thobbesHmmmm….
A-10 offers some unique capabilities to USAF.
Problem with USAF is that it’s least capable aircraft (F-16) is also it’s most versatile.
Personally I’d:
1. Deactivate all USAFE fighter squadrons (3 F-16, 1 F-15C/D, 2 F-15E) as well as air refuelling squadron. USAFE support to come from rotational US based units (this keeps US squadrons/bases open which placates Congress).
2. Use ex-USAFE F-15Es to replace 2 existing F-16C/D units (probably PACAF F-16s assigned to Misawa AFB’s 35th FW – currently there are no F-15Es based in PACAF and it’d give extra longer range punch to the force).
3. Use ex-USAFE F-16s to replace 3 existing A-10 units (probably ANG ones). This keeps an A-10 capability.
4. Deactivate B-52 and upgrade B-1B to new more multirole configuration. Includes refurb of any bone yard B-1Bs to reequip B-52 squadrons. Replace B-1s with LRB which would again be multi-role configured (ALCM, CAS, ECM/EW).
5. Deactivate large number of RQ/MQ-1 squadrons – these are of questionable utility in a full scale conventional war with China and the need for such a large number of large slow UAVs is questionable in a post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan environment.
A potentially crazy option would be to get rid of F-16 SEAD squadrons and in it’s place acquire E/A-18Gs for EW role (something which USAF currently outsources to USN/USMC).
thobbesThey can afford to, just not on the current budget.
They spend well below the average global GDP on defence, about 1,2%, or only about half of the global average.
…
Just on the 2% “average” for GDP. It’s not that simple. You not only have different government spending requirements but also different tax regimes.
So military spending may be 2% of GDP in two countries, yet 20% of government expenditure in one country and only 10% in another.
The 2% is something invented by NATO and in reality shouldn’t be used. What should be used is funding based on operational requirements. For a country like Israel 2% is probably inadequate, yet for say Belgium it’s overkill.
thobbesThree of seven Typhoon operators? Only UK and Italy are going for F-35.
Spain and Germany have not signed up for F-35. Spain’s future is highly uncertain with depression level unemployment.
Typhoon export customers also are either not interested in F-35 (Austria) or are not authorised it due to Israeli concerns (Oman and Saudi Arabia).
Though I do agree with your other points.
Truth is Europe didn’t have anything close to F-16 to offer poorer/smaller countries in 1970s and 1980s* hence continued proliferation of US aircraft in European service. F/A-18 sales were also influenced by lack of comparable European products (as most of them were delayed).
*Viggen was non-NATO standard and with export restrictions, while Mirage F1 was too limited (though still sold to Spain and Greece). Mirage 2000 was too expensive.
thobbes4. Network centric warfare, that allows platforms to share, coordinate and fight together in increasingly large numbers.
5. EW as an ever greater dark horse in the game
So far these two seem to be primarily a Western thing.
We so far have no proof of level of Chinese network/EW adoption nor do we know how truly advanced their J-10-31 aircraft are..
The Russians don’t seem to have embraced networked/electronic based warfare that much – look at relative primitive operations over Georgia with next to no SEAD/DEAD or PGM work.
The other big issue: Since Boyd influenced aircraft entered service in late 1970s and early 1980s there has been no virtually no peer level A2a combat where both opponents used fourth generation aircraft supported by extensive EW and other electronic assets.
Air combat in Iraq or Kosovo was a one sided affair, whilst air wars in Iran-Iraq, Lebanon, Falklands, Peru/Ecuador all either involved older generation aircraft or one side did not use 4th gen (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Falklands).
Only in Ethiopia-Eritrea was there any peer level 4th generation combat and that was without AWACS/EW support and relatively primitive tactics (e.g. extreme long range BVR shots that invariably missed).
Since 1999, there hasn’t even been any A2A combat, let alone combat between peer or near peer operators of 4.5 generation. Even the much vaunted F-22 has not been required.
So all above assumptions remain theoretical.
It’s a bit like the 1930s Interbellum period when there was a lot of assumptions and experiments, not all of which proved successful (multi-turreted land battleships anyone?).
You need actual combat between relative peers to determine true requirements – hence the value of air-to-air combat in Vietnam, South Asia and Middle East that led to development of Boyd’s theorums and their applications on F-15/F-16 and similar developments in Russia (MiG-29/Su-27).
Hence I think Boyd still applies albeit with modern caveats (LO, EW, BVR, network orientation etc).
However I don’t think we’ll see the type of combat needed to test modern paradigm theories for at least 20 years.
Future A2A combat will continue to be rare/non-existent as more and more air forces dump fast jets.
The true paradigm shift has been from conventional war to counter insurgency.
The air defence fighter is irrelevant in this environment.
Warfare is devolving in most parts of the world to a point where a T-55 or ex-Soviet Mi-25 is considered advanced.
lasers are evolving rapidly and may overwhelm the WVR missile paradigm
Lasers lack off-bore capability. Lasers are more likely to replace gun, but then the gun is far more useful for strafing runs.
thobbesNo confirmation of type just yet.
thobbesSecond one this year – in fact it appears both Alpha Jets deployed to support anti-AQ operations in Mali have been written off this year.
Thai Army helicopter crashes – 5 hurt
According to Scramble it was a UH-1H.
thobbesUndergraduate pilot training and lead-in fighter training are money pits for all but the largest air forces. There simply are not enough students to justify an efficiently run training wing. It would make sense for a group of like-minded countries to consolidate training into a single schoolhouse, preferably with good weather on a year-round basis.
And indeed most of Europe including Germany already does this, either in the USA or Canada (NATO Flying Training in Canada).
And ironically Belgium and Singapore conduct advanced training in France at Cazaux in south of France.
Problem is French are unwilling to do anything that is viewed as compromising sovereignty which means they’ll maintain independent training regime regardless of cost.
On a semi-related note, I think Singapore’s M346s will be based at Cazaux, replacing existing TA-4SU.
Perhaps there can be some small economies of scale here?
thobbesDassault chief whines about Europeans buying American:
He mentions F-35 support from Italy and UK but ignores that these guys are also commited to Eurofighter and would never buy Rafales.
And maybe if Dassault integrated American/NATO weapons/systems into Rafale it would sell better. Instead the French want complete monopoly and then whinge no-one wants to buy their shiny toy.
thobbesWhy would Turkey want Rafales when it’s already commited to F-35 and local 5th generation aircraft?
Also Hurkus is quite undeveloped – it’s still not flown and even TAL states first military certified deliveries will be made in about 4 years (2017 at earliest).
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/tai-hurkus-nears-first-flight-and-orders-385663/
thobbesstay European with M-346?
Possible but could be too expensive to operate.
go supersonic with T-50?
Somehow I think they’ll stick with Western European.
Mistrals for Yak-130 with Russia?
France does not use Russian equipment. It’s like proposing Su-34 for USAF.
stay cost effective and go for PC-21?
Best option in my opinion.
trade rafale for pampa with argies?
So Argies get 4 Rafales and French get 30 Pampas? :p
I doubt either the French or cash strapped Argies would do this. Argentina can’t afford to maintain cheaper aircraft ala A-4 Skyhawk, let alone a Rafale. France would not want to aggravate Falkland Islands situation or risk offending UK.
.
Other choice is Hawk Mk 128 derivative. This is probably the best option, especially if partnered with RAF (who are getting Hawk T.2) to get economies of scale in terms of logistics and maintenance.
thobbesAlso the article talks about commitment to ” a five-point plan to underpin a second round of peace talks on Syria in Geneva” and not the American no-fly zone plan.
Other than Britain, most European partner states are treading lightly on more involved intervention.
thobbesRussians won’t allow US-NATO to subvert UN no-fly zones like they did in Libya.
NATO itself is divided on Syria – Germany (far more important to Russia’s interest) is against sending arms to Syrian rebels let alone military intervention. Same happened in Libya. Italians are also alarmed at these developments.
All the Americans and British are doing with their intervention addiction is weaken and fracture NATO.
thobbesWho are they sub-deterring?
The Germans or the Spaniards or the English or the Italians? Maybe the Belgians, the Swiss or maybe Andorra!
Hence any large scale war they enter must be expeditionary in nature. France no longer has the capability to do this and hasn’t for decades. Any large scale conventional war they get invovled with will have to be as a coalition partner.
As the whole of Europe lacks large scale conventional capability (even Britain can only deploy 1-2 reinforced brigades and certainly not a division, let alone a corps or army), this alliance by default is with USA who provides sub-deterrence through both conventional and nuclear means.
SLBMs serve the deterrence purpose well enough .
thobbesSpying’s been around since man first started beating each other over the head with a rock.
Why is this all viewed with such astonishmenbt.
thobbesGiven French conventional forces don’t have the numbers required for any large conventional conflict where sub-deterrence is required, I do not see need for sub-deterrence nuclear ability.
Sign In
