to say the least. To add to which tracking the target requires an LRF which is hardly a passive system. Also I’m yet to see any evidence that the EOTS is lacking in the air-to-air role compared to other IRST systems.
* Yes, but an active decoy is a last resort. It limits the aircraft’s flight pattern (against head-on targets) and its efficacy against the high-end AESAs remains to be seen.
* Only the UK and Italy will employ modified Meteors. Everyone else will stick to the far more cost effective AMRAAM.
* The Eurocanards will most likely have superior flight characteristics, though that will be damped somewhat flying even a limited payload. They’ll accelerate faster, climb faster, turn tighter. But this difference in performance is far less stark than the difference in their RCS. The F-35’s RCS is not just lower, its in a different class altogether, which will have major impact when operating at the beginning of a campaign against high-end air defences.
All fighters have their pros and cons. The F35 is by no means the end of the story for 4th gen fighters. Just look at the stuff above for a few examples.
True. Then again, while the F-16 wasn’t the end of the story for the competing fighters, it did dominate the target market very thoroughly and all indications are that the F-35 will do even better compared to its peers.
VnomadExactly. Pretty much everything is secondary as long as the F-35 is procured. If the price went over $300mil, they would have bought 5 units and still call it an air force.
That must have cost a LOT !
Except that the cost to acquire it, is comparable or less than most 4.5G fighters. In fact the only feasible alternative for the F-35 customer looking for more options, is the Gripen NG. And the NG’s technological edge (such as it is) will not endure a decade down the line, unlike the F-35 where the size of the program ensures that it will receive a consistent stream of upgrades sanctioned and funded by the US DoD.
VnomadIn other words, this is a strategy in style “when two planes accidentally collide in mid-air, then our whole airforce becomes crippled instantly”. There is no reserve and no money allocated for a replacement.
That certainly deserves a round of applause.
That’s one of looking at it. Another way is when operating in heavily defended airspace or carrying out a SEAD/DEAD strike, an F-35 can be relied upon to do the job and return while a legacy aircraft is employed being at least somewhat expendable. And while the F-35 production will carry on past 2030, attrition replacements for most current types will mean waiting until second hand units are made available by a friendly air force.
VnomadI think that the argument for F-35 is very much intertwined with politics via NATO and its dominant member, the USA. The USA selected the fighter considered most suited to its own air defence needs (including considerations of its entire defence budget) in selecting F-35. It was not selected on the basis of what was best for NATO and its other members. Had that been the objective the USA would have selected a design more along the lines of an F-16 successor. IMO it therefore makes little sense to expect other NATO members to select what is best suited to the USA’s air defence needs rather than their own (including considerations of their own entire defence budgets).
The F-16 itself was developed to suit the USA’s own needs. And the F-35 was designed to replace the USAF’s F-16 (as well as other aircraft). It was designed to be cost-effective while retaining an technological edge vis-a-vis contemporary aircraft, not unlike the F-16. While its received a fair bit of criticism for design compromises owing to STOVL inclusion, fact is two of the larger NATO partners had signed on for the F-35B as well i.e. UK and Italy (which can now possibly extend to Singapore, India, maybe even Japan and South Korea).
The notion that non-US NATO member countries need to order F-35 to make an effective contribution to NATO operation is false. The reduction in overall defence capability through non-US NATO countries procuring and operating F-35 far outweighs any benefits brought by equipment commonality with the USAF.
Define ‘effective contribution’. Because I would suggest that the TA-50/Hawk 200 can employed to make an effective contribution as well. As a matter of fact, the F-16’s NATO operators could have signed on for the cheap but effective F-5G/F-20 and saved themselves a bundle.
Sign In
