Concurrency costs are not included in the above numbers.
That’s the scary thing about concurrency – each of those upgrades add to an already high price tag for the early build aircraft. Problem is early build is a few hundred aircraft.
It’s not surprising Australia and Turkey delayed aircraft. I would too if I had to spend millions upgrading them to operational standard.
Scooter, could you please define “operate together”?
Also what sort of opponent are we talking? Bombing Iran or Syria would probably be similar in terms of tactics as Iraq in 2003 with LO aircraft (including B-2s) and cruise missiles pounding critical C4 and ADS centres.
Also are the 5th gen + 4.5th genners on the offense or defense?
Obviously strategy and tactics change considerably between a planned offensive operation like Iraq 2003 and an ad hoc defensive operation like Yom Kippur in 1973 or Japanese assault in 1941-42.
Iranians and Saudi are totally different ethnic groups, why would Saudi have anything to do with Iran.
I suspect it’s sarcasm. 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabs yet US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, we couldn’t see another Iraq or Vietnam type conflict???
Not in terms of air combat or quality of air defences, at least during the lifespan of the 4.5th and 5th generation fighters you mentioned..
The most modern enemy AD encountered by Western forces since 1991 were in 1991. Since then enemy AD encountered has degraded to the odd MANPADs and RPG.
The number of countries with functioning air defence networks or air forces has decreased significantly since 1991.
The number of countries with relatively modern forces is even less and nearly all of those are NATO or US allied (i.e. those in Asia or Middle East).
my point was how would 4.5 and 5th Generation Tactical Fighters be employed as a INTEGRAL FORCE.
Same as now most likely.
Do the 4.5th generation actually change things that much? Not really – hence they’re classified as Generation 4.5.
The 5th generation add LO into the mix and the F-35 is more network focused.
It depends on the opponent.
Against the type of opponents fought in the last 20 odd years there is no real change from 4th generation jets used currently.
Sure they’re more networked and more efficient in some ways, but there is no real difference in bombing largely defenceless insurgents and 3rd world conscripts.
There are no likely peer level opponents outside of WWIII type scenarios (i.e. China and Russia).
And then it becomes interesting if the opponent’s EW, TBM and other capabilities gloves are off.
With regards to rumoured Singaporean F-35 buy, it now seems the Singaporeans are interested in 12 more F-15SG’s and NOT 12 F-35s:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/singapores-rsaf-decides-to-fly-like-an-eagle-01141/
They’ll probably buy F-35s down the line (after all there’s about 34 F-5s that need replacing and then even further down the line F-16s).
It probably means lower F-35 buys though.
Swiss Hornets are relavitvely new (delivery started about 1996) and they are going through an upgrade that will be completed by 2016.
That means they’ll probably be in service to 2030. Will SAAB be producing Gripen derivatives or fighters by then?
I don’t think there’s a market for it.
I think Yak-130 and T-50 are much more marketable and then due to cost more so than any capability.
And low end users don’t need LO – they need bomb trucks and basic air policing capability.
Most countries on the planet don’t even have operational air defence networks. Heck many have poor civil radar coverage.
So why would you need LO?
I actually think LO is pointless for anyone but the major powers and then only those powers who believe they have a need to maintain peer level conventional warfighting capability. For anyone else, a Eurocannard/upgraded Teen series is more than sufficient.
Do you need LO to bomb Libya, Afghanistan, Mali or Iraq or bomb terrorists/insurgents in Pakistan and Yemen?
But anyhow……I would say the Marines, while technicaly part of the Navy, have grown more and more independant of them in the last 20 years or so, and are now all but an independant branch of service.
I agree.
The result is a second army and a second airforce.
Thoiugh they’ve arguably been this since Korea.
Never understood the need for duplicate forces.
But anyhow……I would say the Marines, while technicaly part of the Navy, have grown more and more independant of them in the last 20 years or so, and are now all but an independant branch of service.
I agree.
The result is a second army and a second airforce.
Boeing’s analysis shows that the USN could save $5 billion with the improved engines installed over the life of the Super Hornet fleet, Gibbons says.
I’d never trust a vender supplied analysis.
Coca Cola isn’t going to tell you that drinking lots of Coke makes your teeth rot. 😉
2KN hve been launched against ground target as early as the early 90’s. After GWI and the Jag perfs, there was probably a deficit in A2G platform.
In 95 for example, A 2KN was shot down over Pro-Serb held territories over Bosnia by a Sa-7
That was before all 2000Ds were delivered or Rafales started entering squadron service.
Also right now there’s only 1 squadron out of 3 original ones still equipped with M2000N (EC 02.004 La Fayette).
According to following link, squadrons role is nuclear deterrence:
EC 01.004 Dauphine has been disbanded whilst EC 03.004 Limousin is now training squadron equipped with Dassault Alpha Jets.
Reports indicate only 23 x Mirage 2000N still in active service as at 1/09/11.
My guess is Spain will be the last operator of the AV-8B then adopt the F-35B, logically they will dispatch some pilots on exchange with the RAF/FAA, Italian Navy and USMC. Considering their economic situation flogging the AV-8B as long as possible until F-35B production costs creep down is logical.
My guess is Spain will go all helo for Juan Carlos airwing after the Harriers are retired.
The Spaniards are in extremely deep poop. There are some major economic hurdles in the economy that need to be resolved.
Spanish economy did well because of a speculative property boom that in the end busted and created massive unemployment (26% or more than 1 in 4 working Spaniards).
Without that boom to prop up employment, the Spaniards need to find other avenues of growth and in particular stable economic growth.
And being tied to EU and Euro, means it’s difficult to create economic advantages in terms of devalued currency or operate outside standards set up by various EU agencies in terms of legislation or monetary policy.
So I don’t think they’ll be able to maintain such a large military in the future.
The same goes for Portugal, Italy and Greece who all maintain quite large militaries when compared to their richer northern neighbours.
Indeed Italy is already cutting it’s forces by 20% between now and 2015.
And Portugal is also making cutbacks – e.g. selling at least a quarter of their fighter fleet.
Hence I guess no F-35B for the Armada.
Politicians can be very dumb:
(a) they can see their role as providing a spectrum of services apart from defence to their citizens
(b) they can see the ability to join in first day air strike operations as of little importance
(c) they can fail to see that buying non-US kit is foolish if you are a member of NATO
I’m hoping this is sarcasm, in which case I agree 100%.
As for Switzerland, 33 F/A-18C/D is more than sufficient for their needs.
Does Malaysia claim those same islands – the question was RMAF v TNI-AU.
If China is sending J-20s down to the Spratleys, then SE Asia is already royally #$%^ed.
Odd squadrons of Typhoons or KFX’s are not going to stop a full scale assault on SE Asia.
And PLA getting so bold as start dismantling SE Asia’s token military forces means the Americans aren’t willing to help and that China has developed proper expeditionary warfare capability (or has rumbled armoured divisions through Vietnam or Thailand).
Seems like a cut and paste of Japan’s forays in 1942.
At least the Royal Navy no longer has ships to be sunk in the area! :D:diablo:
Indonesia has no claim over the Spratleys. Claims are made by China, Brunei, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan and Malaysia.
