Too much faith in stealth technology?

[davparlr]

In reality, we are probably witnessing a historic evolution, the demise of the manned fighter aircraft. There may never be another one in the West. No manned aircraft can out maneuver a missile and as netting become more prevalent, smarter and smarter air-to-air missiles will more likely be carried by smarter and smarter UAVs and targeting will be done miles, maybe thousands of miles, away. The airspace near the FEBA will be no place for a person. All they need to do is name the system Skynet!

 

[tyrodtom]

What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?

We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.

 

[The Basket]

The replacement of the F-15 and F-16 has to be better than the old fighters otherwise why bother. An interesting point was made that the Raptor would have been a Cold War warrior and designed to fight a convential war but what changed when that ended? Is the F-22 and F-35 needed now?

I wonder what the threat driving American defence policy is nowadays. China? Russia? I still believe that the F-15 flown by USAF is still a match for any Flanker. Although any loss ratio could be about 1 for 1.

The.issues with ww2 fighters were less controversial because they were needed and the country was at war. Its far more difficult to justify multi billion dollar projects when the threat is far less tangible.

 

[buffnut453]

What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?

We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.

Rather than "swarms of UAVs", why not just launch missiles (cruise or ballistic...take your pick)? What would be the target(s) for a swarm attack? CONUS? That's a heck of a reach for anyone and would be political (and, in all probability, actual) suicide for the aggressor.

Western military powers, with their focus on qualitative rather than quantitative advantage, are susceptible to massed swarm attacks whether you're equipped with F-16s, F-15s, F-22s or something else. However, swarm attacks are much harder to implement than might at first appear. Every technology has a counter if we remove the pesky impact of geography and assume unlimited resources on the part of our adversaries. Neither simplification will work in the real world. For example, in order to pull off a successful swarm attack, the adversary would have to procure the UAVs (or missiles), train operators and maintainers, select targets and then implement the operation...and do all of that undetected by Western intelligence services. Frankly, the odds are zero that such an attack could succeed.

As for top speed being slower than front-line jets of 40 years ago, that's the current nature of the operational environment. In the 1960s, speed and altitude were seen as protection from missile defences. That's no longer the case. Now agility rather than straight-line speed is more valued - and I mean that not in the sense of a close-in knife-fight between 2 aircraft, rather that the aircraft which can bring superior weapons systems to bear earlier, at longer range, will always win.

Finally, we must not forget the human element. Even UAVs are not robots - the USAF is now using the term RPV for Remotely Piloted Vehicle. The West maintains a significant qualitative advantage when it comes to training of its personnel, both aircrew and groundcrew, which ensures we can continue to win force-on-force contests. The biggest threat is from reduced defence budgets which, by necessity, tend to get focussed on the current war(s), which are counter-insurgent based, and not the next war which might be more traditional, force-on-force but I doubt it.

 

[wuzak]

What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?

We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.

My understanding is that the F-35 cannot supercruise. The F-22 is currently the only aircraft in service with that ability, with the Su-35 getting a limited supercruise ability in the near future. The PAK-FA, and its Indian equivalent, and the Chinese J-20 will have supercruise. The PAK-FA is expected to begin entering service around 2015.

 

[wuzak]

I wonder what the threat driving American defence policy is nowadays. China? Russia? I still believe that the F-15 flown by USAF is still a match for any Flanker. Although any loss ratio could be about 1 for 1.

Really?

IAF Sukhoi Su-30s soundly defeated F-15Cs (9:1) in joint exercises a few years back - although there were some restrictions on both sides - the F-15s weren't fitted with the latest radars or AMRAAMs and were outnumbered 3:1, though the Su-30s didn't use their radars either.

 

[wuzak]

Finally, we must not forget the human element. Even UAVs are not robots - the USAF is now using the term RPV for Remotely Piloted Vehicle. The West maintains a significant qualitative advantage when it comes to training of its personnel, both aircrew and groundcrew, which ensures we can continue to win force-on-force contests. The biggest threat is from reduced defence budgets which, by necessity, tend to get focussed on the current war(s), which are counter-insurgent based, and not the next war which might be more traditional, force-on-force but I doubt it.

If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?

On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?

 

[The Basket]

Really?

IAF Sukhoi Su-30s soundly defeated F-15Cs (9:1) in joint exercises a few years back - although there were some restrictions on both sides - the F-15s weren't fitted with the latest radars or AMRAAMs and were outnumbered 3:1, though the Su-30s didn't use their radars either.

Exactly. The Indian exercise is pinch of salt stuff. The Russians have good new machines but where are they? Su-34 is a good example of not many built.

It could be proven that the Phantom was outclassed and a replacement needed. Cant be said of the Eagle. Dont forget SAMs. They are bad news for ansy fighter up against a modern Russian system. So stealth is good for those threats.

 

[buffnut453]

If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?

On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?

Aircraft development schedules are so long that it's impossible to initiate a design and complete it in time for current conflicts so governments do what governments do best - they change the requirements of existing programmes to show that the expenditure really is supporting current needs and then bitterly complain about cost hikes and schedule overruns.

What's your source for the F-22 maintenance requirements? Better maintenance does not equate to longer maintenance or lower availability. And if we go back to your original complaints about the F-35, that beast was designed from the very beginning to be an easy aircraft to maintain.

 

[nuuumannn]

Losing to the Sukhoi in a non-realistic training scenario is surely no indication of how the F-15 would perform in combat against them. Also, although the F-15 lost to the Indian Sukhois (remember, the F-15 also lost to the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in exercises in the 1980s), the opportunity for F-15 drivers to see how their potential adversary was likely to perform in combat first hand would have been extremely valuable to them.

Regarding the F-35 and its relevancy, it is most certainly relevant. I've never thought much of that old chestnut that states the F-35, the Eurofighter and the F-22 were no longer relevant because the Cold War has ended for the following reason. A country's armed forces is like an insurance policy; you sure as hell hope you don't have to use it, but its there just in case you need it. Like insurance policies, when situations change and what went before becomes obsolete, the old stuff needs to be replaced and the new stuff designed to meet the requirements of the new situation. The B-1 is a classic example, it was designed as a high altitude supersonic bomber, but because philosophies changed, so did it. Its combat record has proven its worth.

From an engineering persepctive, aircraft design is incorporating more and more avionics and non metallic structures that engineers need to become trained in new disciplines; black handers are learning avionics and composite repair, and this isn't just happening in military aircraft either. Therefore, the justification for maintaining the development of Cold War era combat programmes is advancing technology that came about as a result of the Cold War. Even if the first marks of the F-35 prove to be troublesome, the US are going to throw money at the aircraft until it gets better, as they did with the F-111 and B-1. It has to work; they've put some much into it and so much is riding on its success.

I don't know much about the performance of modern combat aircraft, but regarding the F-35 being inferior in capability to the F-111 its replacing, show me an aircraft in service today that has the performance and capability of the F-111. There isn't. It was unmatched and superbly suited to the Australian environment. It's highly unlikely that an aircraft that could match or outperform the F-111 will be developed within the expected lifespan of the F-35 in RAAF service.

 

[davparlr]

On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?

Modern military aircraft are designed to high high levels of reliability and maintainability requirements that have been validated in recent conflicts. There is no doubt the F-22 will meet those requirements, although with some expensive parts.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My understanding is that the F-35 cannot supercruise. The F-22 is currently the only aircraft in service with that ability, with the Su-35 getting a limited supercruise ability in the near future. The PAK-FA, and its Indian equivalent, and the Chinese J-20 will have supercruise. The PAK-FA is expected to begin entering service around 2015.

There are those who won't confirm or deny this capability

 

[gjs238]

If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?

The F-35 is supposed to replace all 3, no?

 

[gjs238]

Losing to the Sukhoi in a non-realistic training scenario is surely no indication of how the F-15 would perform in combat against them. Also, although the F-15 lost to the Indian Sukhois (remember, the F-15 also lost to the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in exercises in the 1980s), the opportunity for F-15 drivers to see how their potential adversary was likely to perform in combat first hand would have been extremely valuable to them.

Regarding the F-35 and its relevancy, it is most certainly relevant. I've never thought much of that old chestnut that states the F-35, the Eurofighter and the F-22 were no longer relevant because the Cold War has ended for the following reason. A country's armed forces is like an insurance policy; you sure as hell hope you don't have to use it, but its there just in case you need it. Like insurance policies, when situations change and what went before becomes obsolete, the old stuff needs to be replaced and the new stuff designed to meet the requirements of the new situation. The B-1 is a classic example, it was designed as a high altitude supersonic bomber, but because philosophies changed, so did it. Its combat record has proven its worth.

From an engineering persepctive, aircraft design is incorporating more and more avionics and non metallic structures that engineers need to become trained in new disciplines; black handers are learning avionics and composite repair, and this isn't just happening in military aircraft either. Therefore, the justification for maintaining the development of Cold War era combat programmes is advancing technology that came about as a result of the Cold War. Even if the first marks of the F-35 prove to be troublesome, the US are going to throw money at the aircraft until it gets better, as they did with the F-111 and B-1. It has to work; they've put some much into it and so much is riding on its success.

I don't know much about the performance of modern combat aircraft, but regarding the F-35 being inferior in capability to the F-111 its replacing, show me an aircraft in service today that has the performance and capability of the F-111. There isn't. It was unmatched and superbly suited to the Australian environment. It's highly unlikely that an aircraft that could match or outperform the F-111 will be developed within the expected lifespan of the F-35 in RAAF service.

Su-24/Su-34?
Xian JH-7?
Tornado?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F-35 is supposed to replace all 3, no?

At least the F-16 and F-18. the A-10 may hold out according to what I have heard through sources at work.

 

[Messy1]

I hope the military does not try to replace the A10 with as expensive of a plane as the F-35. I'd hate too the F-35 exposed to the type of hazzard's the A-10's are famous for taking and still flying. Hate to see a mutli-million dollar plane get down and dirty and tore up when the A-10 is still capable, and much cheaper to maintain I would think. The A10 is one of my favorite modern planes. Well suited to it's down on the deck, missions.

 

[gjs238]

RE: A-10
I had heard some grumblings about how the AH-64 (and the AH-1) incurred more battle damage than expected during Desert Storm and subsequent operations, resulting in a renewal of interest in the A-10, which some were ready to write off.

 

[Messy1]

The A-10 is perfectly suited for it's environment. Why replace a weapon system like the A-10 that is still very effective, not too high tech (perfect characteristic for a plane that will at some point take some damage), reliable, tough, and deadly. Why even gamble loosing a F-35 when the A-10's are still available, and up to the task, and tougher. Thinking like that does not make sense to me. Reminds me of the old story about the US spending a ton of cash trying to develop a ink pen that can write in space, and the Soviet Union just uses a pencil. Sometimes the low tech approach is the best. K.IS.S.!

 

[nuuumannn]

Su-24/Su-34?
Xian JH-7?
Tornado?

You're kidding, right?

 

[wuzak]

My understanding is that the F-35 will replace the A-10, but several years after it replaces the F-16/F-18.