For airpolicing JAS-39 or F/A-50 is more than sufficient. Even old F-16A/B-5/-10 is sufficient even without BVR capability (air policing by definition is a WVR thing).
To be fair to Typhoon and Rafale, I doubt many of them will ever be shot down in combat by enemy AD, let alone enemy fighters.
And I doubt the F-35s far superior capability will be used much either in actual shooting wars. In case people haven’t noticed, everyone has an aversion to wars against semi-capable opponents these days. Unless you can overkill the enemy with no risk to yourself, then you let diplomacy take it’s course.
But if you want to be able to fight WWIII, then F-35 is the better bet.
It actually seems like a decent counter-narcotics bird indeed!
The only problem is that I can’t see a healthy market for it as the most likely users are all generally broke.
And I like the look of thing too!
everything that shoots weapons does not have to be a fighter
Totally agree. After all one of the most useful bits of shooty kit in the US arsenal is the AC-130 gunship.

And the Mi-17 and Mi-35 are superb multi-role birds that pack meaty punches.
I find the attitude that M1s are useless and will never be deployed, in an era which saw Australia lead an intervention into Indonesian territory, 9/11, Bali bombing etc., to be a touch optimistic at best and short sighted at worst. If we didn’t foresee 9/11 and Timor what else will we not foresee before the M1 runs out of life.
The actual act of 9/11 was unpredictable, but it was clear to anyone that hardline fundamentalists were turning their attention on USA even in the mid-1990s.
However CIA and co stopped paying attention.
As for East Timor, the Australian government was partially responsible for that issue:
1. They supported Indonesia’s invasion in 1975 due Australian fear of Communist East Timor.
2. They turned a blind eye to Indonesian atrocities e.g. Dili/Santa Cruz massacre in 1990s.
3. The Australian intelligence community and government all ignored advice that Indonesia was creating pro-Jakarta militias and that a show down was going to happen. This only came out due to whistleblowers in the Australian intelligence community who were outraged by their seniors lack of action.
Australia also does poorly at diplomacy in the Asian region.
Comments by Australian PMs such as John Howard’s “we are America’s deputy sheriff in the region” or Kevin Rudd telling Chinese students that their country is bad and corrupt in Mandarin or Paul Keating calling Malaysia’s PM “recalcitrant” don’t help either.
Seems to me that instead of tanks, we need to spend more money on training capable intelligence services and government ministers capable of any level of foresight.
Again, the M1 was procured as part of a larger programme to harden and network the army, it provides a tip of the spear capability that if we need it we’ll really need it. I doubt Army planners will get caught short without tanks in a combat situation like they did in 1966-67.
It’s not a speartip. It’s a single tank batallion not an armoured brigade or armoured division.
Australia’s only mechanised brigade is 1st Brigade and it’s main combat components are:
1st Armoured Regiment – 1 tank batallion.
5RAR – 1 mechanised batallion equipped with M113 (Not modern IFV)
7RAR – 1 mechanised batallion equipped with M113 (Not modern IFV)
2nd Cavalry – ASLAV
8th/12th Regiment – towed M777 155mm guns (Not SPG, SPG procurement has been cancelled).
The brigade is lacking in other key speartip components – IFVs, hardened mobile command, SPGs, MLRS etc.
It has no integral Air Defence – Australian Army only has a single battery of RBS70 for airdefence and (another of C-RAM) and these are assigned to 6th Brigade which is a support unit.
Basically Australia’s M1s are a token force designed for the odd infantry support job, in the same fashion that tanks were used in WWII in Papua New Guinea or in Vietnam in 1970s.
Before anyone says: “that’s how you use tanks in jungle,” bare in mind the Imperial Japanese used tanks in largeish numbers in an offensive role in both Malaya and Philippines. There was also considerable tank use in India-Burma as well as China.
If you want to use armour in a meaningful manner, you need numbers and you need those other key components.
One more F-16 operator that seems to think the F-35 is relevant to their needs… what do they know anyway?
Nothing 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 – 168
Compare 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/B
Shows 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:
It could be the KC-10 proposed retirement might be a ploy to force Congress to retire the airframe the USAF doesn’t really want – the A-10.
I work in government finance management and we do all this time all the time – you provide unsavoury options that you know won’t be supported in order to get support for the less unsavoury option that you do want supported.
What do mean still saying??? The plan is to replace a number of F-15C Squadrons with F-35A’s and has been for sometime!
Then you musunderstand the article which basically means “disband F-15C squadrons and NOT replace them with additional F-35s.”
We know the number of Fighter Squadrons are going to decrease. This is hardly anything new………
Actually this is new. Prior plans have been about getting rid of a mere 5 more ANG A-10 squadrons.
The talk is now of entire fleets – there’s 10 F-15 squadrons (including 1 aggressor and excluding Test and Evaluation squadrons) OR 14 A-10 squadrons and/or 4 KC-10 squadrons (plus 4 associate squadrons) OR the 4 B-1B squadrons.
It save money which can be used recapitalize the fleet with New Aircraft. Again hardly anything new……….
Recapitalising is not the point of this. Point is saving a ton of money which means not recapitalising squadrons but disbanding them completely.
LOL The replacement is the F-35A………Which, is already the current plan. They would just take the saving from retiring the F-15C early plus the Funds planned for its Upgrade and order more F-35A’s.
Actually the F-35A was never meant to replace all the F-15C/D/Es.
I’m not surprised you’re not aware of this as you were completely oblivious of F-15C/D “Golden Eagle” upgrade program up to a couple of months ago at which point you needed to whole of the forum community to prove that this was happenning..
There’s been no mention of any more F-35s than than the 1,700+ F-35As.
In fact disbanding 10-15 squadrons puts at least 300-350 F-35As into question.
Only assumption I made was KC-46 production rate of 15 per month which was based on:
179-22 aircraft in service in 2017/ number of years between 2018 and 2028 (when last of 179 KC-46 is planning to roll out, pending no new orders).
One thing I did forget was introduction of Wing Air Refueling Pods which allows KC-135s to refuel probe/drogue jets. I’m not sure if all KC-135 squadrons are issued these – I think only about 45 KC-135s were retrofitted with these.
This means once KC-10 goes, they’ve lost a large number of available tanking assets.
KC-10 and KC-135 with WARP are far more versatile than standard KC-135s that can only tank probe-drogue jets if they lose the ability to refuel flying boom jets and vice-versa.
Definitely a big piece of kit as expected:

132nd FW, Iowa ANG relinquishes F-16
Plans are to convert the wing to a UAV unit..
Most of it’s F-16 Blk 30s will apparently go to 177th FW in New Jersery.
– F-16 avionics upgrade and SLEP
– Evaluating F-35
– Acquisition of ASTER 300 SAM
– Expansion of and modernisation of base facilities at Tengah and Changi
Ground forces would struggle – you’d need to bring big massive generators and you don’t always have access to good roads.
And you still have weight concerns – ground pressure and all that jazz as well as being able to use roads without tearing them up or cross bridges.
Not to mention the heat signature would attract old fashioned IR weapons like a moth to light.
If you kill F-15C then you neuter the plan where F-15C and F-22 work together, which is the reason to cancel 400 F-22 orders a decade ago. The F-35A was never meant to be F-15C’s mission replacement.
Plans change.
The idea is to kill a mission capability (A-10 or now cancelled C-27) or at least a component of it (B-1B, F-15C/D, KC-10).
I should have worded that differently. I meant to say they should cancel the upgrade for the F-15C and retire it early. Then use the funds towards purchasing New F-35A’s.
It seems you’re still saying that F-35As should be brought for squadrons currently using F-15C/Ds.
The USAF appears to expecting to abolish squadrons (and it’s already started – 81 FS is gone), not retain the same number of them.
Either way your solution doesn’t save money. It just replaces one expenditure (F-15C/D) for another (F-35A).
Abolishing the F-15C/D squadrons without replacement saves you money.
Again you know better than the experts…………BTW Even during the first Gulf War we had way more Tankers than needed. Which, besides supporting the vast US Military (USAF, USN, and USMC) it also supported several Allied Air Forces as well. Plus, todays fleet is much smaller and tomorrow fleet will be even smaller yet.
The experts? The article is speculation. As stated another similar article a while back talked about retiring either B-1B or A-10.
Back in 1991 you had a whole heap of KC-135E/Qs in service, many of which are in the boneyard. And KC-135Rs have started to be retired as well.
These aircraft have been flogged heavily over the last few decades.
The F-15C on the other hand will be replaced by the F-35A. So, instead of upgrading a small and tired fleet of F-15C’s. Which, wouldn’t last much longer even with the upgrade. Instead use the money to purchase Brand New F-35A’s. Which, are much more capable and cheaper to operate to boot!
You’re not saving any seirous money by spending F-15 upgrade money on F-35As and then maintaining those F-15 squadrons in service as F-35 squadrons.
You save money by cutting down number of squadrons and wings which means not replacing aircraft and closing down redundant air bases.
It’s not just cost of aircraft you’re saving, but salaries and wages, accommodation for staff, entire bases worth of infrastructure and services (airbase security, air controllers, caterers, base maintenance crew, wing command and control, administration etc etc).