A threat from IADS going into the 2025-2040 time frame is very much still relevant as far as the US DOD is concerned. As long as that threat is believed to be “REAL” they will keep on positioning themselves to counter it.

The issue is that advanced IADS have not proliferated nor is there any proof of them proliferating in near future (excluding upgrades to major power systems – China, Russia, India).

In fact number of countries with an operational IADS at all have declined since 1991. And number of countries with a modern IADS is even lower and mainly restricted to US allied countries.

So you’re left with an expensive stealth fighter whose main role is blasting defenceless insurgents and third world conscripts/militias but which has limited range in a conflict with a major power.

———–

The future of USAF tactical fleets has been questionable for some time and their involvement in early stage of Afghanistan was an example of the limitations of relatively short legged jets.

As stated I think the F-35 is good for someone like Israel or Singapore or Greece who:

a.) Has an actual or perceived need to maintain superiority over neighbouring countries
b.) Has a need to be able to launch first strike.
c.) Is looking at short distances only.

The US requires something that enables it to maintain global reach.

Unlike Israel or Greece, USA must forward deploy its assets outside of the continental USA to achieve national objectives.

That means aircraft carriers or basing rights.

Basing rights are sometimes difficult to obtain and in a world where IRBMs are proliferating, they’re also vulnerable (hence emphasis on BM defence). But then it’s questionable as to whether a BM defence screen can shoot down swarms of missiles.

Furthermore as stated Russia and China are huge countries and any long range penetration missions would require extreme long range.

It’s still short legged for Asian requirements and will still be reliant on Yanks obtaining friendly land bases that might be in the range of ever proliferating cheap IRBMs.

The problem with F-35 is that it does not seem to be designed for future combat requirements.

I do think F-35 fits a niche for a few countries though, but not as intended:

Greece – counter Turkey
Turkey – counter Greece
Singapore – counter Malaysia
Pakistan – counter India
Israel – counter Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

For bombing insurgents, current generation is overkill.

For bombing third rate dictatorships, current generation is fine.

For global warfare in an Asian century, you need long range and emphasis on air combat.

In essence the F-16 type fighter didn’t need replacing in the US arsenal.

That type of jet is obsolete for US future needs.

Look at limited F-16 usage in invasion of Afghanistan – CAS was provided by carrier borne aircraft or strategic bombers or longer range F-15Es as closest friendly bases were quite far away. F-16s were only deployed once friendly bases were established in country.

Replace F-16 with F-35 and they still sit out the conflict.

Against China, land bases in Korea and Japan are vulnerable to IRBM swarm strikes.

Same applies in Iran.

Are you serious? The F-16s are reaching the end of their useful life in airframe hours. The need replacing. The question is, do you replace them with the same airframe, or spend a little more and get a generational leap in capability. Guess which one the smart money is on.

My point isn’t the F-16 airframe. It’s the F-16 type fighter – you can include land based F/A-18s here as well.

The F-16 needs replacing but do you go for a medium similar jet or do you go with a new long range concept?

It’s the same as F-14 replacement – the F-14 needed replacement but the fleet interceptor role was no longer required so multirole F/A-18E/F was acquired instead. Or replacing an A-37 with a Tucano or even replacing a light attack jet with a helicopter gunship.

Need for long range has been borne out not only in Afghanistan but Libya and Mali.

Extrapolate to Asia and long range is the only option.

@thobbes:
The F-35 is designed to rely less on all those assets that what 4th gen fighters require.

The F-35 will still need tanking support. Even longer range Tornados and F-15Es usually get topped up and this is for relatively short ranged missions in Iraq from bases in the Gulf.

And the ranges in Pacfic and over China and Russia are extreme – you need to be able to fly at ranges comparable to an F-111 for strike.

And as stated previously, F-16C Blk 52 or F-15E of F/A-18A-F will be more than enough against most likely opponents for the next several decades.

Iraq (GW1) is an outlier.

Given Cold War had just finished meant the Iraqis maintained a reasonable AD network.

In the last 22 years, most minor country AD networks in have deteriorated to the point where most airspace is undefended (e.g. all of Subsaharan Africa, large chunks of Middle East).

Potentially hostile countries that still have AD networks have at best obsolete systems (Iran, North Korea). The Syrian one was easily defeated by Israel in 1982 and has since deteriorated significantly due to lack of investment and several AD bases falling to rebels or being under siege.

The F-35 is too shortlegged for operations against Russia or China and the landbased versions would struggle in a conflict against Pakistan (meanwhile naval version keeps getting reduced in numbers).

Military systems need a mission and a set of design parameters.

Using expensive stealth jets to bomb insurgents is pointless.

At the same time, having stealth jets that are too short legged for true penetration work is also pointless. And one can talk about tanking but you’re probably not going to be flying KC-135s close to Chinese or Russian airspace.

We don’t play to simply win, but to dominate. A belligerent nation is less likely to get uppity if it knows that there is no way to stop an attack by F-22/35s. If it knows that it has a good chance to knock a few 4th gen assets down then it is more likely to press the issue.

And the US has dominated since 1991.

No smaller power is capable of knocking down a few 4th gen assets in 2013. And by 2030 the number of AD systems will be further reduced as obsolete SA-2/SA-3/SA-6 systems are withdrawn.

Unless the US is preparing for war against current allies who even then lack capability to shoot down a few 4th generation jets (remembering US knows how it’s own Patriot SAMs work).

Fast jet losses to direct enemy action since 1992:

Bosnia: 1 x F-16, 1 x Mirage 2000, 1 x Sea Harrier (no active SEAD/DEAD performed due to ROE)
Serbia: 1 x F-16, 1 x F-117
Iraq 2003: 1 x A-10
Afghanistan: 0
Mali: 0
Ivory Coast: 0
Libya: 0
Sierra Leone: 0

6 jets lost in 22 years of combat seems to indicate absolute domination.

From news thread:

I actually don’t understand the design rationale behind F-35.

Stealth aircraft aren’t needed against most opponents. And against a relatively advanced opponent ala Saudi Arabia (current ally) they still have no chance against US military might.

The only opponents where stealth aircraft are required are the Russia’s and China’s of the world and they’re big countries that require something with a lot more range than an F-35 (hence these countries focusing on Su-27/-30/-34/-35/J-11 and J-20.

Spudman responded:

Package Q….

Package Q was 22 years ago under a set of conditions that has not been replicated in 22 years of warfare (Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003).

And the only countries that can replicate those sort of conditions today are major powers.

We’ve had 22 years of US evolution (guided weapons, better network orientation etc) and 22 years of capability stagnation and decline by likely opponents (Syria, Iran, North Korea).

Given trends over last 22 years, most likely combat conditions met by NATO forces in future will be similar to Afghanistan and Libya (i.e. next to zero air defense capability) and at most like Serbia in 1999 (obsolete defence capability).

Is F-35 required in these sort of environments?

Good points Tu-22.

I actually don’t understand the design rationale behind F-35.

Stealth aircraft aren’t needed against most opponents. And against a relatively advanced opponent ala Saudi Arabia (current ally) they still have no chance against US military might.

The only opponents where stealth aircraft are required are the Russia’s and China’s of the world and they’re big countries that require something with a lot more range than an F-35 (hence these countries focusing on Su-27/-30/-34/-35/J-11 and J-20.

Danish fighter competition could hurt F-35

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130316/DEFREG01/303160005/Danish-Fighter-Restart-Could-Hurt-F-35?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Germany cuts Tigre and NH90 orders

Most interesting thing is that 11 existing Tiger airframes will be sold back to EADS.