I have to agree, aircraft like the Su-25 and A-10 are probably increasingly outmoded. As you say, against a peer opponent the air defence environment is much more deadly these days, so going into harm’s way with little sophisticated EW, relying primarily on an unusual ability to absorb actual damage, is no longer advisable. OTOH, for COIN without advanced threats an armoured, jet-powered combat aircraft is overkill – Predator/Reaper-style UAVs, in combination with attack helos, can perform the same missions at lower cost (very long time on station for UAVs).

The only reason why I think the Su-25SM upgrade makes sense is because it’s very cheap and Russia will continue to lack both UAVs as well as suitable small PGMs in the required numbers for some time to come. With Russian UAV production still having some ways to go before results can be expected the upgraded Frogfoots will provide a useful interim capability.

A guy called Douglas Campbell (former A-10 pilot) made a highly specialised study on this subject and produced a very interesting book called “The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate”. It got him a doctorate.

In that book he describes the continuous attempts of the US Airforce to get rid of the warthog claiming that it was to simple, not able to operate in high risk environments and easy to replace by F-16 (and now, god forbid, the F-35)

Unfortunately for the same airforce, reality (both gulf wars, the Iraq battles after that war had officially ended, Afghanistan) showed over and over again that it was a highly valuable asset.

I highly recommend that first class book because it gives a real insight in the needs of close air support, and how politics have have a very unhealthy impact on decisions vital for the war fighter.

So yes, the SU-25 and A-10 will be relevant in the near (or not so near) future. If not only because reality (again) shows that the theories and promises surrounding these fancy fifth generation fighters and ultimately complex UCAV are not so easy to realise with current knowledge and technology.

[QUOTE=j_jza80;1844167]Actually, with a population approaching 70 million We’re not just some small island.
QUOTE]

really???

compare your poor 70 million with the 1.2 billion from India, the 1.3 billion from china, 300 million for the US… 70 million IS Small, also when we do not accept or realise it!

and about that war 70 years ago: The UK lost in that war +/- 1% of its population, nearly the same as France, Italy and Belgium.

Thanks God for the British determination not to surrender then and have a leadership understanding the they could not leave Europe behind!!!

Dedicated airframes.

However, use common engines, sensors, equipment etc as much as possible.

For instance – if the USN had decided to build a proper naval heavy fighter – you’d spec up something like:

• 2 engines for over water survivability[*]Long loiter time at low speeds (i.e. long range)[*]High dash speeds[*]Medium focus on energy maneuverability – the core aim would be to finish the fight at arms length, in close = too close to the carriers[*]Good approach characteristics[*]Strong focus on radar capable of operating independent of AWACS cover

If the USAF wanted a lo to complement the F-22.

• 1 engine for cost[*]Medium range[*]High dash speeds[*]Excellent energy maneuverability (even sacrificing dash speed to attain it)[*]Medium focus on radar

If the USMC insisted on its STOVL

• 1 engine for weight[*]Short range – cant carry large fuel load off LHD anyway[*]Low dash speed – the LHD will be close to the action[*]Low focus on energy maneuverability[*]Low focus on radar

So, in the end you could have:

• Common engine[*]Common radar back end (i.e. APG-81 back end) but different front ends with different dish sizes having different T/R counts[*]Common MAWS/RWR[*]Common IRST[*]Common display avionics

So, you’d still get the best aircraft for each service.

3 separate airframes, without aerodynamic compromises but common systems where possible = the best of all worlds.

1 common airframe with many aerodynamic compromises is a joke. JSF is a result of structuring a program that is more tailored to political ideals than engineering reality.

Fantastic viewpoint!!!

I would add interoperability standards to your mix to allow that newly developed (and higher performing) common parts can replace (plug and play) parts of existing planes… or that “too good to throw away” parts in old airframes can be build into new airframes.

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…

Now this is the single biggest problem of the UK: That after 2000 years of history they stuill have not understood that they are a small island and that Europe’s fait is their fait.

As for ordering Rafale, no thanks, I’d rather go with Superhornet, especially since the French are trying their hardest to destroy the British economy.

Sarkozy was actually trying to save the british economy from the greed of its bankers (who are the source of the whole financial crisis remember).

but he was stopped by Uk politicians (who are famous for using tax payers money for paying the maintenance of their swimming pools) , and shot down by british newspapers (whose reputation is also fairly doubtfull).

In fact, what economy are yuo referring too? Friom where I am sitting, most of it is fairly broke?

Does anyone doubt at this point that the interests of the United States would’ve been better served by USMC receiving nothing and USN and USAF receiving a better performing aircraft on time and on budget?

Considering the new emphasis on airforce and naval, moving away from Marines, in the new strategic views of Obama, most probably…

but building another 100 F-22, and buy a mix of F-15SE, Super hornets, and latest generation F-16 to support that core would even be better.

The F35C apparently can’t land on a carrier deck because the tailhook is in the wrong place.

The UK Secretary of State for Defence has just stated that any further delay to the F35C would be politically hard to swallow for the UK Government.

I am flabbergasted and gobsmacked…..

Are we looking at a UK cancellation or deferment of orders until there is a viable F35C?

I assume that BAE will just soldier on and benefit from the programme if and when it gets going?

Considering a recent deal between UK and France for naval cooperation on aircraft carriers,

and the continuing reprots of F-35 being late, ultra expensive and full of difficulties,

it would be nothing but good sense to buy some Rafale now, maintain naval power until, if ever, F-35 can be added to the naval air fleet.

and let’s admit it, a design error putting the arresting hook in the wrong place??? if that does not able to raise significant doubts on the f-35, then what is???

It seems a simpler design to me, certainly less extra weight and compromise to the overall design to (attempt) to get STOVL. That would suggest less challenges…with the rather large caveat that STOVL could be made to work.

That is of course if you think STOVL and the compromises it brings are worth it. 😀

I always wanted the F-35 to be highly succesful (becasue I believe that the western way of living is worth protecting) … and I was always convinced that it would be a failure!

The specifications are just way to ambitious,certainly when these specifciations had to be achieved by delivering a cheap aircraft.

And I never understood what the value is of a warplane that can carry almost no weapon load to give it one single advantage (stealth) over everything else that is flying.