hopsalotWhy not cut F-16 or F-15s? The focus is on A-10 cause the USAF doesn’t like it, has never liked it and has never liked supporting the Army.
The USAF does not “like” single-role aircraft.(One reason why F-15Cs are also a possible cut.) There is some truth to the idea that the USAF has not traditionally loved the CAS mission, but it is grossly exaggerated by critics. (who also typically seem to believe only an A-10 and absolutely nothing else can provide CAS)
Once again though, the plan is to re-wing and continue using A-10s well into the 2030s unless forced to retire them by the budget fights in the US Congress.
A. The US is the premier super power in the world.
B. Do you realise how massive US commitments are? Do you realise how many detachments they operate across the world? Do you realise how much logistical support that requires? And a lot of the work is more suited for C-130s than C-17s.The number of planned C-130s is less than operated now. USAF has already been trying to gut C-130 fleets but it’s facing opposition from Congress.
Let me put it to you this way… why don’t you tell us how many C-130s the USAF has, how many it will have in 10 years, and why that second number is insufficient. The US is still buying C-130s in substantial quantities. Overall numbers may be falling somewhat but I have a very hard time believing the fleet is being “gutted” to such an extent that it would threaten the US’s ability to supply firebases… :rolleyes:
While we are at it, the C-130 production line is extremely healthy and is expected to keep running into the 2020s at a minimum. That being the case should additional C-130s be needed…
Point is maintaining ability to provide Army with CAS.
There is a wide range of platforms that can provide CAS, always has been. The A-10 is a good platform, but don’t confuse the A-10 with the CAS mission.
And maintaing C-130s and C-27s allows ability to provde US ground forces with effective intratheatre transport.
Good thing there are so many C-130s.
Problem is USAF despises the Army support mission and has always done so:
1. It gutted it’s CAS ability after WWII and didn’t restore it to until 1960s. Situation was so bad USAR was looking at G-91s.
2. During Vietnam, USAF went out of it’s way to take over US Army C-7s and then never really replaced them properly – the mission was taken over by less capable C-23 Sherpa.
3. When Army started C-27 program, USAF fought again to take it over and then scrapped the program.
4. Numerous attempts since 1980s to get rid of A-10 coupled with opposition to USAR taking over them.
This is quickly heading down the path toward conspiracy theory/fanboy ranting. The problem is that the Army tends to regard CAS as the only mission, while for the USAF it is one of many missions.
Of course F-35/LRSB crowd doesn’t understand that as it’s obsessed with hypothetical wars with China. And even prominent members from otherv services ala the Marines question this obsession.
High end capabilities are important, it is precisely the existence of those capabilities that forces the US’s adversaries to challenge the US unconventionally. It makes sense to prioritize the F-35 and LRSB because those will be two of the most capable and versatile platforms available.
The USAF (not US as a whole) is looking at streamlining it’s force to meet the wars it wants to fight (i.e. high end war against China) and not the wars it will be most likely be called in to fight.
Untrue.
hopsalotThe push is clearly for A-10 to be retired early as a budget saving measure – this means retiring before 2020.
The A-10s are in the process of receiving new wings… if they are cut it will be because of the budget cuts, not USAF planning.
The C-130 fleet is to be reduced in terms of overall numbers. The new C-130Js are replacing older C-130E (retired) and C-130Hs but certainly not on a 1:1 basis.
…and how many C-130s will that leave the US with relative to the rest of the world?
And the USAF transport and tanking assets are in high demand across the planet.
Of course they are, nobody else can be bothered to buy their own. Fortunately, the US has every intention of maintaining substantial fleets of both.
The Ospreys can’t do what a C-27 or C-130 can, but what is overkill for a C-17.
Not sure what your point is. A C-27 or C-130 can’t do what an Osprey can either. The US still has a huge fleet of C-130s with new orders continuing.
And again an A-10 does different things to an AH-64 or AH-1 – it’s faster (greater response time), packs more punch, has better loiter ability (both internal fuel and refuelling) and has that awesome gun on it.
And an A-10 doesn’t do the same thing as an attack helo… or a Strike Eagle… or a B-1… or a Predator…what is your point?
UAVs currently have higher attrition rates than normal aircraft. Hence ordering less seems to indicate a reduction to numbers of units fielding them.
The US has an awful lot of UAVs and they aren’t going away. The only real question is exactly what the future mix will be.
The bottom line remains unchanged. The US is maintaining a full spectrum of capabilities and that isn’t about to change. No one platform needs to satisfy every possible mission.
hopsalotFinally F-35 sucks for these kind of long range ops as does F-16/F/A-18 etc.
If you’re flying to Pakistan, you need to be launching from either a carrier or airbase ala Diego Garcia. If Pakistanis are hostile, then you don’t want your tankers flying close enough for them to launch a potential intercept mission.
Same actually applies to Iran – the Iranians won’t be dumb enough to set up their training camps on the coast. They’ll be far inland.
In this case B-2 or LRSB or Tomahawk are far better solutions.
And what happens when the Americans are fighting the next COIN ala Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam
F-35s for CAS, C-17s for resupplying firebases? No wonder US is going broke.
I wonder what this post would have been like if you had spent as long thinking about it as you did typing it…
The US expects to have A-10s, F-15s and F-16s in service into the 2030s…and attack helos indefinitely… they are also buying plenty of C-130s, Ospreys, and various helos to support firebases. They have a fleet of hundreds of Predators at this point with various other armed drones in the works. The US can launch Tomahawks, or it can use one of its various other standoff weapons…and yes, it will have hundreds of F-22s and F-35s.
Why is this so complicated? The US has a spectrum of capabilities that nobody else has. Some of those capabilities are intended for use in a high intensity conflict while others are better suited to COIN type operations.
hopsalotJust for the sake of making things easy here we can assume a -10dB difference that is pro F35, ok? (For those who arent familiar with dB is means 10 times lower RCS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown (F117 shoot down, to get real ranges from a war, incl EW support)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani (what radar did Zoltan operate?)
Ok, so what does this mean?
Well, from an environment like the Serb airspace, clouded with UAVs, SEAD resources, and EW support the P-18 has a demonstrated effective range vs the F117 of 25km. (That is twice the “jammed” range in the chart btw)
In similar conditions, assuming a -10dB reduction for the F35, the P18 should be able to track the F35 at 14 km and have a stable plot. The Vostok E should be able to get a solid plot at ~67km. (25km actual range x (57/12 the relative performance) x 0,1^0,25 (range formula))
If, OTOH we only assume an RCS reduction of 3 (the quote says slightly better than 2) we get the following.
P-18 would get a stable read at 19km and Vostok E ~90km.None of this, of course, is absolute hard facts but rather the result of deductive reasoning and using relative performance with a basis in real war. 🙂
Even if we assumed these numbers were accurate, you can’t approach the problem this way. The F-117’s RCS varied widely depending on aspect angle. The F-117 simply wasn’t stealthy from all angles, which is one reason why it required careful mission planning. Without knowing details of the engagement that are unlikely ever to become public there is no way to try to make a comparison to the F-35. (or any other aircraft for that matter)
Additionally, unlike the F-117 an F-35 pilot could expect to know a radar was out there and would be able to maneuver to avoid detection. (or just avoid the radar completely)
By comparison, flying low will make you invisible to radars out to 10-20km depending on how low you fly.
Here we go again… :stupid:
hopsalotI find the story pretty much possible. When approaching from rear hemisphere, one could achieve that even in a non-stealthy jet.
Anyway, two questions come into my mind:#1 Is the Raptor’s pilot behavior in accordance to the official procedures? Maybe it is just me but pulling up on the opponent’s left wing seems like a stupid risk to me. One unexpected maneuver and that sucker could get on your six and engage with cannon, stealthy or not.. Another option would be a purposeful collision just to bring the bird down to access some of its technology. Is such incautious behavior tolerated?
2. What is the actual cost of those intelligence missions? If I think about two $300mil F-22s doing HVAAE on a stupid $4mil drone, then I must say that someone in Pentagon has really twisted the math beyond imaginable.
It may have been an unnecessary risk (if in fact it happened at all) but I don’t believe it would have been at all a large risk. Even with a really good pilot an F-4 is very unlikely to be able to get to a position of advantage on a competently flown F-22. They are just completely different classes of aircraft.
As for why send F-22s to defend a drone… to send a message, and because that is what fighters do.
hopsalotGET IT YET?
This is yet another case where they will refuse to “get” something that they just prefer wasn’t true, as if playing dumb somehow furthered their case.
Drop tanks come in different sizes.
600 gallon drop tanks and CFTs are under development for the F-35. This has been announced by multiple reputable sources.
No performance data has yet been announced for these CFTs or 600 gallon drop tanks.
What is complicated about this concept? Nothing…
hopsalotActually many Europeans signed up to F-104 and F-16 without formal comps, even though there were other “games in town” – Mirage III, Mirage F1. JAS-37 Viggen etc.
How does that conflict with what I said?
What 30 years – F-16s were still selling to Europe up to recently (Poland, Greece, Turkey).
And Romanians are buying ancient F-16A/Bs over JAS-39s. Bulgarians are the same with a preference for older F-16s over JAS-39.
Those aren’t the buyers of F-35s today.
The reason for this is inter-compability with US systems, access to US maintenance and logistics and upgrades as well as access to US training.
In fact many European pilots are trained in the US as they got rid of their own training programs.
Those are good reasons, but hardly something the European manufacturers couldn’t provide.
Europeans do buy European – usually if it’s indigenous to that country (e.g. Italian Ariette tanks, various ships, small arms) or if the system is part of a joint program the country is participating in (e.g. NH90, A400M).
French gear is a poor seller in Europe in general. Land gear such as Leclercs, FAMAS, CEASAR, VBCI has generally not sold to Europe at all.
French do get sales in helos but even these were dwindling in numbers prior to creation of Fanco-German Eurocopter – e.g. compare sales of Allouete II and III with that of SA-341/2 Gazelle and AS350/550/555 series. By 1970s and 1980s Bo-105 and A109 were making big inroads here. The lighter Eurocopter helos that have sold in Europe or to US were basically derived from German BK-117 and not French helos.
The Puma was not adopted in Europe in anywhere near the numbers the UH-1/B204/205 series was.
Subs and tanks in Europe tend to come from Germany. Rifles are either based on US Armalite AR-15 or German H&K G3/-36 series. Machine guns are usually Belgian – Minimi and MAG-58 or German – MG3 (aka MG42 Hitler’s Buzzsaw) and now MG4). Warships are generally indigenous.
French gear is usually joint-production stuff ala Milan, Horizon frigate, NH90, Tigre.
There is absolutely no chance a French 5th generation fighter would’ve sold to European users if an American option was there.
The politics and compatibility issues just wouldn’t allow it just like they ultimately resulted in failure of French (and also Swedish) aircraft to get anything more than a toe hold in market.
Even if Rafale was available at full spec in 1990, F-16s still would’ve sold to NATO and Rafale would not have. Just like M2000, F1 and III/V never really sold much to NATO either.
Sure, the European defense industry has been weakening for a long time now… but again… that hardly means that it was somehow pre-ordained that European buyers would buy American in general or the F-35 in particular.
A full spec Rafale in 1990 would have offered incredible capabilities and would certainly have drawn a lot of interest. Of course that didn’t happen… but I don’t see how you get from that to “it is impossible for the French to sell a fighter because of politics.”
hopsalotMy belief is that tactics are more important than gadets.
I think your original question was about what the most sustainable way was to have an ongoing air campaign. Your assumption was that stealth aircrafts, due to being closer to the targets could drop more and cheaper bombs than contemporary fighters that have to keep a further distance or take greater riscs to perform the same mission. Right?
In theory you are roughly 100% correct. But in reality the most effective bombings have been low altitude surprise attacks and sabotage units that can locate enemy targets in advance. And this is because a number of reasons.
1 SEAD missiles aren’t accurate if the target disapears (shuts down power), it will then become an INS guided missile with the margin of error that comes with that.
True in 1999, but not today.
http://www.atk.com/products-services/advanced-anti-radiation-guided-missile-aargm/
Anti-radiation homing, but also has a GPS/INS guidance capability, and most importantly an imaging MMW terminal seeker to counter emitter shutdown tactics in all weather conditions.
2 Laser guided munitions work fine in good weather, but clouds, rain, heavy fog etc blocks lasers. It also kills the ability for EOTS/IR to acquire targets. Meaning you dont know what you hit.
Also dated information, the F-35 is designed to be able to operate effectively in all weather conditions. Its EW system is capable of geolocating emitting targets, and if necessary the APG-81’s SAR and GMTI capabilities can refine the aim point and if necessary maintain a track on a moving target regardless of any cloud cover.
3 GPS guided bombs work fine, but coordinates have to come from somewhere and distance increases margin of error for laser measurements –> lowering performance. So you need ppl on the ground or clear line of sight.
Targetting can be done by EW, SAR, and EOTS. Additionally, weapons like JSOW and SDB-II have a terminal guidance capability that will mitigate any errors in the initial coordinates. (Or if necessary you can just solve the precision problem the old fashioned way… by using a 2,000lb bomb.)
“Poor weather and battlefield obscurants continue to endanger warfighters as adversaries exploit these conditions to move, safe from coalition air power. This has established the need for an all-weather solution that enhances warfighters’ capabilities when visibility is limited.
Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), a Raytheon Company program for the U.S. Air Force, will provide this capability to the warfighter.
The company’s tri-mode seeker fuses millimeter-wave radar, uncooled IIR and digital semi-active laser sensors on a single gimbal. The result is a powerful, integrated seeker that seamlessly shares targeting information between all three modes, enabling weapons to engage fixed, relocatable or moving targets at any time of day and in adverse weather conditions.
SDB II’s tri-mode seeker can peer through storm clouds or battlefield dust and debris to engage fixed or moving targets, giving the warfighter a capability that’s unaffected by conditions on the ground or in the air.
The warfighter also gains enhanced security with SDB II as it can fly more than 45 miles to strike a mobile target. And, because of SDB II’s small size, fewer aircraft can take out the same number of targets that used to require many jets,each carrying a handful of large weapons. SDB II’s size has broader implications for both the warfighter and taxpayers as it means fewer sorties — and less time spent flying dangerous missions.”
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii/
Bottom line, you are living in the past. Allied Force, while a massive success overall, did expose some weaknesses in NATO’s ability to strike certain targets, particularly in bad weather. Ten+ years later and the solutions have been developed and are now entering into service.
hopsalotIt’s not weak reasoning. It’s fact borne out by history.
The real reason for it is not aircraft performance – it’s political, diplomatic as well as overall military compatibility with the premier NATO partner.
The F-35 is actually a great example – most F-35 countries haven’t even bothered to evaluate anything else and have just signed on to F-35.
You don’t necessarily have to run a big expensive formal competition if you already know that there is only one jet that will fit your requirements. If you are choosing between one of several 4th generation jets then it makes sense to run a competition. If you want a 5th generation fighter then the F-35 is pretty much the only game in town.
France had a 4th generation fighter comparable to American “Teen series” jets in the form of Mirage 2000.
Mirage 2000 was exported to only 1 European country (Greece) who brought it as part of a diversification program that started in the 1970s with Mirage F1CG.
F-16 on the other hand has sold to 8 NATO countries (Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Turkey, Portugal )and was leased to a ninth (Italy).
F/A-18 sold to 3 European countries (Finland, Spain, Switzerland) including 1 NATO.
Or look at Mirage III/V versus F-104 and F-5:
Mirage III/V – 3 Europe exports (Switzerland, Spain, Belgium) including two NATO.
F-5A/B – 4 NATO (Turkey, Greece, Norway, Netherlands)
F-104G – 8 European NATO (Belgium, Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Turkey).
And then throw into mix:
F-100 – 3 NATO users (France, Denmark, Turkey) – 2nd hand
F-102 – 2 NATO users (Greece, Turkey) – 2nd hand
J-35 – 2 European including 1 NATO (Denmark, Finland). Austria brought their J-35 in 1980s.
The French have never really had a foot in the door into European jet fighter sales. A French 5th generation would’ve done no better than French 2/3/4 generation fighters.
The US has out-sold France… what is your point? That that is some kind of law of nature? That European buyers will inevitably buy American jets because they did 30 years earlier?
Sorry, that doesn’t even come close to holding up, especially when you look at how much European equipment these forces buy in general. The US is a big supplier, but it is hardly the only one.
hopsalotSome say it’s hogwash. Imo, it most likely is. Show me the video, and THEN i’ll believe it.
You believe every other conspiracy theory without any proof… :rolleyes:
hopsalotI’m seeing a lot of these “everyone needs F-35 hence they buy them” posts by the F-35 fanboi club.
I figured it needs a thread of it’s own.
…
Well the answer is simple: It’s American.
…
Conclusion – even if better options were available, F-35 would still be an export success
– USA has dominated fighter market since 1950s.– Most countries that operate Western fighters usually have decades of experience on US fighters which means employment of US organisational, tactical and logistical systems that makes it hard for anyone new to get into market.
– France was only real competitor in 1960-1980s but lack of product variety, collapse of target market and lack of political muscle has seen them drop out of the race.
This is awfully awfully weak reasoning.
Europe was going to buy American no matter what, and that meant the F-35 no matter what… because Europe has mostly bought American in the past?
Why not more F-16s, or maybe some F-15s?
Too old you say? Fine… why not Super Hornets? Those are similar in age to the Eurofighter and Rafale, cheaper than the F-35 and of course… American.
The real reason the F-35 is dominating the market is because it is the only 5th generation jet available and despite the Eurocanard “fanboi club” attempts to claim otherwise, it is in fact a major leap forward over earlier US and European 4th generation designs that offers capabilities real world air forces actually want.
I suspect if France or anyone else in Europe produced a 5th generation aircraft of their own they would be able to find buyers in short order, but Europe isn’t willing to make that kind of investment anymore.
hopsalotFalse.
The Swiss air force evaluated, wanted and recommended to buy the Rafale. Swiss politicians told them to make do with the Gripen NG.
Nic
:very_drunk:
Cost is a factor and Gripen won, period.
…and guess how the Rafale beat the Eurofighter in India …price.
hopsalotSwiss have chosen Rafales. The NG came in as a suitable low cost solution. Nothing against that, they have every right to reject even Rafales on cost grounds if they see fit.
No, they evaluated Rafales and decided to chose Gripens.
Most of these partners have commited to F-35 back in the times when it was still called JSF. A much different bird from the one we are getting now. And even more different on the paper.
…and they could have changed their minds at any point if they decided the F-35 wasn’t what they wanted, but that hasn’t happened has it?
I really don’t see why fanboys try to act like countries are spending billions of dollars/euros on something they don’t really want.
It is always one conspiracy or another… they signed up when they thought they were getting something different… the big bad US made them buy F-35s… they are all incompetent and don’t know as much as message-board kiddies…Lockheed’s marketing has fooled them… bribery… etc!
Face it, the F-35 has drawn huge amounts of interest, despite its well publicized schedule and budgetary problems, because it offers very very desirable capabilities.
hopsalotBullshi!t. Fuel tanks are configured for a mission profile. Lion share of aircraft enter the combat with external fuel tanks having been jettisoned.
All these comparison figures of acceleration with full external load at the end of the starting runway are nothing but a deception exercise to make the F-35 look better.
Right, because there would never ever be a situation where and aircraft might want to do something other than cruise straight and level while carrying a combat load or a useful amount of fuel… :rolleyes:
…just drop everything and get ready to dogfight at the first hint of an enemy, right? :eagerness:
hopsalotNothing surprising here – Belgium signed up for F-104 and F-16 as well.
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway pool their fleets together for expeditionary warfare. They deploy joint squadrons.
If they want to be able to do this, they need to operate the same type as Denmark, Netherlands and Norway, all of whom are F-35 operators.
The lower possible number quoted is the scary thing here – at worst a mere 35 jets (3 Belgian squadrons or 2 more normal size squadrons).
The future fighter numbers for these 4 fleets look pathetic:
Belgium: 35-55 – to replace 59 F-16s
Denmark: 18-24 to replace
Netherlands: 37* to replace 85 F-16s (since shrunk to 61 by 2014)
Norway: 48-52 to replace
TOTAL: 138 – 168Compare that to F-16A/B (incluidng deliveries of F-16A/B-15s in early 1990s)
Belgium: 160
Denmark: 77+2 attrition
Netherlands: 213
Norway: 74
TOTAL: 526 F-16A/BShows how much some airforces have shrunk. It equates to an overall fleet reduction of 68%- 74%.
Even adding Italy (96), Turkey (116) and UK (138) at optimistic levels only brings up total European F-35 buys to 488-518 a/c – still less than original European 4 F-16A/B buys.
And after that market opprtunities for 2020-2030 decline considerably in Europe to:
Finland – up to 60 a/c to replace F/A-18
Poland – up to 32 a/c to replace MiG-29
Spain – up to 100 to replace F-/A-18 and AV-8B but in reality probably a lot less.
Greece – handful really.*Dutch have confirmed their commitment to F-35 with a mere 37 airframes:
And what has happened to their inventories of tanks, artillery and other military equipment? How does their military manning compare to where it was during the Cold War?
Certainly the F-35 costs more than the F-16, but if buyers really wanted more F-16s they are available.
Above all this is a story about collapsing European defense spending.
Sign In
