thobbesSeems to me we need to add some sex appeal to this page with some far more attractive warplanes: 😀
thobbesA Polar Hawk also helps in terms of CP-140 Aurora (P-3) replacement.
Indeed RAAF is looking at replacing 19 P-3C with a combo of 8-12 P-8 and up to 7 MQ-4 Tritons.
thobbesThis like many of the discussions here it’s not “X” vs “Y”. As the LHA’s/LHD’s and F-35B’s. Will operate as part of a Task Force with many parts.
Except an America class LHA significantly reduces number of parts – no landing craft, no tanks, no armoured personnel carriers/light armour, no trucks/utility vehicles, no MLRS unlike an LHD which can carry all these things. Oh and your M777 artillery needs to be transported by MV-22 instead of landing craft which just makes logistics even more complicated.
Even later America class LHAs gain only a small dock and still have reduced ground support facilities such as hospitals.
Seems to me USMC is positioning itself as the future of naval air power projection, especially if budget cutback lead to cutbacks in carrier numbers.
Indeed the big fuss made about the use of USS Kearsage as a light carrier off Libya.
http://breakingdefense.com/2011/06/17/americas-third-air-force-future-of-the-marines/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/marine-aircraft-carrier/
So if I had option of STOVL LHAs or light CATOBAR carriers with angled flight decks, I’d go for the CATOBAR angled deck carriers.
With modern techniques one could even design modules for greater support of amphibious LHA ops. Indeed fleet carriers have been used as helicopter carriers in the past.
thobbesUSS Harry Truman and USS Nimitz are in the North Arabian Sea in support of Middle East.
Nothing’s in the Mediterranean.
thobbesNo. Sorry to disagree. But the B is the dream of every admirals: a carrier force multilplier that allow you to extend your zona of influence without ressorting to a double CV force in front line.
On its infancy the Sea Harrier just created that.
F-35C operating off a Midway sized Fleet Carrier does the same.
Whole point of AV-8 was support of USMC ground forces operating from LHD’s.
However USMC then decided to not fit new LHDs with landing docks so they became LHAs which are essentially light carriers except without catapults and without ability to carry larger numbers of aircraft and specialists such as E-2.
Plus USMC switching nearly completely to F-35B reduces Navy access to USMC squadrons for carrier ops as Marines are going from a majority of carrier capable F/A-18 force to a mainly STOVL F-35B force. USMCs carrier capable force will be limited to 80 F-35Cs as opposed to 200+ F/A-18s.
So USN loses out and USMC gains further rationale for it’s own specialist fleet at expense of Navy.
Overall US defence capability suffers as a result.
thobbesHow are you getting those F-35s, their fuel, their weapons, spare parts, their ground crews, tactical planners., air control, medical, catering etc etc to that landing spot beyond reach of land based tactical a/c?
You still need to send an amphibious ship and in a hostile environment, it’ll need escorting as well so you might as well be sending a CBG.
thobbesAn interesting article.
I agree to a degree.
F-35B’s real main purpose seems to be to give Marines light carrier capability and indeed new America class LHA’s are light carriers and not LHD’s like previous Wasp class.
In some ways they serve to exist as a justification for continued existence of USMC fighter aviation.
Problem is while a light carrier is useful for limited ops in low threat areas, you need a fleet carrier with it’s E-2 AWACS, longer ranged and more numerous combat aircraft for serious combat operations involving higher sortie generations.
I think smaller conventional fleet carriers ala Midway or larger Forrestal with F-35C/F/A-18 are a far better investment than America class light carriers with F-35B.
thobbesAny Syrian intervention without UN pushes that organisation further down the same path as the illfated League of Nations in the 1930s.
And it does make other conflics more likely, especially as the US military juggernaut slowly loses its teeth over the next few decades.
This might be great for the Fighter X versus Fighter Y crowd as we might actually see A2A combat in the 2020-40 time period!
thobbesI suspect the political objectives would be to punish Syria for using chemical weapons.
From a military perspective, that would seem to indicate targetting C4 installations, thus making it difficult for Syria to coordinate it’s armed forces as well as damaging intelligence gathering services. Of course this would include AD facilities.
However as Syria still has Russian help, any damage would probably be temporary.
In some ways it’s similar to operations over Bosnia in 1995 – i.e. limited air action to deter certain activities (in this case usage of chemical weapons) but not necessarily destroy the offenders ability to wage war.
It goes to show how insane and hypocritical the world is that indiscriminate bombing of civilians with fuel air explosives and conventional weapons is tolerated but chemical weapons are not.
Personally I don’t see the difference in being riddled full of shrapnel or blown to bits or being gassed. All are nasty things to do to a human being.
Also funny how Kerry deplores Syria’s usage of chemical weapon but endorses Egyptian coup and massacre of 1300 people as
“restoring democracy.”
thobbesNice photo Jo!
thobbesThey seem completely pointless to me, especially with all the unknowns.
And they exclude all those other factors of modern warfare too. Warplanes do not operate in a vacuum.
thobbesThobbes, as far as I know there is no speculation. Some years ago it was said that with that flight rate our Hornets will last beyond 2020. Now (with defence cuts) they are flying less hours per year. Also, we know that we can’t retire Hornets until our Typhoons will have enough A/G weaponry (antiship, antiradar, cruise missile). And we don’t have dates for that.
Thanks Aereo!
thobbesI said twenty years so I don’t see why you are splitting hairs and now saying since 1999.
Period 1991-1999 is vastly different to 2000-2013. First of all US hegemony and US interventionism was new. Secondly you still had larger air and defence forces floating about (e.g. Yugoslav airforce). Thirdly you still had a lot of old guard types who were happy to wage war using conventional forces. These guys are dying out – Milosevic, Assad, Gaddafhi, Hussein.
I thought you were proposing dropping a fast jet capability altogether in favour of sub sonic prop aircraft and helicopters?
No.
My points are that countries should look at their actual requirements before splurging a crap load of tax payer money on shiny new toys.
Canada needs a supersonic fighter, but the question arises does it need a F-35?
Who knows, but it is nevertheless presumptuous to assume that America would support Canada or any other of her allies in all circumstances.
Actually it generally works the other way around – US generally leads and Canada and co support. Hence the US F-15/-22s are there by default!
Libya was a bit of an aberration – Obama is not a standard US president but seems to be standardising in Syria by retaking US leadership.
The other thing is both France and Britain are continuing to downsize their forces to the point where other than ops ala Mali or Sierra Leonne, they’ll be unable to provide sufficient lifting power to be a leader ala Libya. The other NATO and allied countries do not lead on major operations.
Mali was a standard French operation in a former colony.
thobbes+
– Several Jaguar have been lost in Chad.
How many were to Libyan AD and especially radar guided systems ala SA-6?
I was referring to activities where French acted against units of Libyan AD ala Ouadi Doum air raid in 1986. No French casualties.
Other losses I’m aware of:
2 from EC3/11 in 1978 against Chadian rebels, not Libyan military. Both to MANPAD/AAA.
1 from EC2/11 in 1984 against Chadian rebels.
1 in 1988 from EC 2/11 – not sure if this is accident.
No SA-6 kills and the Martel ARMs were successful in neutralising them.
In fact the Chadians had better luck against the Libyans with captured Libyan examples – even bagged a Tu-22!
– The Lybian AA was so obsolete that the USA sent more than 100 cruise missiles and later Growler were flying with NATO planes, certainly for the lulz.
The USA always does overkill. Look at the war over Kosovo where stopping the Serb army in Kosovo involved bombing bridges and power plants in north Serbia as well as the odd Chinese embassy.
Now here’s what Libya was “operating” in 2011:
S-75 (SA-2)
S-125 (SA-3)
S-200 (SA-5)
2K12 Kub (SA-6)
9K33 Osa (SA-8)
9K31 (SA-9)
9K35 (SA-13)
Crotale (and not NG versions)
Any of that sound modern? In fact most of it was obsolete by 1982 (as evidenced by Israeli success over Bekaa Valley).
The MANPADS had some more modern ones but these are avoided by standard NATO tactics of higher altitude operations.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/could-libyas-rusty-air-defenses-challenge-a-no-fly-zone/
Libya 2011 was a cake walk and far easier than Kosovo in 1999 where terrain and decent Serb tactics meant that the AD system at least disrupted NATO bombing operations or Iraq in 2003 as Iraqi defence system had had some upgrades since 1991.
thobbesOK so fighters don’t do much A2A these days, it does not mean there has been no air combat in the last twenty years.
Actually since 1999 there has been no A2A combat anywhere on the planet other than smacking down the odd drone. Only execption maybe an Israeli take down of 2 Syrian MiG-29s and that’s unconfirmed.
We have been lucky that Western airforces have faced low probability of air combat in the last few decades nevertheless it is always a risk.
That probability is getting lower. Global fighter numbers are dwindling, especially in the third world where most combat is likely to occur as it has done since end of WWII.
The potential opponents are also getting less and less capable with no or little recapitalisation of fighter fleets as well as air defences and even radar networks.
Main factor is lack of super power support – no thousands of Soviets MiGs and SXXX SAMs for free. And also no massive economic aid to keep unstable countries together.
The other factors are decline of strong ideological based dictatorships, US hegemony (keeps weapons out and makes conventional war unlikely even between smaller powers) and replacement of ideology by ethnic and religious divisions which usually result in internal strife.
Air combat is a perishable skill and a technology field that has to be kept at the bleeding edge to be effective.
Yep and the F/A-18E/F or Eurofighter are both A2A capable.
Bare in mind Canada has not operated top of the line AD fighters in the past – no F-4 Phantoms, no F-106 Delta Darts and no F-15 Eagles – instead it’s been F-5s, F-101s and F/A-18s. And this was when the threat of WWIII was at it’s highest!
Also it is a gross presumption that the USA will just drop everything and provide air superiority for allied nations…how many F-14 did the US Navy commit to the Falklands war? Zero!
And what wars do you foresee Canada fighting on their own without US involvement? Contrary to popular belief, Libya had extensive US support – fighters, tankers, ISR, recce etc etc.
The countries getting rid of the capability all together tend to be virtually broke…Albania for example. By in large countries are maintaining smaller multi role fighter forces, gone are the days when a country will field single role types. Hind, Hip and Super Tucano are excellent platforms for CAS but they can’t beat the payload or time on station of a jet.
Most countries are maintaining a token ability only – 12-24 jets. And not necessarily top of the line either – the average air force in Latin America is still operating Mirage III/V variants in the form of Kfirs and Cheetahs or F-5s. SubSaharan Africa is even worse – most airforces have lost supersonic capability when the Soviet supplied MiG-21s expired. Even large ones such as South Africa maintain no capability. Eastern Europe’s main fighter is often 1980s vintage MiG-29s or truly ancient MiG-21s – all maintained in pitifully small numbers (I think Slovakia for example has 8 MiG-29s whereas Croatia has 12 MiG-21s).
Middle East is awash with fighters in Western allied countries and potential hotspots (Iran, Yemen and Syria) are generally in decline and have very few modern aircraft and generally even fewer operational.
It should also be noted that the B-1B is regarded as the best CAS platform over Afghanistan at the moment…how does that figure into your thinking?
It’s about bang for buck.
Given you average Air Force out of 196 countries in the world struggles to maintain Su-25 or Mi-8 Hips, B-1B isn’t exactly cost effective. F-16 or MiG-29 is often challenging enough!
What is the RCAF doing with its current fleet of Hornet beyond dropping bombs on people? Oh yes QRA of their ADIZ, good luck trying to intercept an airliner,il-38, Tu-95, Tu-142 or Tu-160 with a Super Tucano! That Canadian pilots have not seen air to air combat since the Korean War is immaterial in the face of needing to patrol their ADIZ, the proven platform in that role is a Supersonic combat jet. Ironically Canada did try and drop its manned fighter fleet with the fielding of the CIM-10 Bomarc, it was proven to be a flawed experiment.
Yep and F/A-18E/F and Eurofighter are quite capable of intercepting Il-38, Tu-95, Tu-142 and Tu-160.
They’re also quite capable of performing ground attack sorties against defenceless third world types. And by defenceless I mean the Libya and Iraqs and Serbias of the world and not just the Afghanistans and Malis.
Whereas Senegal and El Salvador and even mighty Brazil and once mighty South Africa don’t need high end 4th generation aircraft as their main threats and areas of operation are far different to Coalition minded Canada or Norway.
The only countries that need 5th generation are those that want to project global power (e.g. USA, China, Russia) or those that are in potential high risk of conventional warfare areas and that can afford larger numbers of aircraft (e.g. South Korea, Japan, India etc).
The Europeans and Canadians generally can continue with 4th generation – and indeed the French and Germans are not even looking at 5th generation and are only focusing on 4.5th generation for medium term. The 4th generation allow overkill capability on most opponents in expeditionary warfare.
Because again Myanmar or Yemen gains nothing out of 12-16 Pak Fas or J20s if those that can wage war upon them (i.e. USA or large powers) decides to pick on them.
Sign In
