Spain and the F-35

[Dawes]

Seems the price tag may be a high hurdle to overcome:

https://news.yahoo.com/spain-military-still-eyes-f-012523228.html#:~:text=MADRID — The Spanish Navy and,develop a new European plane.

[TrustMe]

It's not just the outright cost it's also the maintenance cost as well. I've seen figures stating that the F16 has a $2.5 million per year per fighter maintenance cost. The F35 has $12.5 million a year 😧 

Edited October 29, 2021 by TrustMe

[Stuart Galbraith]

Maintenance costs always come down in the longer term. It takes time to work it out. Its only been in service about 5 years.

[TrustMe]

Very true but it's still a lot higher than an equivalent fourth generation fighter.

[RETAC21]

On 10/29/2021 at 4:11 AM, Dawes said:

Seems the price tag may be a high hurdle to overcome:

https://news.yahoo.com/spain-military-still-eyes-f-012523228.html#:~:text=MADRID — The Spanish Navy and,develop a new European plane.

Not going to happen. The Navy would have to see its budget devoted to F-35 and they have to buy a bunch of stuff to maintain current capabilities (F-110 frigates, S-80 subs, more patrol boats, new ASW helicopters) and would only gain some air defence capability (helicopters and UCAVs can take over AtoG). The Air Force could make a case for replacing the F-18, but they are still paying for the Eurofighters and they will also have to be upgraded, so they will stretch F-18s as far as they can go and hope for FCAS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Air_System)

[Daan]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Maintenance costs always come down in the longer term. It takes time to work it out. Its only been in service about 5 years.

Is that so? Spreading fixed costs ceteris paribus is a numbers game. However, when planes age maintenance costs tend to increase exponentially. Do we have information on the development of maintenance costs of earlier stealth airframes? I somehow doubt these have managed to keep pace with general inflationary pressures.

[Stuart Galbraith]

You are right when planes age the prices go up. That is arguably what killed the Tomcat. But that was kinda exceptional, because they built comparatively few D models (the Ultimate model) and most of the others were original A models and B's (which in many cases were rebuilds of original A models). Even most of the D's were rebuilds of A's. Add to a lifetime at sea, and first generation circuit boards, the cost of maintaining not surprisingly went up. If they had gone for Tomcat 21, I would argue maintainance costs would have been far lower because the structural problems with the aircraft were known, and the electronics would have been brand new. There were similar problems with the F111, not helped by the fact that there was 2 main fleets that were often dissimilar

If you keep an aircraft in production for a long time I think there are indications the costs come down. You purge the first builds which are usually unreliable. Then you get into the second basic model that has all the bugs worked out. And when those wear out, you purge those and buy the next generation build, so you have new airframes and you have the maintenance procedures down pat. Its just a personal view, but I think this is precisely what happened with F15 and F16.

The only problem with this thinking, is anyone really going to want a batch 2 F35, or are they going to say 'thanks but the first gen cost enough!'. I suspect there is enough modularity in them they are not going to be quite to hard to upgrade as say, an A model F16. They are expecting to make these last.

[Daan]

The Tomcat 21 was planned as a swing wing aircraft with two large engines, resulting in high acquisition and maintenance costs. Which killed it, as the threat of Soviet naval aviation had gone.

Low maintenance cost aircraft are created on the drawing table as per requirement of the intended customer, examples being the F-5, F-20, F-16, JF-17 and Gripen. Whether the F-35 will see as many iterations as the F-16 in the future remains to be seen, being entirely dependent on the international environment. I have not heard of the F-16A being so difficult to upgrade for an aircraft that was never intended to remain in service for so long, as many non US block 15 and 20 aircraft were given a MLU in the 1990s and early 2000s. Tranche 1 Typhoons, on the other hand, while still being relatively new airframes, are simply discarded.

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Daan

[TrustMe]

37 minutes ago, Daan said:

The Tomcat 21 was planned as a swing wing aircraft with two large engines, resulting in high acquisition and maintenance costs. Which killed it, as the threat of Soviet naval aviation had gone.

There was also had issue when when it was armed with the full eight AAM's load out like the expensive Phoenix active radar homing air to air missile. When aircraft had to land on a carrier it had to jettason some of these missiles to have a safe landing weight. Given that the Phoenix was around 1$ million each in 1973 this was a massive operating cost to the USN.

 

Quote

Low maintenance cost aircraft are created on the drawing table as per requirement of the intended customer, examples being the F-5, F-20, F-16, JF-17 and Gripen. Whether the F-35 will see as many iterations as the F-16 in the future remains to be seen, being entirely dependent on the international environment. I have not heard of the F-16A being so difficult to upgrade for an aircraft that was never intended to remain in service for so long, as many non US block 15 and 20 aircraft were given a MLU in the 1990s and early 2000s. Tranche 1 Typhoons, on the other hand, while still being relatively new airframes, are simply discarded.

The Trance 1 Typhoons are upgradable but it's so expensive that it's cheaper to buy new Tranche 3 aircraft. The UK was going to keep some Tranche 1 aircraft for use as air defence fighters but Covid 19 saw the end of that costly program.

Edited October 30, 2021 by TrustMe

[seahawk]

Mostly it is expensive because existing users can not agree on a common standard. The development costs do not care if you up-grade 30 frames, 300 or 3000. The up-grade itself becomes a lot less expensive per airframe though, if you upgrade a bigger number of frames.

The other thing is the standard you wish to achieve. The MLU F-16As were similar in capability to later Block F-16Cs, but never fully equal. The costs for the Tranche 1 up-grade quoted in Germany or the UK was for making them 100% equal to a Tranche 3+. Spain is up-grading the Tranche 1 to a lower standard and the program is fine. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by seahawk

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Daan said:

The Tomcat 21 was planned as a swing wing aircraft with two large engines, resulting in high acquisition and maintenance costs. Which killed it, as the threat of Soviet naval aviation had gone.

Low maintenance cost aircraft are created on the drawing table as per requirement of the intended customer, examples being the F-5, F-20, F-16, JF-17 and Gripen. Whether the F-35 will see as many iterations as the F-16 in the future remains to be seen, being entirely dependent on the international environment. I have not heard of the F-16A being so difficult to upgrade for an aircraft that was never intended to remain in service for so long, as many non US block 15 and 20 aircraft were given a MLU in the 1990s and early 2000s. Tranche 1 Typhoons, on the other hand, while still being relatively new airframes, are simply discarded.

 

But long range strike had not. And the fairly clueless way the A12 and A6 were cancelled left the navy without a bomber platform, which the Tomcat ably filled. Arguably even the superhornet has distinct limitations in range.

I'm just making the point that low maintenance is a result of design and system maturity. No teen series fighter,with the possible exception of F16, had that out the box. The F15 had appalling reliability at first, but nobody remembers that now.

[TrustMe]

Quote

But long range strike had not. And the fairly clueless way the A12 and A6 were cancelled left the navy without a bomber platform, which the Tomcat ably filled. Arguably even the superhornet has distinct limitations in range.

The F18E/F/G was never designed for a long life state of the art aircraft. It was forced on the US Navy after the fiasco of the A12 stealth bomber program and with the end of the Cold War in 1991 the USN didn't need a all singing all dancing single role platform. The multirole F18E would do just fine. And this decision has born out over the last 30 years. 

Because the USN has never used aircraft carrier's in there main role Anti Ship Strike some people have forgotten that that is it's main role not bombing Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 1991 but sea denial missions. Now that Chynah is building up it's own blue water navy it's starting to refocus on this mission with the F35C.

Edited October 30, 2021 by TrustMe

[Stuart Galbraith]

Been borne out till the or bomber and missile threat emerged. The superhornet doesn't look that great a bet for Fleet Defence. The F35 might, but it's going to be interesting to learn how they make it work.

 

[seahawk]

Why not? The F-18E has an AESA, IRST and carries a lot of missiles. What advantage does the F-35 have?

[Dawes]

IIRC, the A-6F program was sacrificed to free up funds for the train wreck that was the A-12. The A-6F was hardly stealthy, but it would seem to have been a useful long range heavy hitter in places like Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, seahawk said:

Why not? The F-18E has an AESA, IRST and carries a lot of missiles. What advantage does the F-35 have?

Stealth.

Its true it cant carry the long range missiles (unless you count meteor) the USN is developing for the F18E. OTOH, if you are flying them on detached patrol about a 100nm away from the task group, you might not have to. You dont need a 100nm range missile if you are already sitting out there undetected.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Dawes said:

IIRC, the A-6F program was sacrificed to free up funds for the train wreck that was the A-12. The A-6F was hardly stealthy, but it would seem to have been a useful long range heavy hitter in places like Afghanistan or Iraq.

Yeah, it was probably a mistake. OTOH it wasnt as if they were going to be building new ones, they were going to be rewinged airframes if I remember rightly. It was probably not good value for money. They would have got more value putting the money into rebuilding F14A's into D's, at least you could use that for more than one thing.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Stealth.

Its true it cant carry the long range missiles (unless you count meteor) the USN is developing for the F18E. OTOH, if you are flying them on detached patrol about a 100nm away from the task group, you might not have to. You dont need a 100nm range missile if you are already sitting out there undetected.

 

How does Stealth help them?

1. they carry less missiles in Stealth mode

2. they are only stealthy if they turn their radar off

3. stealth is only an advantage if the attacker turns his radar on

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Do you remember during the Falklands war, we lost so many Frigates? Its because we didnt have a flying radar, so we had to have ships out at all points of the compass to give adequate raid warning. The US in WW2 were doing the same thing to guard against Kamikazes IIRC.

So what if you did the same with F35's? You know the rough range of the missiles the Chinese will be using, so park F35's out around the rough heading you expect them to come from. They tool up about to launch safely out of range, and then get caught in a 'Sam trap' as Clancy would have put it. Only the Sams are F35's, and the missiles are Amraams. Their short range doesnt matter at that point, and you are going to be close enough to go to guns if they are that numerous.

No, they are stealthy even with radar on. They have as best I can tell, an LPI radar like the F22, low probability of intercept. And failing that they can always use Infra red if they are close enough.

https://www.quora.com/Are-the-LPI-radars-on-the-F-22-and-F-35-capable-of-tracking-targeting-or-only-detection

 

You cant really do any of that with an F18E. The most you can do is something like the old Tomcat did and provide another AAW between the Fleet and the threat. You arent really doing much to degrade the missile carriers like that, they will just keep coming back flinging missiles at you.

Just a personal view of course, but I think it would work. If you can stage the F35's out far enough, and thats probably easier with the C model and the longer range. It might be more difficult with B's, but as we have seen, they work fine with buddy packs.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

Every modern AESA has an LPI function today. And every modern EW system has a function to detect it nevertheless.

 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36696271.pdf

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well it doesnt say 'no' probability of intercept. I would be surprised if it gives enough of a spike to trip most RWR's regardless. It also overlooks that it has an ability to exchange target data to a aircraft that isnt emitting a radar. They have been able to do that since the 1970's with the Tomcat.

And once again, it does still have an IR capability.  Against that, China has a 1950's bomber. As our cousins say, do the maths.

 

 

[seahawk]

The question was what advantage the F-35 has over the F-18E/F in the fleet defence role.

We have established that both have an AESA LPI radar, and this makes it very likely that both can detect LPI radar emissions with their RWRs. Both have an IRST. So if the attacker keeps his nose cold, there is not much difference.

If the attacker turns his radar on, the F-35 will be harder to detect but carry fewer missiles. The F-18E will be easier to detect but could carry more missiles with a longer range. 

[futon]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well it doesnt say 'no' probability of intercept. I would be surprised if it gives enough of a spike to trip most RWR's regardless. It also overlooks that it has an ability to exchange target data to a aircraft that isnt emitting a radar. They have been able to do that since the 1970's with the Tomcat.

And once again, it does still have an IR capability.  Against that, China has a 1950's bomber. As our cousins say, do the maths.

 

 

H-6Ks a newly constructed model since around 2010 in which by now about 90 or more in service. New cockpit and modern gizmos. The bomb bay area of older H-6 versions is used for increased fuel storage. Weapons are loaded on wing pylons. First production H-6Ks used Russian D-30KP engines which have origin from late 1960s although late H-6K use new Chinese WS-18 engines which have similar level thrust performance but more modern and lighter. Navy version of H-6K is H-6J. They have ecm pods on the wings. Around 20 of them so far in service but after only about 3 years of first entering service. H-6N, only 4 seen so far after about 3, 4 years of entering service, identifiable by the aerial refueling probe on the front. The C-130 is also 1950s but of course the 1950s model isn't the mainstream model anymore.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im sure thats all true. But what doesnt it have?

1 No tailgun. Might actually be useful now if you are shooting targets at IR range.

2 Its about as stealthy as my John Thomas.

Its still a basic 1950's airframe with at best 1990's style escorts going up againt a 2020 series carrier aircraft that is, by and large, invisible.

Dont take my word for it either, try it out on CMANO.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

The question was what advantage the F-35 has over the F-18E/F in the fleet defence role.

We have established that both have an AESA LPI radar, and this makes it very likely that both can detect LPI radar emissions with their RWRs. Both have an IRST. So if the attacker keeps his nose cold, there is not much difference.

If the attacker turns his radar on, the F-35 will be harder to detect but carry fewer missiles. The F-18E will be easier to detect but could carry more missiles with a longer range. 

I just told you. Re-asking the question is not going to get you a different answer.

if what Futon says is true, they have 120 airframes. So assuming you have 1 squadrons of F35 in the air at any one time, they carry just 2 missiles each (overlooking the gun) then they could kill 32 airframes in a single sortie, assuming they were well deployed of course. Lets say you have 2 carriers working together, so you have 16 aircraft x2 in the air, 32, with 2 missiles each, thats the potential for killing half the force in a single sortie. And thats not including someone getting greedy and going fangs out. Or the complication of an RN Carrier carrying F35B plinking at long range with Meteor. And thats before they even launch their missiles.

How often are the Chinese going to continuing doing that before it starts looking as silly as Eagle Day? Indeed why are the Chinese going to risk putting a huge RCS aircraft up against stealth aircraft? And quite frankly, they probably arent. They might boast about a maritime strike capability, but as far as the carrying platform, its not even as good as the aging Backfire.

As ive said, dont take my word for it, try it on CMANO. Tu-16's were Phantom fodder in 1973 when I wargamed it, they arent going to be any more survivable now with new engines and radars.