thobbesYou keep making the same mistake that most naysayers do… you are comparing APUC of the current LRIP to Flyaway of a later LRIP batch or more likely an MYB FRP batch.
Very true but even General Bogdan isn’t saying that F-35 price will be as low as $75m.
Furthermore the numbers are in mid-air right now, especially for international customers and are looking to be far lower than initially predicted.
thobbesBut then would it not make more sense to up-grade the F-16s and buy more F-35 faster, than to have such a small sub-fleet of limited worth.
It’s only a small fleet when compared to the F-16. There’s also only 219 F-15Es and 185-ish F-22s. Also only about 350 A-10s and the fleet is set to decline with deactivation of 5 sqaudrons (81 FS goes this June and the rest are ANG).
As for limited worth, it’s still extremely valuable as a top of the line air superiority fighter.
And the air superiority fleet is small (360 a/c) compared to the mainly bomb truck dedicated aircraft (F-16, A-10, F-15E – 1,600 aircraft).
– – – Updated – – –
[quoteI think i see the spinn angle of yours.. you are butt hurt due to the reason F-15C/E still see a relative huge upgrade package, while your beloved F-16 do not, at least not anything close the the F-16V roadmap..[/quote]
I’d say it was cause they weren’t buying more F-35s. In Scooters mind they should probably buy F-35s instead of KC-46s and CH-47s.
thobbesBecause the F-16’s were outclassed by the Libyan Air Force. I think your forgetting a number of other factors.
Wow, the statements get stupider and stupider. So Norwegian F-16s where outclassed by Libyan AF MiG-23 and MiG-21bis? In another thread you’re claiming F-16 is awesome.
And if Norwegian F-16s were outclassed, why did the Danes, Belgians and Dutch keep their same standard F-16s in theatre dropping bombs to the end of the war?
Scooter, your statements are approaching sheer idiocy from stating Albania and Luxembourg will be acquiring F-35s to stating that Libyan AF actually had anything to match NATO airpower. I think you might be out of your depth buddy.
– – – Updated – – –
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/…1000000-n1.htm
Japanese are crying because their cost of first four F-35 acquisition just went up 81% due to exchange rate rise and the cost overrun of the F-35 itself.
Japanese parliament originally approved 10.4 billion yen as the unit price of first four units to be directly imported, but that figure has risen to 18.9 billion yen due to the exchange rate shift and the rise in the cost of F-35 itself.
Because the signed contract was an FMS contract, Japanese government must pay for this cost rise
There is a real risk of Japanese F-35 procurement going the same way as the AH-64D procurement disaster (only 10 out of required 60+ were acquired).
They might end up with a mere handful of F-35s which will be essentially non-combat effective.
thobbesMaybe you have a realistic example in mind. I see non sofar. Just to remember in a given space the useful quantity is limited or it goes out of control. Watch Alexander the Great about that f.e. (Battle of Gaugamela), where quality had beaten quantity . Running out of time in a critical moment (Midway 1942) can not be corrected by surplus numbers at least when not at hand in the critical area. When the time is no limit the bigger numbers will win in the long run, when not outclassed in quality.
However even Quality requires some sort of Quantity to maintain efficiency, redundancy, flexibility and overall geographic coverage.
It’s interesting that in areas where there is still a risk of conventional war (Middle East, South Asia and North Asia as well as Greece-Turkey), large fleets of 3rd (F-4/F-5/-8/Jaguar/Mirage III/V) and in some case second generation fighters (MiG-21/F-7) are kept as well as 4th generation fighters.
While a MiG-21 or F-5E might be relatively worthless against a Su-30 or F-16, the approach is probably to use the 4th generations for air superiority/priority strike and the 2nd/3rd generation for ground attack and also guarding non-priority areas.
Remember the IADS in these instances are not bullet proof (as witnessed by necessary deployment of NATO Patriots to Turkey) so a 2nd/3rd gen aircraft with relevant ECM/RWR still has some chance of getting through.
thobbesThanks for the update. That makes a lot of sense.
So a squadron is more similar to a flight or is it a true squadron as in capable of independent ops (flights are generally not).
thobbesThe F-35 would operate in a number of missions.
Sure, except given numbers their only tasking would be air policing.
Do you understand how fighter squadrons work – you’ve got aircraft for training pilots, aircraft for policing and other aircraft in routine maintenance. There’s also often aircraft out for major upgrades.
And sometimes pilot allocation is less than fighter aircraft assigned (in Australia a while back there was only 40 pilots of 95 cpombat aircraft).
So whilst you may have 20 a/c assigned to a squadron, the amount of aircraft available for combat ops may be only small. Throw in pilot numbers and it can get even smaller to the point of negligible combat impact.
The odds are all will stick with the F-35.:D
Belgium isn’t sticking with anything as it hasn’t even started looking for an F-16 replacement. 😛
They only do so because they can’t afford the F-35 at this time. (maybe later)
How about never. They generally figure they’re too small to operate any sort of fast jets and simply outsource it to be a bigger partner.
Some of these countries also don’t operate armour or any artillery.
They look at contributing to NATO in other ways – eg Slovenia has a mountain warfare training centre. They also might provide special operations or other services.
Happens all the time and even a small number can be useful in a number of missions.
It does, but this is based on fleets of 80+ aircraft for Dutch and Canadians. Danes did well with their small fleet of 48 F-16s, but Norwegians had to pull out of Libya early with a fleet of 54 F-16s.
This is about what I mentioned initially – it’s how aircraft are used.
thobbesWhich, were far less capable. A Single Strike Fighter today can attack multiple targets!
In high density conflict against someone who kind of knows what they’re doing, this sort of thing probably won’t happen.
NATO’s got used to cushy wars which are little more than target range practice.
Sorry, today we hardly have single role fighters anymore. As even the F-22 is being modified to operate in other roles than just Air Superiority.
That’s due to lack of funds.
Given resources, I’m sure the USAF would love dedicated types again.
Multi-role is jack of all trades, master of none.
No, more like 144 Aircraft………..Regardless, when was the last time the USAF was involved in an Air Engagement with more than a dozen aircraft?
If the last few colonial wars are what USAF should base it’s planning on, then scrap the F-35 and F-22 as well as F-15. F-16C is enough.
You don’t seem to realise the US needs an ability to wage war against the other big players, even if such warfare is unlikely.
My point is it’s a waste of money and the US would be better off order another 24 F-35’s instead. Which, would be far more valuable and would help bring down the cost per unit.
Given the USAF wants to keep F-15 to 2030, it could be F-35 isn’t going to be as capable as an F-15 in terms of pure A2A combat capability.
And that’s probably reason enough they’d rather spending money on upgrading 175 F-15s than buying 24 F-35s to get a marginal economy of scale.
We aren’t going to war with China.
It’s about being prepared in case it should ever happen.
Given last 3 wars West has been involved in (Mali, Afghanistan and Iraq), you should scrap all fast jets and reintroduce A-1 Skyraider. That’s sarcasm by the way.
So, you want to argue 38% vs 25%? With todays aircraft being vastly more capable!
Again we have vastly more capable aircraft equipped with vastly more capable weapons systems.
But the US is looking at those fellows in China and Russia and have figured out their Flankers are also vastly more capable than monkey model MiGs of old.
In order to advance in capability, you need to maintain numbers whilst improving the tech. Improving the tech whilst reducing numbers doesn’t actually improve capability as it makes you more susceptible to attrition and losses whilst losing flexibility.
Hence 175 upgraded F-15s is much more preferable in USAF eyes than 24 F-35s.
Note: Some of those missions have been taken over by UCAS.
Only recce.
SEAD/DEAD is performed by F-16CJ. Strike is by F-15E and F-16.
Yet, with current budget the USAF is going to have to make some hard choices!
And they figure upgrading F-15 is wise.
thobbesI looked up F-16 units in service in GW1 and the number was 13 squadrons.
Total USAF fleet deployed was about 40 fighter squadrons (F-4/-15/-16/-111/-117 and A-10) as well as 3 squadrons with EF-111 and 4 with RF-4C. There were also several B-52 wings. This does include composite squadrons made up of several units.
Total USAF tactical fleet today is about active 65 squadrons (F-15/-16/-22 and A-10) and several of those equipped with A-10 are scheduled to be retired.
Hence to maintain same level of tempo against an opponent in a similar technological boat to Iraq in 1991 (e.g. replace MiG-29 with Su-27, SA-6 with earlier S300 etc), would require 62% of the current active USAF force. Doesn’t leave much of a reserve.
Oh and some squadrons are far weaker now (18 a/c) as opposed to 24 in 1991.
Aircraft are more capable now, but numbers count. An F-16 might be worth 2-3 MiG-21s but it’s probably worth much less against a SU-27.
There are currently no likely adversaries with anything close to capability of Iraq in 1991.
But the numbers show what is required for those contingency plans against China or Russia.
thobbesThose countries are still planning on purchasing F-35.
Yep, my point is there’s no point in operating small forces of F-35 if all they’re going to be able to is airpolicing.
And Dnemark is having an open comp.
Belgium has not really announced anything but I think they’ll be going F-35 if Netherlands and Denmark go F-35.
That would be giving up all Air Cover for your nation to a foreign power! Would Australia do that……
Some NATO countries already have – Albania, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia.
As for the others, air policing to be provided by JAS-39, F-16C Blk 50 or F/A-50.
The point is they would operate the same type of aircraft that could be intergraded within an Allied Strike Force.
Except they don’t have the numbers to provide any aircraft to an Allied Strike Force and if they do, the ability to sustain it for any period of time (like Norwegians in Libya).
Deploying even 6 aircraft takes a lot of resources.
thobbesThe USAF only used 249 F-16’s during the first Gulf War. Todays F-16C are vastly more capable. So, that would be 25% of the projected fleet of Upgraded F-16C’s. Plus, we have more F-15E’s available then we had then.
We also have twice as many Strike Fighters (Hornets & Super Hornets) then we did back in both Gulf Wars!
I’m not sure what the point of this is.
You also still had several hundred F-111s and several hundred F-14s and A-6s which were excellent aircraft in 1991. And the F-14 was a top of the line interceptor in 1991.
There are less fighter squadrons now then back in 1991.
So despite the USAF having lots of F-111s for strike, F-4Gs for SEAD and USN having A-6s for strike, the air defence role still fell to F-15C/D and not F-16 or F/A-18 (though F/A-18s bagged two MiG-21s whilst en route in a strike mission.
Yet, you making that very case.
It’s number of operational depoloyable aircraft which is far more important. E.g. you have 100 F-35s but not a single deployable aircraft.
Or you have 187 F-22s but only 100 are combat coded.
Yet, you don’t count all the other types available. Including the other US Services and Allied Forces.
It’s the USAF that’s not considering the other types.
They view F-15 and F-22 as pointy end of air defence stick, not F-16s.
And I doubt the USAF is thinking “if we go to war with China, we’ll be relying on RAF or JASDF to provide air defence.”
As I stated above even if we matched the number of F-16’s used in the Gulf War it would only be a 25% of the Fleet. Which, excludes the nearly doubling of the US Navy’s Strike Fighter Fleet. Sorry, I think your case is weak.
249 F-16s is about 10-14 squadrons depending on aircraft allocation.
There is only 13 active combat coded squadrons in USAF. There is 20 in ANG/USAF Reserve (2 more are training). Some of these are only 18 a/c strong, others are 24. But lets average out at 20 a/c per squadron.
That equates to 660 F-16s in operational service.
249 a/c is 38% of the fleet. That’s a massive commitment.
Oh and with retirement of F-4G, A-7 and F-106, these F-16s have to do ground attack, SEAD/DEAD and defence of continental US under NORAD. Also F-15E never really replaced F-111 to any degree (14 F-111 sqns replaced by 8 sqn F-15E.
So without all those F-111s, F-4Gs and F-15s, you’d have to deploy a lot more F-16s!
I said don’t upgrade the projected 178 F-15C. Yet, we could still operate them for the next several years as is……
Yet the boffins in USAF have figured out the F-15 is required to 2030.
thobbesIf, your part of an Alliance you could be operating in a number of different parts of the world. I guess you are suggesting a number of countries should operate obsolete fighters or no fighters at all. Personally, I doubt most would agree with your assessment.
In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of countries in NATO
– already operate no fighters at all (Albania, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia)
– or operate obsolete aircraft (Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria)
– or have such small fleets that they could never deploy any in Expeditionary Warfare (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary and with cutbacks Portugal).
Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium are going to join them if current procurement plans are accurate.
In these instances, buy less sophisticated and cheaper fighters for air policing and invest in drones, transport, ISTAR etc and all these other assets that pop up as lacking every time NATO does anything.
Meanwhile the other bigger partners (France, UK, Italy) provides the fighter bombers.
thobbesReally, you believe any of the aforementioned will be able to counter the PAK-FA, J-20, and/or J-31 in the next ten years?
What Pak Fas or J-31s will be flying threateningly over the skies of Czech Republic or Netherlands or Portugal in next ten years? Have you been following any of the events since 1989?
In fact I seriously doubt there’ll be Pak Fas and J-20s operational in next 10 years period.
My point was buy cheap and nasty for air policing and invest balance in assets NATO is lacking in (without USA support). That means A2A refuellers, ISTAR, EW, SEAD/DEAD etc.
thobbesSorry, your not selling me.
Guess you know better than the USAF.
If, the USAF canceled the F-15C Upgrades. The USAF still would have a Fleet of over a thousand F-16C’s and 227 F-15E. Which, would be equipped with AESA Radars and a series of other upgrades. Plus, F-35’s will be coming online soon.
But the USAF needs those F-15Es and F-16s to drop bombs.
Furthermore, looking at pure numbers is irrelevant.
219 F-15s, but there’s only 8 active F-15E units (160 a/c).
Out of the F-16s, you need at least a couple of hundred to support the AETC assigned 56th Fighter Wing (6 squadrons purely dedicated to training). And at least 1-2 ANG training squadrons.
More are required for defence of continental USA (about a dozen squadrons).
Chuck in maintenance as well.
Hence cutting 175-250 F-15s is a huge chunk cut out of the available combat fleet.
The USAF is only one part of the package. You also have to consider USN, USMC, and Allied Air Forces. Clearly, we have more than enough fighters for almost any imaginable scenario even without the Upgraded F-15C’s. (Which, would could still operate for the next several years without the planned upgrades.)
The USAF is tasked with air superiority mission. It has worked out it needs a certain number of aircraft to perform that mission. Hence it needs F-15s to supplement F-22s.
The point is the F-16 is a very capable Air to Air Fighter. Also, in the F-15 vs F-16 Comparison the latter has nearly as good of a Air to Air Combat Record as the former. Yet, as you say the F-16 would used primarily as a ground attack fighter. Which, speaks volumes.
In USAF eyes, F-16 is insufficient for air superiority role.
Also, any likely conflict the US wouldn’t need F-16’s or even F-15’s to support the F-22’s.
You do realise there is only 6 F-22 combat coded units? One needs to maintain reserves and have resources to meet other operational needs.
If USA is in a war with China, US still needs assets for continental air defence or to act as reserves for other potential theatres.
Also Pacific is huge.
Hence USAF has figured out it needs a minimum number of jets to meet these kinds of scenarios (349 F-22s). As it can’t have 349 F-22s, it is upgrading F-15s.
As most likely scenario wouldn’t require a large number of aircraft. Plus, other Allied Fighter would likely be available. Such as the Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet, or Gripen.
For blasting insurgents and third world militias, you don’t even need fast jets.
Against Iran or North Korea or Syria, F-16C is sufficient.
The USAF is buying F-22s and F-35s not to bomb the third world but to maintain an edge over potential great power rivals like China and Russia. As F-35 is delayed and F-22 procurement ended at 187 a/c, USAF is upgrading F-15s to maintain an edge against potential peer level adversaries.
It’s kinda like Battleships pre WWI. You don’t need a Battleship to blow up some spear/musket wielding local in Sudan. You need battleships to maintain power on the sea against other similar countries, regardless of how unlikely battleship v battlehsip combat is.
thobbesJAS-39 or F-16C/D Blk 50 or for the poorer spectrum (Eastern Europe and some Western European) F/A-50 or even M-346 (e.g. Czechs operate 28 L-159 ALCA and were debating whether to get rid of supersonic fighters at all (currently a massive 14 JAS-39)).
And then for NATO style counter insurgency, buy some cheap UCAVs or more helicopters and transports of which there are never enough.
Even pump remaining dollars saved on expensive fighters on NATO Strategic Transport or for NATO ISTAR forces.
F-35 and even Eurofighter/Rafale is overkill for most NATO operations. Hell F-5 is innefficient for these type of ops.
thobbesCan you predict the UK economy and projected threats for the next 30 years?
Can you?
So, with 107 Typhoons and 48 F-35B’s the UK will have no need for more Lightings?:rolleyes:
In case your selective literacy is playing up again, I specifically stated:
“I think more F-35s will be ordered but then as replacements for Tranche 1 Eurofighters. I don’t see the RAF growing past it’s current combat 220 a/c allocation.”
Anyhow, wait for SDSR 2015.
Sign In
