thobbesDidn’t the US use all jet training in the past?
T-37 –> T-38
The T-6 replaced the T-37, but other competitors included jet powered S-211, MB339, Cessna 526 CitationJet and IA-63 Pampa.
I suspect that what aircraft is used is somewhat dependent on economics.
E.g. in South Africa they used to use PC-7s for initial training, and due to cost of operation they now use Cessna’s whilst PC-7s take over for more advanced courses.
Given cost of fuel, all jet training or even advanced jet trainining only is difficult to maintain.
Hence uprated turboprops ala PC-21 being used as LIFTs.
The turboprop is also replacing the jet in light attack role. The EMB314 Super Tucano has replaced MB-326, A-37 and Strikemaster aircraft in light strike role.
The future for many air forces seems to be armed turboprop trainers as their main offensive force.
thobbes.S. officials said they believe more allies, particularly New Zealand and the Philippines, will join the exercises soon.
What with?
The Phillippines military is one of the worst in the region. Indeed instead of an ally, I’d view it as a massive liability from a defense perspective.
NZ’s entire combat capability is half a dozen P-3s and 2 frigates.
The SE Asians are all much better equipped, though their pursuit of national interests isn’t necessarily tied in with US policy goals.
thobbesGet a grip for frig sake, Thobbes. They’re doing these kinds of exercises to get the most realistic scenarios as possible. Everythings thought out to the merest details, even stenciling simulated kills. Don’t get why you have a problem with it.
Just think it’s pathetic to be showing off “kills” that were done in training and not real war.
As for most “realistic scenarios,” they can never replicate combat factors such as human emotions (e.g. fear of death, andrenaline surges), fog of war and all the other stuff that happens in an actual warzone.
I guess it’s an outcome of Western society where less and less things are real and everything gets hyped to the point of existence.
Oh and if a pilot gets 500 “kills” in simulated training, does that make him a better fighter ace than Erich Bubi Hartman with 345 confirmed kills in actual combat?
thobbesNo. Everyone does it. If its pathetic to stencil simulated kills from an exercise then it must be disrespectful to stencil real kills from actual combat.
The whole point is to record actual achievement in combat.
And I do find that in essence comparing ones’ achievements in training to the fighter pilots of old who risked actual death in air-to-air combat a bit pathetic.
Guess the current batch of pilots want to be as cool as the heros of old. :rolleyes:
thobbesI’d say technologically they’re on par with India and South Korea and better than Japan or Taiwan and definitely Vietnam (still mainly focused on MiG-21 and Su-22 with relatively small numbers of Su-27/-30).
Other than a handful of aircraft being upgraded, Japan’s F-15s are flying in the same configuation as they were delivered in the 1980s. The F-2’s not exactly great and the F-4’s are old and dwindling in number.
Pilot quality is another issue – however Taiwan for example had massive problems keeping Mirage 2000s in the air.
Don’t know anything about Japanese or Vietnamese training standards.
I think the South Koreans have a potent force – not only have they acquired late model F-15s but their training seems intensive.
thobbesNo offense to anyone but isn’t it a bit pathetic stencilling simulated kills from exercises. :rolleyes:
thobbesWrong. Iran is under UN weapons embargo respected by the Russians. Syria has no common border with Iran
Iraq has no air force to stop Syrian jets escaping to Iran.
the Russians will prevent it as well or loose the future Syria as weapons-market. The civil war in Syria is not directed against Russia.
I doubt Alawite pilots (and indeed any Alawites) are going to want to linger when the regime finally falls and the Sunnis decide to get pay back for decades of oppression..
Conflict in Syria is by now a largely sectarian conflict.
By the way it looks the weapons-embargo against Iran works very well despite contradition claims from the Iran. The limited number of MiG-29s in Iranian service show that. 😉
Mind you there appear to have been no significant attempts by Iran to acquire foreign fighters in the last couple of decades.
China probably would’ve happily supplied them with more F-7s but the Iranians don’t seem interested.
France apparently offered them 50 ex-Armee de l’ Air Mirage F1Cs a while back and this was rejected.
Something in flying condition is no proof for something in real combat condition as the Iranians try to convince the public.
Too true.
thobbesYes lets not talk about war with China 😀 What people always forget is that this conflict would not mean F-22 vs J-10. Instead it would mean how many cities and bases can my thousands of warheads destroy compared to your thousands of warheads.
War between powers does not mean nucelar exchange.
Conflicts can be limited and indeed often are. Vietnam and Yon Kippur were both limited. Korean War was also limited. Throughout history, wars have been limited to meet political goals (e.g. Crimea).
A war with China will probably be over Taiwan or one of the disputed islands and both sides will probably ensure the fighting is contained in that area.
Otherwise why are both sides investing heavily in military equipment that at best will be used only in parades (China) or to take on insurgents and pirates armed largely with AK-47?
thobbesClearly, longer range strike aircraft would be good. Yet, in the case of the F-35 it’s range is comparable to contemporary tactical fighters. In addition the F-35B can operate from Amphibious Warships or Unprepared Airstrips near the front. Then let’s not forget F-35C’s can operate from Carriers. Which cover 70% of the worlds surface with no landing requirements needed.
Really, sounds like you are comparing Apples and Oranges.
Range is necessary in a Pacific conflict.
Things like carriers might not be able to operate freely in the various China seas due to threat of enemy action (submarine/anti-ship missiles/aircraft). Plus to operate from “70% of the world’s surface” you need good tanking assets.
Whilst F-22/-35 are low observable, their supporting E-3s and KC-10/-46/-135s are not. I suspect the purpose of the J-20 is taking out these assets.
And whilst a war with China is currently not plausible, the F-35s features aspects that are designed for high intensity conflict (stealth, sensor package etc).
When it comes to blowing up insurgents or defenceless third world countries, F-35 is completely uneccessary. It’s purpose is high intensity conflict.
As for range of contemporary fighters, they were mainly designed with short range European theatre in mind. The F/A-18 is actually a downgrade for Navy in terms of range.
thobbesThe attacker is never outnumbered.
The attacker gets to choose when and where he will strike.
The attacker will have reconnaissance of the target area and will know the disposition of DCA.
The attacker gets to marshal his forces and employ them to achieve his objectives.
The attacker plans his attack to sweep DCA aside.DCA is grueling work.
DCA has to be available 24/7/365.
DCA has to react to everything, including feints designed to confuse and distract.
DCA gets worn down over time as jets and people break while performing endless hours CAP/alert duty.
For these reasons, DCA is not viewed to be as serious a problem as defensive SAMs which “pop up” without warning.
And as proven in just about every conflict since 1991, the types of opponents that are likely to be faced don’t really have any worthwhile DCA and current generation Teen series fighters have proven more than adequate – in fact it’s a bit like swatting flies with tactical nukes.
In a full shooting war with say China or Russia, assumptions on superiority in terms of numbers and reconaissance are a moot point.
In fact depending on strategic situation, US/F-35 user might be the one required to perform DCA.
Again how does the F-35 work in this sort of environment where the enemy has the strategic advantage and dictates terms of engagement?
(Not questioning F-35 ability, just asking the question).
I actually think it’s a massive assumption to assume that in a full scale shooting war, that the F-35 user will automatically be on the offensive.
Remember Pearl Harbour, the Philippines, Korea, Yom Koppur.
EDIT I think this is the problem with the F-35. It’s based on an assumption of offensive action in a European/Middle Eastern environment with nearby bases. It also assumes air-to-air combat is negligible, though in this instance stealth is superflouous as the opponent’s are too weak to have proper air defence systems (if you can’t afford jets, can you afford expensive missiles, electronic warfare or a proper radar/sensor network?)
I don’t know how much and if any thought, has been put into it’s function in a high intensity conflict fought over long ranges in the Pacific and where opponent might have strategic advantage.
The F-22 actually fits a lot better in this scenario than a F-35.
thobbesThe other interesting potential issue is rules of engagement as happened in Vietnam and Korea.
How does the F-35 do in an environment where BVR shots are limited due to rules of engagement?
Strict rules of engagement are possible in some of the current hotspots ala Iran or Syria or North Korea due to constricted airspace and political sensitivites.
thobbesExcellent article. So they have about 10 F-4D’s left. How many F-4Es are still operational?
thobbesThe other problem with F-35 is that in some ways it’s going to reduce US market share of the fighter market:
1. No appeal for F-15 replacement (5 operators)
2. No appeal for mass of F-5E/F and poorer F-16 users (over 20 operators) due to complexity and expense.
3. No dual seat version – there are advantages to having a WSO (hence sales of F/A-18F to RAAF and F-15E variants to Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Singapore as well as F-16D/I to Singapore and Israel.
Dual seaters are also useful for poorer users as they allow easier maintenance of actual flight hours and combat capablity.
And as the USAF and USMC are not acquiring any new aircraft other than the F-35, the pool of low airframe hour second hand jets is shrinking.
Note that most users preferred to go for ex-European F-16AM/BM ror Ex US ANG F-16ADF over earlier model F-16Cs. In fact the market for second hand ex-USAF F-16C/D has been limited to one potential sale to Indonesia (who are notorious for poor procurement planning and decision making).
By 2020 the F-16 line will be closed as will probably the F/A-18E/F and F-15 lines. That leaves the F-35 as the only US aircraft available for export.
Compare that to 1980 when the US could offer F-5 (used in large numbers as aggressors), F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 thus covering all market segments. There was also the F-20 but as it was not adopted by USAF/USN it failed.
There was also plenty of relatively low houred second hand A-4, A-7, A-37, F-4 and later F-5s to be sold.
I suspect as such we will see more and more non-US fighters being sold at the expense of the F-35. Bad news for the US when the F-35 is it’s main fighter export.
thobbesThanks for the headsup on the upgrade. Interesting that China has entered the world of MiG-29 upgrades.
I suspect the next influx of “new” aircraft will come when Assad’s regime crumbles and his Alawite pilots escape to Iran.
thobbesI suspect Iran could do a lot better if they pumped defence dollars into fighter planes instead of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.
Sign In
