SanemLol, nice find.
This is why I’m all for replacing part of the fast jet inventory of western air forces with UAVs:
– they’re much better suited for most missions modern air forces fly, like Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia…
– at a much lower price, $10 million (high class UAV) versus $50 million (low class fighter) per aircraft, $400 versus $4000 per flight hour, and a few million more for the fighter pilot’s training and safety (priceless).
– but are also extremely useful domestically, for example police, border patrol, SAR, fire fighting, disaster response…
And then they insist on buying the F-35 :eek:. You can have a dozen UAVs for the cost of just one of those.
Sanemcurious to hear the Taranis will fly this year, BAe is being very secretive about its UAV programs compared to its American counterparts, considering how far its UCAV is at this point
I am curious how far LMT is taking UCAVs compared to Boeing and NG, who did participate in the J-UCAS and UCAS-N programs, but don’t have operational UCAVs in action
the F-35 not having a second pilot has always been my biggest beef, that makes it a less useful as a UCAV controller platform. a second seat would fix that a bit, but the cost will still be way too high for my taste for a single engine aircraft
edit: drool on this Predator C video: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/06/video-avenger-billed-as-attrit.html
SanemI personally believe the Rafale is the overall better platform, maybe not in AtoA, but when it comes to offset etc, it will be hard for France to keep up with 4 of the worlds biggest economies.
from a military point of view I agree that the Rafale has some serious advantages, having a dependable sole-source seller, who’s already your second biggest arms supplier
but from a strategic, political and economic point of view Typhoon is the obvious choice
also because Japan will choose the Typhoon when that ship called “JSF Titanic” hits that iceberg called “Reality”, linking Japan and India against common opponent China
finally, I believe this will be a good wake up call for France, and make them think twice about pulling out from the UCAV program like they did last time
SanemBut Italy has a new carrier, designed around the F-35B, & which will outlast its complement of Harriers by many years!
so does Spain (also in huge economic trouble). and like the UK, these countries are also heavily invested in the Typhoon
I fear that in the best case scenario all three countries will have to choose between the Typhoon and the F-35 at some point, and it doesn’t look good for the F-35
edit: the good news is that this opens the door for a STOVL UCAV program
Sanemlooks like Italy is having second thoughts too, seems like the F-35B might be losing supporters
like I said, I doubt the F-35 will even survive the next few years
SanemLifefist confirms it, EF is possibly the L1. Cites WSJ’s article and some very “strong rumors” floating around.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2012/01/eurofighter-lowest-bidder-in-indian.html
damned, failed to buy BAe shares when they were at 250 pounds recently, now they’re at 290 and rising
either way, it was a non-competition, India is already investing heavily in the Mirage 2000, it preferes to diversify its supplier base
Sanemthey reduce numbers because they have no cash to buy them. if they want a naval aircraft, and the F-35 ceases to be an option, they have no choice but to go for an aircraft in which BAe have no benefit (unless they can negotiate something, but setting a production line for a small series of aircraft may prove costly as well, so…), be it Sh or rafale
yes, but cancelling the Typhoons will cost a lot of money too, so my question is which is cheaper
– converting the Typhoon (expensive)
– pay cancellation fees (expensive) and build a foreign aircraft (expensive)
as I said, buying off the shelf aircraft in which the UK has no stake will be extremely difficult politically, as the UK will be in serious economic difficulties by that time, so to spend money on aircraft you can’t really afford for carriers that you can’t really afford will be hard enough, never mind spending the money abroad
They should buy off the shelf and use that as some leverage on some other project shared with the french, or that the french may want. If they buy from the US there’s no leverage to be had and they’re going to get shafted again.
I’m guessing this will be the eventual solution. here the French have a leg up over the US, as the US doesn’t allow well for foreign participation in their own programs (for example with the F-35 the UK is still greatly limited in operational freedom and technological property) and they’re already looking at participating in UCAV programs (carrier launched possibly? contrary to LMT Dassault does have experience with that)
Politicians and the MOD chopped up so many other programs, dumping the F-35 would hardly be any more severe than some of the existing cuts. And, unlike the F-35, some of those programs cancelled by the politicians and MOD had real value.
certainly now that the RR engine has been cut and the focus shifted from the F-35B to the F-35C (not an accident if you ask me, the RN must have been itching to switch to “big boy” carriers), the UK has a lot less economic interests in the JSF program, and the F-35C is actually the most likely to get cancelled (least defended by its service, several strong alternatives)
Sanem$20 million? I wouldn’t bet too much on it. Then that new aircraft which *may* look like a typhoon from far away would need to be thoroughly tested, all of which would add costs, and costs going far beyond the $2bn your +$20m amount suggests for a 100 aircraft figure.
don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of the Sea Typhoon, as I mentioned I’m for the X-47b, in my eyes it’s the only real step forward
Besides, as the UK already can’t buy the Typhoons it agreed to buy in the first place, it is qquite likely they won’t even buy 100 naval aircraft, increasing even further the pricetag per aircraft.
this however is my point, how can the UK afford to reduce Typhoon numbers, and then order an aircraft in which BAe has no stake whatsoever? after the Typhoon and carriers financial fiasco’s, with a decreasing national economy, this will go down very badly politically
the F-18 could be built locally, but that would give its own difficulties and the UK would not have full access to a lot of technology it’s paying for (as the Australians found out)
Do not misunderstand, I am not anti-European in any sense, but the relationship with Europe is pretty complex, and any procurement must reflect the best interests of the UK, and not the interests of Europe…
true, but the US policy isn’t always in the best interests of the UK, and the US has always purposefully divided the EU so it couldn’t fuse into what would be the biggest economic power in the world
also before WW2, the US military considered the UK a major potential adversary. the Cold War and the last 2 decades have held up this relatively new political alliance, but for example a serious economic recession is likely to drive the UK towards Europe
SanemTyphoon’s characteristics make it a poor candidate for conversion to carrier operation. That means it can be expected that navalisation would be a very expensive business with a high degree of risk. Spending £ billions to make it flyable onto carriers would not make economic sense when less than 100 would be needed and cuts to other defence spending would probably need to be made.
well, 100 x F-35 at $140 million each = $14 billion. that’s a big budget, for just one carrier aircraft group
assuming the F-35C fails (and I believe it will), the RN has the choice between
– use the F-18, which the UK has no share in building, while the US operates little or no UK built aircraft. the F-18 is also a step back in many ways
– use the Rafale, which the UK has no share in building, but the UK and France are looking into sharing a carrier and the design for the future of their aviation, namely UCAVs
– convert the Typhoon. even at $20 million extra per aircraft, this will still allow the UK to use a UK built and supported aircraft. what is more, the RN could take over RAF orders which will probably be cut, avoiding cancellation costs. this will allow the UK military to also spread maintenance, upgrade and training costs for a single aircraft
India would not appear to be in the market even if Typhoon were selected for MMRCA, given that 2 types have already been selected for their carriers.
true, but if for any reason Russia or the Tejas fails to deliver (as they have before), India could decide to look at alternatives. if India already builds and operates the Typhoon (which it probably will), it would certainly be a preferred choice
The hook attachment location and the length limit of the hook are fundamental to the basic configuration, which was designed by a team with no carrier experience.
my point exactly, and yet the USN, the most experienced and professional carrier aircraft operator in the world, failed to communicate the importance of these aspects, which to me suggests the possibility that they did so on purpose
I mean, landing is the most difficult factor for operating carrier aircraft, so isn’t that the first thing you stress to the builder when you order a new design?
Sanemmore here
and here (2010 article), a page that also defines the costs per flight hour as
$1100 for the K-Max
$2700 for the Fire Scout
$4600 for the Black Hawk
I’m surprised by the higher cost for the smaller Fire Scout, is the dual rotor that much cheaper?
export possiblities also seem interesting, especially as NG has demonstrated transplanting the Fire Scout system into the bigger Bell 407, and suggests that the same can be done with locally built helicopter like the UK’s Gazelle
SanemMaybe a lightly pessimistic picture, Sanem, don’t you think? 😉
actually, that’s the best case scenario I’m working from 😉
my argument is that any future military budgets will be much lower than the current ones, which will have a major impact, especially on survival chances of the F-35C, the USN’s unwanted b@$t@rd child
in the end I’m betting on the X-47B: the USN is sure to buy it, it’ll be cheaper and in many ways more capable than the F-18 and the F-35, it’ll combine well with the Rafale (for manned missions and air-superiority, although the UCAVs will proably be able to use AMRAAMs), the UK doesn’t have to train carrier pilots from scratch, and they’ll be perfectly USN carrier compatible
SanemSee EP’s blog for a good overview of the tailhook problem.
A history of USN fighters and a discussion of the F-35C tailhook issue: tommythomason.com
My two cents:
– The USN never has been fully invested into the JSF program. Where the USAF and USMC prepared no other alternatives, the USN has two, the F-18E/F (G/H?) and the X-47b. And the USN has also never really used a USAF fighter (F-111 and F-22 tried and failed), or recently bought from anyone but Boeing and NG.
The USN also leaked information about the F-35 having higher maintenance costs than legacy fighters. And now it seems they forgot to stress the imporantce of the arrestor hook location to LMT who has never built a USN fighter.
It sounds far fetched, but they did it before.
– As for an alternative, the F-35A has little competition (with the US, Canada and Australia anyway), while the F-35B is the only modern STOVL design on the market (leaving the USMC, Spain, Italy, and Japan with little alternatives).
But the F-35C has to compete with the F-18, the Rafale and soon the X-47B. The UK to me also seems more likely to go for a navalized Typhoon, as BAe has little or no stake in the F-18 (or the Rafale), while a Sea Typhoon seems easy enough to convert (which will generate more British jobs), will boost Typhoon production lines and also puts the Typhoon on the table for Indian carriers.
– Politically, I fear the budget cuts we’re seeing are the just first raindrops before the storm. A serious economic recession will see the US pulling back many oversea’s troops, a total stop on the JSF program, and a left behind Europe uniting (something the US has always purposefully blocked) in the face of a more agressive Russia (which, again, will become stronger without US meddling) and an explosive situation in the Middle East.
War with Iran will only hasten this disaster btw, not only will oil prices skyrocket by fear alone, Iranian insurgent tactics will also seriously hamper oil production and export in the region. This won’t be another quick military victory like in Iraq, this could very well start WWIII.
Sanemhere’s a hint
– B-2 total cost/aircraft $2.1 billion
– F-22 total cost/aircraft $361 million
– F-35 total cost/aircraft $300+ million (if history teaches us anything, it’ll end up being $600+ million)
the USN is working on the X-47b: total cost/aircraft expected to be $50 million, predicted to have excellent range, stealth, decent payload and you can launch them off carriers
maybe for a change the USAF could wait for the Navy to make something that works at the agreed price, and then buy it
that’ll drive down the price even more, allow the services to share aircraft, costs, upgrades, training… and you can even launch air force aircraft off carriers if needed (very interesting in the Pacific area)
which will give the US a huge number of stealthy and effective yet cheap and expendable aircraft, that aren’t too valuable to be used
SanemTo the original poster, I generally agree with snafu352:
– the F-35’s greatest advantage is its technology, which is a decade ahead of anything else in the world.
Unfortunally that gives two problems:
1) it’s being rushed, so the technology will probably be less effective than is hoped for, or take longer and be more expensive to actually work.
2) it won’t be operational for another decade, by which time every peer opponent will have similar technology on its own jets, but more mature and at a much lower cost.
– it’s second advantage is LO frontal stealth. This is sufficient in a ground attack scenario, with F-22’s providing air cover and the most advanced SAM you face is the S-300. But this is less than optimal for air combat, because the F-35 will often expose its flanks to the enemy, and advanced radars are quickly reducing the LO advantage (the T-50 for example also brings x-band radars that will defeat its stealth). Plus it also means the F-35 can’t use its own radar, ECM or communications at full potential.
And than I’m not taking into account other factors, like spies at the air base passing on take offs, IR and optical detection from the ground and space which will probably easily track the F-35 (and even the F-22). Against a peer opponent, stealth is a hard thing to achieve. The Typhoon has the advantage that it doesn’t have to maintain stealth, freeing up its options.
– and than there are the economic and political factors. If the US fails to field the F-35 in the numbers promised (as they have with pretty much every advanced aircraft in the last decades), costs will probably be much higher. Hell, in the current economic crisis, I’m not sure the F-35 will even live to see operational capacity, or in an F-111 fashion at best.
The Typhoon on the other hand has a hot production line, plenty of clients (most of whom will be happy to let Japan take over their orders), and has a great evolutionary potential (with plenty of research and production work for Japan, and probably India).
I do see use for the F-35 as a jet fighter, if used correctly. You can use one F-35 as a spotter, detecting targets at maximum range with its powerful sensors, and than launch missiles from other, stealthy F-35s (flying ahead).
But even here the Typhoon is better alternative, with a comparable radar and a longer reach with its Meteor missiles and kinetic performance. Plus the fact that the T-50 and probably J-20 will be able to detect the F-35 at missile range (or certainly when it launches). The F-35s limited number of missiles will also greatly impede its offensive capacity, especially against a stealthy enemy or in an ECM heavy environment it’ll quickly run out of missiles.
My personal guess is that this is an excuse for the Japanese military to divert from a purely defensive force to a more offensive one. In which case the F-35 brings more to the table, but I still believe an updated Typhoon will be a better alternative for the cost. The F-35 is simply too expensive to use in a serious conflict against China and/or Russia.
My advice (as always) would be go for UAVs: use cheap UAVs as a first line of defence, as bait and flying missile launchers, and use stealthy UCAVs as silent killers, ambushing any detected enemy aircraft and using their VLO stealth to avoid counter-attacks.
Manned fighters will be very useful here, controlling the UAVs from nearby. But not the F-35, which can’t carry a second pilot as an operator and has to maintain its stealth.
SanemSanem, thank you very much, its rare to find thinkers like yourself and to agree with them on so many points!
I have the same sentiment, although I’ve become so used to people disagreeing with me that I actually prefer them, challenge is the best motivator for evolution 😉
I certainly like the info you give from your part of the world, it’s rare to come across in the West and provides a lot of inspiration
This is my fear, that air warfare is critical to war itself, and the technology landscape is revolutionary – anyone who calls the right tactics will be able to do what Hitler and his generals did with the technology wave of that era. We are living at the edge of an Alvin Tofflerian third wave that may change the political landscape of the world.
Funny you’d say that, Putin is being quoted to have told his generals to prepare for Armageddon.
I’m currently most influenced by Ray Kurzweil, who predicts we’ll have AI in a few decades and virutal immortality by 2050, and Ravi Batri who predicts the US (and I believe Europe and Japan) will go bankrupt soon (his latest estimate is 2016, but I believe the Incas were right and it’ll be december 2012)
either way I’d suggest Pakistan stick with China, they’ll be the new world power, and I’m emptying my bank accounts: I find it hard to discuss military strategy, because I believe the world will change completely within a year (to the day). and that’s without taking in account oil shortages and WW III in the Middle East
2. My own analysis is that this extends to military development. In a book I published recently I claim the following (I apologize if this is not to your liking as it is written for a different audience):
thanks, I now have enough literature for the whole of next year 😉
Sign In
