Cost of operating Military planes

[MikeD]

Meh - and a big one. I don't realistically see anyone on earth we'll be fighting for the extended future that we don't woefully outclass with the equipment we've already got. Not to say that we shouldn't be working to advance our military, but c'mon. It's $44,000/hr to fly an F22... That's a lot of freaking money - not only that, but the F35 program is quoted at a trillion dollars over the lifespan of the program - we've already paid for it, yeah, but I'd rather see us spending money on other things to be frank, how much would it cost to pay off every person's student loans in the country? About a trillion dollars. How much infrastructure could be fixed around the country with this kind of money?

It's not how much something costs to operate, it's oftentimes something as simple as how many there are, or where they are and opportuunity they have.

You know most of our aircraft losses to SAMs since the start of Desert Storm was not to advanced or modern systems? Most of our losses have been to older systems such as SA-2, SA-3, SA-9 and SA-13 and even the slightly more modern SA-6. These old systems have knocked down F-15Es, F-16s, A-10s and an F-117. We really haven't lost anything to a modern SAM besides an A-10 to a Roland SAM. So the object lesson is that even the old stuff can still kill you dead. Even one F-22 only carries so many missiles. Overwhelm them with numbers, and that's bad enough.

Now, as someone pointed out, MANPADs are a threat to the Tucanos and Air Tractors out there, but I imagine there a huge threat to the Kiowas, the Blackhawks, and the Apaches that are doing the "nitty-gritty" work down low in a similar environment to what the Tucano would be in - and while we are losing helicopters, we're not losing them left and right, and people still sign up to fly em'. I dunno, give them to the army then if the AF is too good for em'.

Not a matter of "too good for them"; moreso a matter of "we aren't in the business of suicide missions". Helicopters, there's nothing they can do about where they are and operate, they don't have a choice of overflying many of these systems. Plus, they aren't going to go into hotly contested areas, as they are far more vulnerable. There have been operations where we have been losing them left and right, so that's still a possibility: From Lam Son 719 invasion of Laos in 1971, to the deep strike mission in the opening of Iraq 2003 where over 30 were damaged heavily and one lost on a single mission.

We're not going to fight the Chinese, we're not going to fight the Russians, realistically, who on Earth are we going to fight that will remotely challenge our air superiority at all in the next couple of decades? I'm not saying, "don't be prepared," but realistically what the hell are we spending our money on?

Hard to say. I used to believe the same thing. Granted China wouldn't be a direct war with them striking our shores, but I could see something regarding Taiwan being an issue if China was pissed off enough at us, likely over economics..

And our air superiority isn't only against other aircraft; going against other country air defense systems is something we don't have the instant superiority as much as we'd like. Vietnam was bad enough, and many countries saw the mistakes made by Iraq in 1991, and have adjusted and improved themselves accordingly, along with general advancement in the technology of these systems..

That said, I don't really know who is on our next plate of war du jour.

 

[av8tr1]

Meh - and a big one. I don't realistically see anyone on earth we'll be fighting for the extended future that we don't woefully outclass with the equipment we've already got.
Snip......
We're not going to fight the Chinese, we're not going to fight the Russians, realistically, who on Earth are we going to fight that will remotely challenge our air superiority at all in the next couple of decades? I'm not saying, "don't be prepared," but realistically what the hell are we spending our money on?

Either the Chinese or the Russians can both put up a good fight with equipment they have. And they are both spending vast resources to improve current equipment and make inroads on new technology.

However I don't think we are going to find ourselves fighting the Chinese. They are too reliant on our markets. Basicly if we go down they go down with us. So they are invested in our success. The Russians on the other hand.....if they face another economic crash, which is very likely at the moment I could see them starting to reignite the empire building machine.

In point of fact they are already doing it. Look at what happened in Georgia a few years ago, and the Ukraine right now. All for resources. And all you have to do is look at recent news with Russia sending aircraft in to other countries including our own in a show of force. There have been a number of recent near misses of aircraft due to Russian activities. Heck just a few weeks ago they flew Bear bombers over our borders.

As the price of gas continues to fall (which is a major export for them) they may feel forced to start taking military action. We have a number of treaties with neighboring countries. Its how we got nukes out of some very unstable nations. As part of those treaties we promised to provide defensive support if attacked.

Our current commander in chief doesn't have the "right stuff" to follow through with those promises we made but hopefully the next "guy" will and we could easily see ourselves up against the Russians.

I'd rather see us spending money on other things to be frank, how much would it cost to pay off every person's student loans in the country? About a trillion dollars. How much infrastructure could be fixed around the country with this kind of money?

I'll agree with you on the infrastructure, but no way do I want my tax dollars going to some idiot who got a masters degree in underwater basket weaving because he/she thought it sounded cool. College isn't a right, and it isn't for everyone. If someone makes a poor investment in a degree and can't find a job (like those ridiculous professional pilot degrees), we taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for their poor judgement. Now if they want to join the military and earn it.....

 

[ppragman]

Either the Chinese or the Russians can both put up a good fight with equipment they have. And they are both spending vast resources to improve current equipment and make inroads on new technology.

However I don't think we are going to find ourselves fighting the Chinese. They are too reliant on our markets. Basicly if we go down they go down with us. So they are invested in our success. The Russians on the other hand.....if they face another economic crash, which is very likely at the moment I could see them starting to reignite the empire building machine.

Meh, honestly, I completely disagree about the Russians. How's Russia going to afford a conflict? They can't. Their currency value is intrinsically tied with oil revenue - which, coincidentally (?!) has dropped off precipitously, Putin's already talking about five years of austerity in his country, the jig is up for this most recent expansionist Russia, though they may not know it yet. I'll also add that Russia never stopped empire building or trying to empire build. There's been South Ossetia, the Eurasian Union, and now this thing in Crimea plus a whole host of other schemes in plans in the last 25 years. Still, we're not going to war with Russia - Putin isn't going to destroy his country economically, politically, and reduce it to radioactive rubble (which would be the ultimate result of a war with the Russians) so that he can save face. He's a smart guy, even if I disagree with his politics.

Besides, what would a war with the United States accomplish? Even if they "won" a war against us, it's not like back in the old days where territory would change hands, we have international structures in place, the normalization of borders and the stability of national sovereignty is at unprecedented levels. There's no fundamental advantage to a war. That's not to say that a war couldn't happen, but I would severely doubt we'll fight the Russians any time soon.

In point of fact they are already doing it. Look at what happened in Georgia a few years ago, and the Ukraine right now. All for resources. And all you have to do is look at recent news with Russia sending aircraft in to other countries including our own in a show of force. There have been a number of recent near misses of aircraft due to Russian activities. Heck just a few weeks ago they flew Bear bombers over our borders.

Not any real difference than business as usual. While they might be harassing the Baltics and Scandinavians more than they were a year ago, they never really stopped. They've been doing this for decades. Hell, I've lived in Alaska off and on for most of my life and have personally seen fighters scrambled out of Elmendorf just to see on the evening that they turned around TU95 bear bombers over a decade ago. A company I worked for had a contract to pretend to be a Russian airplane and bust the ADIZ ffs. This is not a new thing, this has been going on since the cold war and even continued through the bush years when we were all buddy-buddy with the Russians. The near misses are a bit troubling in the sense that it's alarming that you could get smacked by a Russian bomber, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, I imagine that the Russians knew exactly where that airliner was at and were trying a new method of harassment. I'm certain we're doing the same thing to them - I know for a fact we do it to the Chinese - remember that ELINT airplane that bumped into that Chinese fighter a few years back?

As the price of gas continues to fall (which is a major export for them) they may feel forced to start taking military action. We have a number of treaties with neighboring countries. Its how we got nukes out of some very unstable nations. As part of those treaties we promised to provide defensive support if attacked.

Why? What could possibly be gained. The best thing Russia could do if they wanted to raise oil prices would be to cut production. Rosneft is owned by the Russian Government - so is Gazprom, they can adjust the spigot as they see fit. Also, the defensive treaty with Ukraine - there is none. There's the Budapest Memorandum, which basically states that Russia, the US, UK and a few other countries will (egregiously stolen from wiki):

1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

Nothing about f-ing up the Russians for invading Crimea. Nothing about defensive support - basically it's "well, we'll talk to the Security Council about it if you are invaded." We're not obligated to do anything - what we have done is sanctions, which has been economically catastrophic to the Russians.

Our current commander in chief doesn't have the "right stuff" to follow through with those promises we made but hopefully the next "guy" will and we could easily see ourselves up against the Russians.

I dunno, I'm not a huge Obama fan, but his handling of this has been better than expected.

I'll agree with you on the infrastructure, but no way do I want my tax dollars going to some idiot who got a masters degree in underwater basket weaving because he/she thought it sounded cool. College isn't a right, and it isn't for everyone. If someone makes a poor investment in a degree and can't find a job (like those ridiculous professional pilot degrees), we taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for their poor judgement. Now if they want to join the military and earn it.....

What I'm saying is that even that would have been a better investment than a fighter plane we can't shoot the gun on for another four years. I'd rather pay for a masters in underwater basketweaving that allows that guy to reinvest $400/mo into stuff he doesn't need (thus stimulating the economy) than pay for one massive project to a select few companies. By the time that money trickles down...well, it will certainly be a trickle.

<thread creep>

And also, "we taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for their poor judgment?" Like with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group, GM... Because those institutions really earned it through hard work for their country. At least the guy with the art history masters might make some meaningful contribution to the greater body of knowledge of the world when he does his thesis, instead of figuring out more creative ways swindle people. When did it become the case that the only way to meaningfully contribute to the world was to produce some material thing, generate revenue for someone, or serve in the military? Isn't it OK for someone to study something for the pure joy of learning more about it? College isn't, and shouldn't be a career academy.

As for "ridiculous professional pilot degrees" I just finished mine. I'm the first male in my family to complete a college education and am damn proud of it (it only took 8 years and the accumulation of over 200 credits for me to settle on something, anything) and I'm going to continue my education starting in the spring, it's been a "poor investment" but money well spent, your milage may vary.

 

[pressclick]

In all of the very logical and well stated cases why or why not we could be in a conflict with China or Russia, I haven't heard anyone mention the simple consolidation of power.

A major part of Russia invading the Ukraine was likely Putin's political situation, and he got away with it while calling NATO's bluff in the process. Nothing spikes a politician's approval like gunfire, and taking back Crimea was a huge win for him. I'll bet anyone he has a well developed list of similar regional plays in his back pocket, and in my opinion, the economic turmoil makes crossing another one off more tempting. He's nobody in that country if he isn't in charge. Maybe the next one goes too far.

The Chinese leaders use the same playbook and exercise constant anti-Western propaganda. A quick Spratly grab to fire up the populace, get some oil, and show the people that all of the expensive military toys really were in everyone's best interests has to look a lot more feasible after the yawner in Western Ukraine. Maybe this time we keep our agreements. Perhaps it wouldn't be the Fulda Gap, but it would certainly be a very challenging conflict.

There has to be growing realization that if it is quick and small without civilians being executed in the streets, given Western war weariness, the U.S. media is going to cover it for a couple of weeks, and then everyone is going to go back to not caring especially if you avoid shooting down airliners. But it is a dangerous game.

Regardless, stating emphatically that it can't happen has repeatedly been shown by history to be a very risky position to take.

 

[deadstick]

The great equalizer, last ditch of course, being the tactical planes with nukes such as F-16/111, and the Pershing and GLCM SRBMs that were then in Germany and England, respectively.

If your life expectancy in England was 48-72 hours, I wonder what the life expectancy of the large West German bases at Hahn/Bitburg/Spang/Sembach/Zweibruken were expected to be? Heck of alot less I imagine.

We had the W79 to make that speed bump...bumpier.

When the Chinese flip their secret switch and all of the gizmos go cold, it might be useful to have something that is mean, dumb, ugly, and can shoot straight.

The Seventh Carrier series.

 

[deadstick]

LOL, I flew 58s, Alpha and Charlie models, those were the old unarmored models without the ball on top. Our projected life expectancy was 30 seconds on contact with the enemy. We were told when shot down to aim to crash close to the enemy so the our guys knew where to place their ammo.

Nothing like being a piloted marker round.

Unarmed and Unafraid. Recon by sacrifice!!

You know it! Scouts Out!

 

[Lawman]

Apaches finally get rid of deep attack as a tactic?

Nope,

Now we are pairing UAVs to provide us greater stand off. That and having a FLIR that can see further than 3km is doing a lot for it as well. It's still not optimal but Karbala wasn't a "deep Attack" by doctrine. " Deep Attack is 30km past the FLOT no further. After that it's the Air Forces problem. They went well beyond that because somebody wanted to try and validate something that had barely worked at NTC and ignored common sense.

Really Karbala was piss poorly planned and executed. It wasn't that they didn't work as far as effective fires it was that instead of coming in low over the lake as was suggested by the senior warrants they hovered over head of a built up area full of dudes with small arms that just pointed them up and hosed down the belly where all the electronics and vulnerable • is. Plus the SEAD plan was fire off a few ATACMs and that's it. When the A models came up two days later they used the plan the senior warrants had wanted, had better joint coordination with fixed wing assets and artillery for on call SEAD, and it didn't result in getting their asses kicked. A model saved the day.

 

[Hacker15e]

I don't realistically see anyone on earth we'll be fighting for the extended future that we don't woefully outclass with the equipment we've already got.

We're not going to fight the Chinese, we're not going to fight the Russians, realistically, who on Earth are we going to fight that will remotely challenge our air superiority at all in the next couple of decades?

What are you doing in aviation when you seem to have the next 50 years of world geopolitics all sorted out? Those are bold statements that reflect your understanding of the world situation today and, perhaps, for the last 10-15 years or so.

We are talking about equipment that will remain in the US inventory for literally the next 50 years. In world politics time, literally "anything can happen" during that timeframe. Apply that timeframe to today; look 50 years back and see if your assessments of the situation between China and Russia and the US are even remotely like they are right now.

Just as importantly, I think you are overestimating the capability of current US equipment and underestimating the capabilities of anti-aircraft systems that are currently on the market for relatively little money and quite easily proliferated. Just as a frame of reference, the SA-6/SA-11 that shot down MH-17 in Ukraine is one system that absolutely scares the pants off me in the US's "most modern" 4th generation fighter (we call it the "three fingers of death"). As @MikeD mentioned, all of the current US aircraft have, in the last 20-30 years or conflicts, been shot down by the legacy SAM systems -- not even the SA-10/12/20/22 SAM systems that are now the gold-standard.

With respect to, "who will remotely challenge our air superiority"...I say, read this (and realize it describes an event that took place 10 years ago):

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/02/16...af_rewrote_the_rules_of_air_combat_33111.html

I'm not saying, "don't be prepared," but realistically what the hell are we spending our money on?

No, that's actually what you are saying. When you say something like "the F-35/F-22 is too expensive", what exactly do you propose to have in the military aviation fleet in their staid? If your answer is anything like, "the current fleet of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and A-10s", then what you are saying -- precisely -- is "don't be prepared".

We've covered this many times before. The current fleet of US 4th generation fighters is all ready, today, outclassed by existing, operational 4.5 gen fighters in the gray and red world. They are all ready, today, outclassed by existing, operational, and proliferated SAM and AAA systems. That fact is only going to get worse as time progresses, as more countries acquire these systems and newer, better ones come out. The current fleet of fighters was designed over 40 years ago. All of the bells-and-whistles in the world (better avionics, better weapons) aren't going to be able to compensate for the changes in technology over that period.

When you offer an alternative like, say, a Tucano- class aircraft, you are using an example that is a very specific, niche aircraft that is designed for a specific mission in a specific type of both air and ground threat. Are you expecting an A-29 to also perform the SEAD role? OCA/DCA? Maritime? Interdiction/Strike? How do you think the Tucano performs against an Su-27/30/35? How does it perform against any 3rd or 4th gen air-to-air threat? How do you think it performs against any radar SAM system of the last 50-60 years?

 

[RDoug]

I'm really loving and learning from this conversation. Indeed, I just read up on the different generations of jet fighter aircraft and it struck me what a huge time gap there has been between Generation 4 and Generation 5:

Generation 1: mid '40s to mid '50s.
Generation 2: mid '50s to early '60s.
Generation 3: early '60s to circa 1970
Generation 4: circa 1970 to mid '90s
Generation 4.5: mid '90s to 2005
Generation 5: 2005 to present

If you consider Gen 4.5 is basically just enhanced computing power, data link, and AESA radar put into Gen 4 airframes, that means Gen 4 has lasted now for 35 years! And that generation still makes up the vast majority of our fighter fleet today, approaching 45 years later. I find that incredible.

 

[ppragman]

Regardless, stating emphatically that it can't happen has repeatedly been shown by history to be a very risky position to take.

Hold me to it - seriously. If we go to war with Russia or China, bring this thread back up.

 

[Hacker15e]

Hold me to it - seriously. If we go to war with Russia or China, bring this thread back up.

Fortunately, the outcome of your prediction doesn't carry the weight of putting at risk the future existence of our country.

It is incredibly easy to make such finite statements within the confines of an internet forum where no lives or lifestyles or property are actually at stake.

For the people who are charged with supporting and defending the Constitution against all enemies (and I'm not just talking about the military -- every elected official takes this same oath), they take the outcomes of their analysis and predictions significantly more seriously. It is all too easy to fell prey to believing that it is all one big military-industrial-complex moneymaking scheme. There are a lot of really smart people -- from all ends of the political spectrum, isolationists and warhawks alike -- who spend entire educations and professional careers analyzing geopolitics and making inputs to the strategic-level decisions about our nation's defense.

 

[Maurus]

Hold me to it - seriously. If we go to war with Russia or China, bring this thread back up.

We may not run into a conflict with them but I assure you that China and Russia are going to sell their technology to others. They have in the past and likely will continue to do so.

 

[RDoug]

We may not run into a conflict with them but I assure you that China and Russia are going to sell their technology to others. They have in the past and likely will continue to do so.

That is an extremely valid point. You may not in the future be fighting Russia or China, but at some point you will be fighting their equipment.

 

[ppragman]

What are you doing in aviation when you seem to have the next 50 years of world geopolitics all sorted out? Those are bold statements that reflect your understanding of the world situation today and, perhaps, for the last 10-15 years or so.

Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature is particularly relevant to this discussion, I'm not going to base my entire thesis on his work - but violence, conflict, and border swapping is to historical lows. We're literally in the most peaceful time period of all time. To suggest that war can't happen is wrong - but I personally don't see it happening.

We are talking about equipment that will remain in the US inventory for literally the next 50 years. In world politics time, literally "anything can happen" during that timeframe. Apply that timeframe to today; look 50 years back and see if your assessments of the situation between China and Russia and the US are even remotely like they are right now.

If you think we'll still have pilots to fly these things in 50 years is deluding themselves. It's a lot better politically if you only have to expend treasure in conflict and not blood. Also, it's worth mentioning that 50 years ago, there were many out there who were saying the Soviet Union was unsustainable - they were proven right. In the long run, I'd highly suspect that we'll become more and more intertwined internationally, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a much stronger Leviathan in the UN and in multi-national corporations and a much weaker political power base in individual nations.

Regardless, we're not going to be fighting people who's wellbeing depends on an economic system we control. I will add the caveat that if, Russia and China can become economically independent from us - then we could have a conflict, but it's not going to happen provided we (and I mean the west) keep buying techno-products from China and petroleum products from Russia. If we do have conflicts with these entities it'll be via proxy wars, and they'll be relatively low intensity (from a geopolitical standpoint - if you're there, it'll be pretty intense). Just as they've been since Korea. Not only that, but with the constant coverage available no sufficiently connected populace will tolerate total war like in the old days. The coalition lost about the same amount of people during the entire Iraq war as were lost on D-Day (although Iraqi security forces suffered much much higher casualties, and there is other data to look at). I would be surprised if there was a conflict between great powers in my lifetime.

Just as importantly, I think you are overestimating the capability of current US equipment and underestimating the capabilities of anti-aircraft systems that are currently on the market for relatively little money and quite easily proliferated. Just as a frame of reference, the SA-6/SA-11 that shot down MH-17 in Ukraine is one system that absolutely scares the pants off me in the US's "most modern" 4th generation fighter (we call it the "three fingers of death"). As @MikeD mentioned, all of the current US aircraft have, in the last 20-30 years or conflicts, been shot down by the legacy SAM systems -- not even the SA-10/12/20/22 SAM systems that are now the gold-standard.

With respect to, "who will remotely challenge our air superiority"...I say, read this (and realize it describes an event that took place 10 years ago):

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/02/16...af_rewrote_the_rules_of_air_combat_33111.html

This is a valid critique of my point, and arguably would destroy my argument were it not for the rise of drones. Honestly, I don't think we'll have manned fighter and attack aircraft in 50 years. I think we won't have them 20 years - especially as everyone else has them. How can you justify sending men out to fight (and potentially die) against machines? These systems are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to deploy, more expendable, and can't generate casualties on our side. If you want to look at the real story of this article it's that a predator costs $1500/hr to operate. Drones are cheaper and cause less political fallout when they get shot down, and you don't have to write any letters home. Spending a $trillion on a manned system that can't shoot it's gun for another 4 years is a bad investment when a UAV is an order of magnitude less expensive to operate.

No, that's actually what you are saying. When you say something like "the F-35/F-22 is too expensive", what exactly do you propose to have in the military aviation fleet in their staid? If your answer is anything like, "the current fleet of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and A-10s", then what you are saying -- precisely -- is "don't be prepared".

I don't know what to do - that may sound like a copout, but I don't think that funneling money into the military industrial complex to produce weapon systems that over promise and under-deliver is a good idea. Especially when the money could likely be spent more effectively elsewhere (especially on fixing our own country's infrastructure, poverty, and so on, but that's another discussion all together). Additionally, you're creating a false dilemma - you're effectively saying that I can agree with how we're spending this money or I'm leaving America unprepared, this is a cleverly constructed logical fallacy meant to appeal to my sense of patriotism, but it's not correct. There are many ways we can prepare ourselves for future threats that don't cost trillions of dollars and actually are effective in furthering our interests and defending against our enemies.

We've covered this many times before. The current fleet of US 4th generation fighters is all ready, today, outclassed by existing, operational 4.5 gen fighters in the gray and red world. They are all ready, today, outclassed by existing, operational, and proliferated SAM and AAA systems. That fact is only going to get worse as time progresses, as more countries acquire these systems and newer, better ones come out. The current fleet of fighters was designed over 40 years ago. All of the bells-and-whistles in the world (better avionics, better weapons) aren't going to be able to compensate for the changes in technology over that period.

Which means that even our new fighters will be worthless in 20 years time (even though they're slated to be used for the next 50) - which is why spending $1 Trillion dollars on them may not be the best investment. This sort of paradigm is effectively a money tree for the Lockheeds and Boeings of the world. Perhaps upgrades to current equipment, or low-cost fighters combined with superior numbers could be a more effective use of our tax dollars. I don't know, I'm not a tactician, I'm not a fighter pilot, and I've never played on on TV, but I resent having to pay for trillion dollar weapon systems when bridges are collapsing in this country. I've heard it said on these forums that we have the best trained pilots in the world in the American military, I would suspect that toe-to-toe against anyone we will conceivably fight, we'll come out on top. Now if we were to enter into an unlikely Von Clausevitz style total war with some other great power on planet earth we'll have new top-of-the-line fighters as fast as engineers can engineer them - but I just don't see that happening.

When you offer an alternative like, say, a Tucano- class aircraft, you are using an example that is a very specific, niche aircraft that is designed for a specific mission in a specific type of both air and ground threat. Are you expecting an A-29 to also perform the SEAD role? OCA/DCA? Maritime? Interdiction/Strike? How do you think the Tucano performs against an Su-27/30/35? How does it perform against any 3rd or 4th gen air-to-air threat? How do you think it performs against any radar SAM system of the last 50-60 years?

That's not an alternative to everything that the F35 can do - it's an alternative for a particular mission that the F35 could do - CAS. Arguably many more Tucanos would get shot down in a hypothetical conflict between us and the Chinese or Russian Federation - but I don't see that type of conflict as being even remotely possible in our lifetime. We've already paid for the F35, scraping it wouldn't do anything "good" for us. My argument is that we shouldn't have built the damn thing in the fist place, and we should be more discerning in how we spend our money on tools for making war. I'd also argue that for conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq (which is probably the kind of conflict we'll face indefinitely) a Tucano is probably a better investment than an F35.

Just my $1.05.

 

[Lawman]

That is an extremely valid point. You may not in the future be fighting Russia or China, but at some point you will be fighting their equipment.

Along with our own.

One of the big jokes of going to war with certain countries is we will finally get to put the F-16 vs F-18 argument to bed.

 

[MikeD]

Along with our own.

One of the big jokes of going to war with certain countries is we will finally get to put the F-16 vs F-18 argument to bed.

Greeks and the Turks have been able to skirmish here and there F-4 vs F-4.

 

[ryan1234]

In the long run, I'd highly suspect that we'll become more and more intertwined internationally, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a much stronger Leviathan in the UN and in multi-national corporations and a much weaker political power base in individual nations.

Regardless, we're not going to be fighting people who's wellbeing depends on an economic system we control. I will add the caveat that if, Russia and China can become economically independent from us - then we could have a conflict, but it's not going to happen provided we (and I mean the west) keep buying techno-products from China and petroleum products from Russia. If we do have conflicts with these entities it'll be via proxy wars, and they'll be relatively low intensity (from a geopolitical standpoint - if you're there, it'll be pretty intense). Just as they've been since Korea. Not only that, but with the constant coverage available no sufficiently connected populace will tolerate total war like in the old days. The coalition lost about the same amount of people during the entire Iraq war as were lost on D-Day (although Iraqi security forces suffered much much higher casualties, and there is other data to look at). I would be surprised if there was a conflict between great powers in my lifetime.


That's not an alternative to everything that the F35 can do - it's an alternative for a particular mission that the F35 could do - CAS. Arguably many more Tucanos would get shot down in a hypothetical conflict between us and the Chinese or Russian Federation - but I don't see that type of conflict as being even remotely possible in our lifetime. We've already paid for the F35, scraping it wouldn't do anything "good" for us. My argument is that we shouldn't have built the damn thing in the fist place, and we should be more discerning in how we spend our money on tools for making war. I'd also argue that for conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq (which is probably the kind of conflict we'll face indefinitely) a Tucano is probably a better investment than an F35.

Just my $1.05.

Your model above is the assumption that non-conflict is achieved through economic interdependence. You aren't the first person to suggest it, and will certainly not be the last. There was even someone who won the Nobel Peace Prize for arguing that peace could and will be achieved through economic interdependence. His name was Norman Angell. His argument was that Britain and Germany had become economically dependent on one another and thus war was really just a great illusion, of course shortly after The Great Illusion was published, a huge world war broke out. Is there some truth to economic interdependence? Absolutely! Is it something to hang your hat on? Historically, no.

The certainty of not fighting an industrial war between nations is a dangerous gamble. International economics and foreign policy are such a fragile and complicated thing. The Chinese military is a multi-sector economic/industrial conglomerate itself. The Chinese have a history of securing resources through threats and outright force. Economic interdependence can either bolster cooperation or conflict. Take Japan from 1920-1930. Economic Interdependence grew substantially, as did it's aggressive expansive imperialism. Additionally, not everyone views "intertwining" to be mutually beneficial. Sometimes there are winners and losers. Not to mention that the more actors there are in the global economy means that maybe an overly aggressive-expansive nation may not have to suffer a punitive degrade or cut-off in trade for very long (i.e. always someone to trade with).

There simply are no easy answers or spot on predictions to be made.

 

[///AMG]

So on the topic of unmanned strike aircraft, taking it a bit further, I wonder if we will ever see unmanned foot soldiers (ie robots I guess?). Because that would be the level of sophistication that would be needed to field an unmanned fixed wing strike fighter IMHO. That would make for a pretty strange shift of the modern battlefield I'd think.

 

[Lawman]

That's not an alternative to everything that the F35 can do - it's an alternative for a particular mission that the F35 could do - CAS. Arguably many more Tucanos would get shot down in a hypothetical conflict between us and the Chinese or Russian Federation - but I don't see that type of conflict as being even remotely possible in our lifetime. We've already paid for the F35, scraping it wouldn't do anything "good" for us. My argument is that we shouldn't have built the damn thing in the fist place, and we should be more discerning in how we spend our money on tools for making war. I'd also argue that for conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq (which is probably the kind of conflict we'll face indefinitely) a Tucano is probably a better investment than an F35.

Just my $1.05.

I think your missing the forest for the trees here. F-35, Super Tac, Hawg, etc that's the trees.

The forest is our fighter fleet is outclassed and 30-35 years old. Now that's not to say that we can't still put together a massive air campaign package of TLAMs and well supported 4-4.5 gen aircraft with a massive support structure of tankers and jammers etc. And hat massive structure gets bigger exponentially. So if we keep what we have we need more and more stuff to get it where we need it with a higher risk of losses and an ever growing number of tankers and people to dress the team (strike aircraft) and carry that long ball to the end zone. Not to mention that these aircraft are worn out. Would it shock you to know that Raptor is already half way through its service life.... Yeah that's right and the Mudhens and Vipers that carry the load right now, they are ancient by aviation standards. We have fighters that came into service before cordless phones and fuel injection. So as we go on this already massively expensive process of putting your aircraft over the other guys country gets worse in way of budget. Now it takes 200 cruise missiles instead of 30 or imbedded jammers with strike packages when there aren't enough to go around slowing down the air campaign and prolonging the action. F-35 and later 6th gen (which we are already working on) takes a huge bite out of this by eliminating a lot of that logistical tail.

You mentioned UCAS.... UCAS is nowhere near being anything you imagine it nor will it be in the next 20 years. And our current crop of aircraft as already discussed will not carry the water waiting on that to change. Without a true AI UCAS needs a connection to some form of ground station and isn't able to push anywhere near the situational awareness to be anything but predator. Not only that yes predator costs x and a fighter costs y... Predator is a kite compared to a high performance strike aircraft. You want an aircraft that can carry a worthwhile payload, has the engines to move it with speed, fuel to get it over the horizon, sensors to effectively find and achieve target effect... Effectively you build a 4/5 scale strike fighter and just take the man out of it. It's not going to net you massive cost savings. Chalk up the fact that UAVs have a 10x higher number of class A accidents and the cost of owning and employing a UCAS Air Force sky rockets.

Really what we are trying to do with UCAS right now is make it a force multiplier for a strike package. Think a 2 ship of raptors or Rhinos with 3-4 semi autonomous 5th gen UCAS aircraft going into the teeth of a peer force country to kick the door down. The manned fighter now has more ordnance, more reach, and an option when things need really long standoff but are too dynamic to just call up a cruise missile. It's like a side kick, it doesn't get its own show but it helps to have around.

 

[dustoff17]

I wore this same patch on the back of my helmet for years! [still have it]
We always figured that Kiowas were like Frisbees; the Commander would throw one of us out towards the enemy, if we didn't come back, he would just throw another one out!