This is a discussion on Is the F-35 doomed? within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; But that seems strange. Given modern GBAD, how does he expect those light fighters to perform missions in environments saturated ...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
But that seems strange. Given modern GBAD, how does he expect those light fighters to perform missions in environments saturated with S-300 class systems, covered by Tunguskas, Shilkas, and Pantsyrs, as well as Tor and Buk medium level systems? His light fighters will taken out in bucket-loads. Not to mention the larger heavier fighters they go up against will have an advantage in engagement ranges due to more powerful electronics, radar, etc.
Actually, the F-35 will take 5700 lb of internal weapons, pull 9G's with that, and carry well over 18000 pounds if including the wing stations.
Wheeler is comparing against the spesific requirements of the 1970-1980s. The F-35 probably wont replace the A-10 in some narrow tactical niches, but it will probably more than make up for that due to its vastly longer sensor reach, self protection, network and data fusion. Sure the A-10 can do repeated strafes, but it also has a slower resonse time. What works best will depend on the conflict, type of mission and quality of the operational planning as much as the technical abilties of the platform in question.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Agreed.
Somtimes tactics like striking medium/low, fast and be in the next valley when the boms hit the target are prefereble.
The A-10 cant do that, cause it dont have the speed.
Thanks
Last edited by Haavarla; November 13th, 2009 at 06:47 AM.
"Sprey, Wheeler et al. wants something radically different from todays concept of air power..."
There whole concept of war fighting is radically different. Its a fundamental philosophical difference.
They are of the opinion that the US is geared to fighting a 2 generational war, based on fire power not maneuver. There vision is a US military that is geared to fighting a war of movement, a third generational conflict, this is why they focus on tactical aviation so much.
I see what you mean(Internal vs external loud out), but weight (and a big belly)has always a aerodynamic penalty AFAIK.
Regards C.
You're absolutely right, although I would have to argue that you would still have to carry that weight in droptanks on a 4th gen fighter, limiting parts of the flight profile. However, as I think Spray (and thus Wheeler) is well aware of, it's more meaningfull to compare trust-to-weight and wing loading at comparable fuel fractions rather than some arbitrary fuel state. Doing so the F-35 comes out pretty much on par or even favorable to some of todays top fighters. Even better than the mighty F-16A.
That said, the F-16 showed that high wing loading does not necessarily mean lacklustre performance; even though it has a much higher wing loading it outperforms the F-15 in most cardinal performance parameters.
While I have no knowledge of aviation, I can't help thinking that it's odd that we continues to develop more and more complex, cabable and expensive systems while the conflicts that we fights grows more and more asymetrical and unsuited for our complex machines.
It's like we have transferred the raison behind the cold war's nuclear armament to conventional war, in which the new signal is: "Look how cabable, complex and expensive our machines are, you don't have a chance to build something nearly as cabable, complex and expensive; so you loose"
The surprising part is that we still have the nukes, the cold war's logic still applies to all circumstances in which these new machines also applies. And the cases in which our nukes don't apply, f.ex. the case of mr Bin Laden, or Mullah Omar of talliban, the new machines are equally ineffective.
In the mean time our soldiers come home in coffins - slained by some recycled wire and some fertilizer.
An analogy could be that soldiers in A-stan are using sophisticated vehicles, with advanced comms, esm, sigint, jammers, night vision and TIRs, robotic weapons mounts, central tire inflation, and armoured and designed to withstand or deflect IEDs, RPGs, and small arms fire.
Makes the mission possible in a whole other way than a M113 "Gavin" variant would.
The enemy would still use remote controlled explosive devices...
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
"Sprey, Wheeler et al. wants something radically different from todays concept of air power..."
There whole concept of war fighting is radically different. Its a fundamental philosophical difference.
They are of the opinion that the US is geared to fighting a 2 generational war, based on fire power not maneuver. There vision is a US military that is geared to fighting a war of movement, a third generational conflict, this is why they focus on tactical aviation so much.
I'm not sure if I'm reading you right, but to my eye, Wheeler would like to fight the way they did in WWII or Korea...
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
It would, imho, be a great idea to spend a lot more ressources on protecting our soldiers in A-stan from the primary weapon of the enemy. Then we could continue to bomb them with our F16s (or the like) well knowing that their obsolete RCS, is irrelevant since taliban doesn't have radars....
And we could say clearly that if a power wants to fight us, against whom our F16s aren't good enough.. then:
It would, imho, be a great idea to spend a lot more ressources on protecting our soldiers in A-stan from the primary weapon of the enemy. Then we could continue to bomb them with our F16s (or the like) well knowing that their obsolete RCS, is irrelevant since taliban doesn't have radars....
This is called this-war-itis. A military has to have to look at its future beyond a conflict like A-stan. What about conflicts where RCS does matter?
And we could say clearly that if a power wants to fight us, against whom our F16s aren't good enough.. then:
And what about everything between peace and nuclear war, e.g. the US disarmed massively after WWII, relying on nuclear weapons, only to find out it had to rearm conventionally to fight North Korea.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Well I see it as a balance act; Large powers like US, UK, Fr needs to be able to balance/dominate potential enemies, smaller powers might do better adding in other cababilities, in an allience structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
This is called this-war-itis. A military has to have to look at its future beyond a conflict like A-stan. What about conflicts where RCS does matter?
I don't think it's " this-war-itis", we can expect that these are conflicts that our army and securty forces will fight. That's not saying that our forces shouldn't be able to provide a credible deterence against a - realistic - traditional aggressive foe. As I read the ballance, NATO has a relatively huge (and useless) traditional fighting power against which there exists no credible enemy. So with or without 5th generation fighters, I see little difference.
On the otherhand there exists untraditional powers against which our huge traditional armies are useless. I think we should be much more concerned about that. Maybe then the west can change it's post WW2 record of loosing (or not-worth-the-effort) about every major war we fights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
And what about everything between peace and nuclear war, e.g. the US disarmed massively after WWII, relying on nuclear weapons, only to find out it had to rearm conventionally to fight North Korea.
Well, in my oppinion, NATO should be able to do a 1st. gulf war, not necessarely in such a sweeping, overpowered, fachion like it were conducted, but it should with in reach and acceptable cassulties.
In a replay of the korean war, I suggest that we this time start with the tactical nukes.
I am not advocating that we disarm, we should re-arm in my oppinion. But we should arm ourself to tomorrow's war, not yesterday's war.
OK, if the context is the Danish military then I think fighter jets do have their place especially when subcontracting to alliance ops. An all army Danish military doesn't can't maintain the same manpower levels as a balanced one.
And there are scenarios which pertains to Denmark, where a small fighter for is needed for sovereignty reasons.
I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic - just not an acceptable solution.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
OK, if the context is the Danish military then I think fighter jets do have their place especially when subcontracting to alliance ops. An all army Danish military doesn't can't maintain the same manpower levels as a balanced one.
And there are scenarios which pertains to Denmark, where a small fighter for is needed for sovereignty reasons.
I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic - just not an acceptable solution.
If we take DK as an example of a small NATO country: The budget for buying new fighter airplanes (most likely F35), 40 billion DKr, is nearly twice the yearly total defense expenditures of around 22 billion Dkr. For comparison the less-than-best-in-world Danish healthcare system (a major political issue in this country) could, according to the responsible, be ramped up to the very best in world, with an investment of 100 billion DKr, money that we don't have.
DK together with No and Sw are the proud weltmeisters of giving foreign aid to developing countries; That bill is 14 billion Dkr.
The entire education budget (primary schools, youth education, higher education) is around 120-150 billion..
So 40 billion is a lot of money.
So far, what has the airforce used it's fighter assets for? The most sexy I can remember was dropping bombs on tallibans, helping the balts "showing the flag" in their airspace, and showing the flag when an antiquated russian bomber lost it's direction (or witts) and got too close to bornholm. Now, not being an air general, I am pretty sure that a F16 can accomplish these tasks. I add to this that allready now, deploying the 6-7 F16s standing ready for rapid deployment to f.ex. Afgh, is so expensive that the defense hardly got the money and the allience demand for fighter aircrafts are near nill, since the allience got plenty of fighter aircrafts for the task at hand. It is my impression that the danish contribution to nato "fighter air tasks" are quite moderate or, rather, insignificant.
Where Denmark has been able to contribute significantly is in navial deployments, lately in Lebannon and anti piracy at the horn of africa. And ofcourse with a- relative to size, and many other NATO countries - disporportional army engagement in Afghanistan, where a lot of soldiers have been lost and billions of good money fired at "the enemy".
These policies of engagement has earned Denmark a lot of credit, and some influence, amoung our major security partners (noticably US/UK) on whom our national security fundamentally rest upon, and as such the danish defense has proven that it is relevant in danish security and foreign policy. But it's not the fighting wing of the airforce that doing the job. If US/UK wants some airpower, they deploy a carrier that has more airplanes than the entire danish airforce, but having denmark sending, say 1000, ground troops is partly 1000 US/UK families that doesn't need to miss their "loved ones", but more importantly it's a strong political signal to send infanteri into harms way, deploying air assets is more a question of "money", and it won't give DK the same credit.
So from a "do what you are best at" or cost benefit analysis, I think it's pretty sound to suggest that those 40 billion could be used a lot better on systems surporting the army (maybe some more air transports, helicopters or a full deployable brigade?) or on the navy, than a few hugely expensive fighters, that will probably only be used for fancy formation flying on the Queen's Birthday. Ofcourse then our old f16s has to soldier on, and should we feel threathed at some point in the future, a land based air defense system could be aquired, if needed (which is also consistent with the obvious future scenario: Robots will dominate the sky).
I stress that for a large country, the above doesn't apply.
Quote:
I've only suggested using nukes for cost-benefit reasons when I'm sarcastic
I am not sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason to f.ex. pretend that we are willing to sacrifice so and so many 10000s of young men to stop country X from running over Taiwan, instead we suggest a diplomatic solution, if ignored, the tactical nukes are used, and if ignored, it's nuclear holocaust. Then country X won't begin in the first place.
If we take DK as an example of a small NATO country: The budget for buying new fighter airplanes (most likely F35), 40 billion DKr, is nearly twice the yearly total defense expenditures of around 22 billion Dkr. For comparison the less-than-best-in-world Danish healthcare system (a major political issue in this country) could, according to the responsible, be ramped up to the very best in world, with an investment of 100 billion DKr, money that we don't have.
DK together with No and Sw are the proud weltmeisters of giving foreign aid to developing countries; That bill is 14 billion Dkr.
The entire education budget (primary schools, youth education, higher education) is around 120-150 billion..
So 40 billion is a lot of money.
The fighter acquisition itself will cost less than 20 bn dkk. Running the entire fighter arm of the air force is something like 80-90 bn dkk over 35 years.
In that period we'll use 525 bn dkk on foreing aid, 4 725 bn dkk on education and 770 bn dkk on military total.
One can always convert the public expenditure on science, culture, mayor's salaries, military to daycare and hospitals for sake of argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
So far, what has the airforce used it's fighter assets for? The most sexy I can remember was dropping bombs on tallibans, helping the balts "showing the flag" in their airspace, and showing the flag when an antiquated russian bomber lost it's direction (or witts) and got too close to bornholm. Now, not being an air general, I am pretty sure that a F16 can accomplish these tasks. I add to this that allready now, deploying the 6-7 F16s standing ready for rapid deployment to f.ex. Afgh, is so expensive that the defense hardly got the money and the allience demand for fighter aircrafts are near nill, since the allience got plenty of fighter aircrafts for the task at hand. It is my impression that the danish contribution to nato "fighter air tasks" are quite moderate or, rather, insignificant.
It's not only for deployment, it's also a "force in being". And we are required by NATO to patrol our skies, btw.
Rapid deployment is not for afgh or the baltics - you should check out operation allied force - if you were to undertake such an operation in the future, we would need a capable, survivable jet with can work in lockstep with our allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
Where Denmark has been able to contribute significantly is in navial deployments, lately in Lebannon and anti piracy at the horn of africa. And ofcourse with a- relative to size, and many other NATO countries - disporportional army engagement in Afghanistan, where a lot of soldiers have been lost and billions of good money fired at "the enemy".
These policies of engagement has earned Denmark a lot of credit, and some influence, amoung our major security partners (noticably US/UK) on whom our national security fundamentally rest upon, and as such the danish defense has proven that it is relevant in danish security and foreign policy. But it's not the fighting wing of the airforce that doing the job. If US/UK wants some airpower, they deploy a carrier that has more airplanes than the entire danish airforce, but having denmark sending, say 1000, ground troops is partly 1000 US/UK families that doesn't need to miss their "loved ones", but more importantly it's a strong political signal to send infanteri into harms way, deploying air assets is more a question of "money", and it won't give DK the same credit.
So this is the only type of operations we should provide support to; I'd argue that we should also be able to provide an air force component as not to limit ourselves to grunt conflicts only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
So from a "do what you are best at" or cost benefit analysis, I think it's pretty sound to suggest that those 40 billion could be used a lot better on systems surporting the army (maybe some more air transports, helicopters or a full deployable brigade?) or on the navy, than a few hugely expensive fighters, that will probably only be used for fancy formation flying on the Queen's Birthday. Ofcourse then our old f16s has to soldier on, and should we feel threathed at some point in the future, a land based air defense system could be aquired, if needed (which is also consistent with the obvious future scenario: Robots will dominate the sky).
I stress that for a large country, the above doesn't apply.
You can't convert air force expenditure to army expenditure, i.e. extrapolate the sums spent into additional army capability. We don't have that potential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
I am not sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason to f.ex. pretend that we are willing to sacrifice so and so many 10000s of young men to stop country X from running over Taiwan, instead we suggest a diplomatic solution, if ignored, the tactical nukes are used, and if ignored, it's nuclear holocaust. Then country X won't begin in the first place.
The US monopoly in nukes didn't prevent NK to attack SK and the US never used nukes (though Macarthur wanted to nuke the chinese). In fact, in the future with proliferation we're seeing today, this logic is bound to fail.
Btw, i didn't think I said you was sarcastic - it's just that it's a type of argument that I would use when being ascerbic.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
on a related note: Any theories as to why Denmark has decided to delay the decision on figher jet?
On of the main arguments in Norway to make a decision during fall 2008 was to make sure that Norwegian industry would be able to position itself in the competition for contracts.
It seems that the Danish industry now see they got a problem:
Which begs the question: Why not make a decision, and thereby help out the industry? We already know which plane belongs to the future; it also happens to be the cheapest, produced by Denmarks closest ally, and Denmark is even a partner and makes investments every year. So why not just spell it out, make an official statement and remove the uncertainly for industry? Making a decision to buy the F-35 (if that happens to be Demarks choice ) does not mean to immediately sign the dotted line, neither does it mean a final commitment to number of aircrafts. I am confused ...
) does not mean to immediately sign the dotted line, neither does it mean a final commitment to number of aircrafts. I am confused ... 
