Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

NickD -> Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/17/2014 9:16:10 AM)

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's recent report considering whether Australia should buy F-35Bs to operate off the new Canberra Class LHDs provides a pretty good discussion of the issues around operating small carriers: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/strategic-insights-78-jump-jets-for-the-adf

As a spoiler alert, the report finds that F-35Bs would be a poor use of money in virtually any feasible situation the RAN is likely to face. The same kinds of principles considered here tend to suggest that Japan and South Korea are also very unlikely to ever retro-fit their helicopter carriers to operate F-35Bs.



Maromak -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/17/2014 10:03:36 AM)

Not to mention I doubt the LHD deck plating could handle the heat of the engine exhaust...



Dutchie999 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/17/2014 5:21:24 PM)


Maybe a stupid question. But what other choice is there besides the F35?



ckfinite -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/17/2014 5:42:27 PM)

Well, this is arguing against the F-35B only, and misses a few relevant points IMO, but more on that later.

For western countries, there are a few options, in no particular order: F-15, F-16, Eurofighter, Gripen, and a wholly new design.

F-15, in its later variants, is bigger, faster, and longer ranged. However, it does not have stealth and is outclassed sensorwise by the F-35.

F-16, also in its later variants, is smaller, about as fast, somewhat shorter ranged, and much less expensive. Again, outclassed in terms of sensors.

Eurofighter is only if you have more money than sense.

Gripen is much much cheaper, but you get much less plane in every way.

A wholly novel design costs 10x as much and 1/2th as good, but you get an indigenous aircraft industry, which may be worth it.

In my view, this article raises issues of carrier usage by F-35B operating beyond the range of F-35A from Australian bases. However, it misses the point, first, that these operations would be wholly impossible without F-35B, and also ignores potential increases in carriage in sortie rate from shorter flight times and distances. While their points that it would not be as effective as possible are valid, I'm not sure that they've sunk the F-35B boat yet.



Gunner98 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/17/2014 7:05:02 PM)

One other 'Plan B' discussed up here in the Great White North is the F-18 E/F Super Hornet. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/

This is for the baseline F-35, not the carrier capable B variant.

B



DeltaIV -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 6:50:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
Gripen is much much cheaper, but you get much less plane in every way.


Note that Gripen is around 1/5th of the F-35A's cost (even more compared to B). With STOL and very cheap operational cost (around 20% of the F-35's cost, around 65 of F-16's cost) it is attractive piece of equipment for several countries.

According to the recent Brazil order of Gripen NGs - there's a proposition included for possible cooperation on Sea Gripen variant.



Vici Supreme -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 11:46:44 AM)

quote:


One other 'Plan B' discussed up here in the Great White North is the F-18 E/F Super Hornet.
This is for the baseline F-35, not the carrier capable B variant.

B


If you ask me, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block III (Advanced Super Hornet) is the way to go for Canada in every aspect of a logical future fighter aquisition.

Supreme



cf_dallas -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 7:09:02 PM)

[image][/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: DeltaIV

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
Gripen is much much cheaper, but you get much less plane in every way.


Note that Gripen is around 1/5th of the F-35A's cost (even more compared to B). With STOL and very cheap operational cost (around 20% of the F-35's cost, around 65 of F-16's cost) it is attractive piece of equipment for several countries.

According to the recent Brazil order of Gripen NGs - there's a proposition included for possible cooperation on Sea Gripen variant.


How much was the Brazil Gripen contract, for how many aircraft?



magi -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 7:46:52 PM)

just read an article in Janes about this.... in the end it was suggested that if Australia desired to operate F-35bs at sea... they believed it would be wiser to construct purpose design/built carrier for this ability...... than to use the new LHDs... modified for this aircraft they would be operationally and cost inefficient... it seemed to me.. to be a reasonable argument....



magi -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 7:49:18 PM)

Quote.... Maromac
"Not to mention I doubt the LHD deck plating could handle the heat of the engine exhaust"...


this was one of the mods that would have to be done... the others would be far more involved....



Tomcat84 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 8:03:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999


Maybe a stupid question. But what other choice is there besides the F35?


helicopter only?



magi -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 8:09:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999


Maybe a stupid question. But what other choice is there besides the F35?


helicopter only?


i believe what Dutchie is implying or questioning is.. what other effective choice would there be for an F/A type aircraft.. give it proposed capabilities....



Tomcat84 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 8:13:23 PM)

Yak-141? lol



magi -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/18/2014 8:19:09 PM)

kind of looks like a dog.... i think AV8Bs are still a great airplane.....



DeltaIV -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/19/2014 6:06:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

How much was the Brazil Gripen contract, for how many aircraft?



Apparently, it was around 36, but seems like 'at least' 108 now.

http://www.janes.com/article/45878/brazil-requires-at-least-108-gripen-fighters?from_rss=1



Dutchie999 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/19/2014 8:03:08 AM)


Well it all depends on who you are planning to fight in the future. If want to go up against SU-35++ and T-50's then nothing short of the F-22 will do. Especially not if the enemy aircraft are backed by a AWACS with low band radar. Then their fighters can fly 'silent' and acquire/target with passive systems such as IRST.





Casinn -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/20/2014 5:05:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeltaIV

quote:

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

How much was the Brazil Gripen contract, for how many aircraft?



Apparently, it was around 36, but seems like 'at least' 108 now.

http://www.janes.com/article/45878/brazil-requires-at-least-108-gripen-fighters?from_rss=1


Nice breakdown of the Brazil Gripen choice
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/



Vulcan101 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/20/2014 12:43:57 PM)

Well, given the F35 was marketed as a stealth plane with the ability to penetrate enemy airspace with relative impunity it is somewhat offputting that the US Navy are increasing the number of F18G to support them and the USMC are retaining their EA6B's and adding additional EA6's from US Navy stocks as they are retired.

Which is fine if you happen to be involved in coalition ops with the US but if you aren't and facing double digit SAMs and the latest Russian fighters I take it that means you are SOL.



batek688 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/20/2014 6:00:49 PM)

As mentioned above, the simple answer to the question lies in evaluating the threat. Are they looking to strike a Tier 1 air defense? If so, then that implies a need for the F35 -- but if and only if the desire is to do that alone. Now, I may be biased; however, in about 3 decades+ I haven't seen any country take on that type of thing other than the US. Even when it was the UN calling for it. Now, couple that with the number of "tier 1 air defenses" out there and the justification for an F35 goes down dramatically when you pose the question of what is the probability that <insert your country here> would need to do this when the US was not also involved? Slim and none, and Slim has left the building.

Until those high end platforms like SU-35s are out there in droves, the need for the F35 is limited. Of course, when the opposition can afford all those SU35s, they probably also bought F35s =) I'm not sure we're going to see manned strike-craft too much further in the future. Air superiority where the latency of a drone is a hindrance -- yes, F22. For strike missions? I would anticipate a return to the old Warsaw Pact thinking but through the use of many, multi-million dollar drones versus smaller numbers of multi-billion dollar manned strike aircraft. Why risk a flight of F35s when you can send in 100 Reapers for the same cost?



Dutchie999 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/20/2014 6:52:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: batek688
Until those high end platforms like SU-35s are out there in droves, the need for the F35 is limited. Of course, when the opposition can afford all those SU35s, they probably also bought F35s =) I'm not sure we're going to see manned strike-craft too much further in the future. Air superiority where the latency of a drone is a hindrance -- yes, F22. For strike missions? I would anticipate a return to the old Warsaw Pact thinking but through the use of many, multi-million dollar drones versus smaller numbers of multi-billion dollar manned strike aircraft. Why risk a flight of F35s when you can send in 100 Reapers for the same cost?


That basically goes back to the idea that future fighter platforms are just 'bomb trucks' for their A/A missiles.



batek688 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/20/2014 7:33:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999

That basically goes back to the idea that future fighter platforms are just 'bomb trucks' for their A/A missiles.



Not exactly (only because you mentioned A/A). I see two different roles where the air superiority role is a man-in-the-seat role because of reaction time and situational awareness that a computer screen and satellite latency cannot overcome. For this reason I have no qualms with platforms like the F22. The ground attack role does not need that level of response and so a that is the "bomb truck" side. So, future attack aircraft platforms are just 'bomb trucks' for their A/G, but not the fighter and A/A. A/G typically involves a lot of planning where A/A is an area superiority thing. While there will remain some A/G roles that would be man-in-the-seat (true CAS, not this drop some JDAMs from a B1 nonsense), the vast majority do not need to be. SEAD/DEAD, for example, would appear well suited for UAVs now.





Dutchie999 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/22/2014 5:59:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: batek688


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999

That basically goes back to the idea that future fighter platforms are just 'bomb trucks' for their A/A missiles.



Not exactly (only because you mentioned A/A). I see two different roles where the air superiority role is a man-in-the-seat role because of reaction time and situational awareness that a computer screen and satellite latency cannot overcome. For this reason I have no qualms with platforms like the F22. The ground attack role does not need that level of response and so a that is the "bomb truck" side. So, future attack aircraft platforms are just 'bomb trucks' for their A/G, but not the fighter and A/A. A/G typically involves a lot of planning where A/A is an area superiority thing. While there will remain some A/G roles that would be man-in-the-seat (true CAS, not this drop some JDAMs from a B1 nonsense), the vast majority do not need to be. SEAD/DEAD, for example, would appear well suited for UAVs now.


I do you one better ([;)]). Why do you need a air superiority aircraft at all? In a defensive scenario it seems that all air superiority (read: denying the enemy your airspace) can be done from the ground with SAM's (this assumes that modern SAM systems are as effective as thought to be).

This has a lot of advantages. Cheaper for one (a lot!), more stealthy, less complicated, less support systems and of course you don't need IFF anymore. No confusion. Anyone entering your airspace can be considered hostile.

PS: The big problem as I see it with unmanned combat aircraft is how prone it is to hacking/jamming. You can hack/jam a manned combat aircraft but that still leaves the pilot in control of the aircraft. With unmanned systems that can be a problem. Maybe then the war is more about who is able to hack their enemy's airforce first and use their own aircraft against them [:'(]. No more soldiers! Just a bunch of hacking nerds with ranks behind their computers in camouflage clothing. Well that kind of war has its advantages. No more bloodshed!



Dobey455 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/23/2014 5:12:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dutchie999

I do you one better ([;)]). Why do you need a air superiority aircraft at all? In a defensive scenario it seems that all air superiority (read: denying the enemy your airspace) can be done from the ground with SAM's (this assumes that modern SAM systems are as effective as thought to be).


That might be feasible in some nations - small compact nations in Europe, like Denmark, Belgium, etc would be prime candidates.
However imagine countries like Canada or Australia - massive land masses with very sparse population centres. You would need hundreds if not thousands of SAM systems to try to cover the same airspace that aircraft currently cover.

You also assume there is a purely defensive mind set and that air superiority is all about defending your own skies.
In a full war situation, at some point you will want to dominate ENEMY airspace you can't do it with SAMs.

quote:


This has a lot of advantages. Cheaper for one (a lot!), more stealthy, less complicated, less support systems and of course you don't need IFF anymore. No confusion. Anyone entering your airspace can be considered hostile.


Ahhhh.....you've pretty much just described the shoot down of MH17 - a perfect illustration of why this would be a terrible idea.

It's not that unusual for aircraft to stray into the wrong airspace (accidentally or otherwise), with A/C you can get eyes on the target, assess it and shepherd them out, with SAM's your only options are to shoot it down or ignore it.




NickD -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/23/2014 9:06:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey
However imagine countries like Canada or Australia - massive land masses with very sparse population centres. You would need hundreds if not thousands of SAM systems to try to cover the same airspace that aircraft currently cover.


That's a good point. It's worth noting that the only land-based SAMs Australia and Canada operate are short ranged systems to protect army units in the field (with a secondary role of providing point defence for air bases and ships in Australia's case at least). The air defence of both countries is handled primarily by F/A-18 Hornets operating from forward bases in times of trouble (thankfully never needed in either case). It certainly wouldn't be feasible/cost effective to deploy long ranged SAMs to protect the various strategic sites in northern Australia from attack given the vast distances.



batek688 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/24/2014 12:23:42 AM)

Don't forget that it isn't as simple as pointing the SAMs outward. Against a sophisticated attacker you may not have no clear threat axis like Australia where an attacker could penetrate the land-mass away from the defended point and attack "from the rear." The nice thing about a platform like the E-3B coupled with air superiority aircraft is that they can be dynamically positioned where SAMs may not.

I do wonder at what point you hit break-even on cost though. The F-35B is very costly. At a certain point the SAM network and air superiority cost will even out and the economics may change.

B



Denixen -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/24/2014 1:59:39 PM)

I actually just read an article from Joint Force Quarterly (a US Army magazine) where argued that the F-35 might actually not be a very capable to breach modern air defences despite it's stealthiness. The reason is that with new Russian and Chinese Radar using long wave-length radars like VHF, L Band and S band the F-35s stealth characteristics which are aimed at short wave-length radar will not be very effective, unlike the B-2 which is large, the small F-35 will actually be rather easy to detect because the long wave-length will bounce of it as a whole.

The article can be found at NDU Press homepage, or just search JFQ 57 (Joint Force Quarterly) (I can't post link because I am new and haven't posted 10 times yet).

The issue I read is JFQ 57 (use download as link and read, I couldn't read it on their webpage for some reason).

the article is on page 86, and is called Evolving Technological Strategy in Advanced Air Defense Systems.



batek688 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/24/2014 2:28:57 PM)

It doesn't really matter how the F35 would fare because capability is relative to time. Even if the F35 were completely invisible to "modern IADS" the next generation would make it less so. That is the crux of the economic viability I was bringing up. What is the relative cost of the IADS components and the upgrade paths to defend against the F35 and its peers relative to the aircraft themselves? Don't forget maintenance and logistics costs. Plus, for 99% of the world, the capability against a modern IADS isn't relevant since that isn't what they are facing -- particularly Australia/Canada/NZ. Even CONUS isn't protected by a modern IADS if the Canucks decided to invade >:)



ckfinite -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/24/2014 6:54:08 PM)

The trick is that none of the FCRs can work on those long wavelengths, and the SAMs themselves are still largely SARH. It doesn't do any good being able to know where a target is if you can't shoot at it.

Furthermore, the reduced RCS against metric-wavelength radars still enables the F-35 to get closer to those radars than would otherwise be possible. This improves penetration against IADS beyond what is possible with existing non VLO aircraft.



batek688 -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/24/2014 9:13:30 PM)

Current FCRs and SAMs may not work at long wave lengths, but what is top stop piecemeal upgrades of an IADS to embed long-wavelength capable assets? Take AEGIS for example, or reverting Patriot back to proximity detonation versus hit-to-kill. Any SAM system using mid-course guidance could (in theory) have the addition of a proximity/detonation command and coupling to a long wavelength radar.

But still, you are using the test-case of an F-35 striking a modern IADS versus the counter argument of when / if countries like Australia and Canada might actually face that case. Even the US would likely employ waves of cruise missiles to degrade the IADS first which negates some of the need for an F-35. The use-case for Canada/Australia would have to be instances where they would have to take down an IADS when the US was not involved. Such is the catch-22 of the US military being used as the UN military (/sigh)

I know in CMANO I rarely start by sending in aircraft -- I start with things like ITALD/MALD with stand-off jammers covering an inbound wave of tomahawks with SEAD aircraft overlapping to take down the FCRs. Let the jammers degrade performance, the ITALD/MALD to create tons of targets (and the tomahawks too) and then ARMs to take down anything that showed up and the t-hawks didn't take care of. In Operation Brass Drum, for example, I send in the t-hawks to hit the runway access points behind the ITALD wall. The SEAD aircraft can then take down all the search/FCRs which light off to try and intercept the t-hawks. At that point, air superiority is a result of the enemy being grounded (so F/A-18 or F-22 doesn't matter), there is no usable IADS so the F35s aren't needed. After that first wave, I can orbit a UAV at 9000 feet over enemy bases at my leisure to buddy illuminate =) (in brass drum my initial thawks drop all 22 runway access points so I pretty much own all the air SE of Jask at that point.)



ckfinite -> RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase (11/24/2014 9:48:40 PM)

quote:


Current FCRs and SAMs may not work at long wave lengths, but what is top stop piecemeal upgrades of an IADS to embed long-wavelength capable assets?


Not with SARH. The problem is that at 10cm on up, you can no longer fit an antenna into the missile for physical reasons. As such, without ARH a longwave radar cannot provide illumination for a missile.

Furthermore, the accuracy of radar decreases with the frequency. At long wavelengths, the accuracy, even if it were possible to make a longwave SARH seeker, would be insufficient to provide guidance, even with proximity-fuzed weapons.

quote:


Take AEGIS for example, or reverting Patriot back to proximity detonation versus hit-to-kill. Any SAM system using mid-course guidance could (in theory) have the addition of a proximity/detonation command and coupling to a long wavelength radar.


Note that PAC-2GEM+ is still in service, and 48N6 is proximity fuzed.

quote:


Even the US would likely employ waves of cruise missiles to degrade the IADS first

This is getting more expensive as time goes on. 1x S-300PMU2 would likely be able to handle up to 40, and possibly up to 50, incoming missiles. If deployed in overlapping regions of 3, 150x TLAM would be needed to suppress one portion of an IADS, not considering SHORAD.

quote:


I start with things like ITALD/MALD with stand-off jammers covering an inbound wave of tomahawks with SEAD aircraft overlapping to take down the FCRs.


Command's modelling of ECM effectiveness is rather optimistic. With the advent of new AESA and bistatic radars, the ability of jammers to degrade or eliminate SAM effectiveness is reduced dramatically, even with platforms as sophisticated as the EA-18G.

Edit:
quote:


That is the crux of the economic viability I was bringing up. What is the relative cost of the IADS components and the upgrade paths to defend against the F35 and its peers relative to the aircraft themselves?


F-35 is actually reasonably priced in comparison to its competition. Current LRIP 8 costs are 110$ mil/aircraft, with FRP costs somewhere between $80 and $90 million. Dassault Rafale is $110mil FRP and Eurofighter tranche 3 is $124mil. The only real competitor that's less is Gripen at about $70 million, but Gripen is substantially less capable.

Furthermore, IADS are very expensive. 1x S-300PMU2 is around $300 million, and the radars and SHORAD increase that cost substantially more. The new generation of AESAs are also not cheap, though prices are not known at this time.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125