Posted on 05/25/2021 10:38:03 PM PDT by Dundee
The evolving debate in the US about the future of the F-35A joint strike fighter may open up new opportunities for the Royal Australian Air Force to take a radically different direction in its future capability development.
Under Project AIR 6000 Phase 7, additional F-35As are one option under consideration, bringing the fleet up to a maximum of 100 aircraft in total. There now might be good reason to consider alternatives, rather than rush to embrace an all-F-35A capability.
The current debate in the US focuses on the high sustainment cost of the JSF, and whether the US Air Force really wants to depend so heavily on the aircraft as its core capability amid rising US–China strategic and military competition.
There’s also talk of reducing the USAF’s purchase of 1,765 aircraft, and even discussion about a clean-sheet design for a lightweight ‘fourth gen-plus/fifth gen-minus’ aircraft to replace the F-16, rather than buying more F-35As.
A recent US Government Accountability Office report on USAF F-35 sustainment and readiness suggests that full mission capable rates for the F-35A fall short of USAF requirements, at only 54% versus a 72% objective for the 2020 US fiscal year, while sustainment costs over a 60-year life cycle have increased steadily from $US1.11 trillion to $US1.27 trillion, leading to ‘a substantial and growing gap between estimated sustainment costs and affordability constraints’.
The report also notes ongoing challenges with logistics support emerging from the failure of the Autonomous Logistics Information System known as ALIS and notes the subsequent development of a replacement Operational Data Integrated Network, or ODIN, is encountering ‘myriad … technical and programmatic uncertainties’.
The GAO report suggests there are also challenges with the F-35’s engine, with a greater number of repairs taking longer than expected, reducing mission readiness further and driving up costs.
In terms of sustainment costs, the USAF will ‘need to reduce F-35A sustainment costs by 47 per cent’, in order to avoid multibillion-dollar funding gaps for a fleet of 1,192 aircraft by 2036.
These challenges cannot help but influence debate now emerging that could shape a USAF air combat review and the US Department of Defense 2023 budget. The prospect of escalating sustainment costs, and less than acceptable mission-capable rates will boost calls by proponents for reducing dependency on the F-35 in favour of a new platform.
This is occurring as the USAF is engaged in developing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) project to complement and ultimately replace both the F-35A and the older F-22 aircraft.
Central to success of NGAD is a new approach to capability acquisition called e-development.
That NGAD project, employing e-development based around synthetic design and testing, has already seen an actual physical demonstrator aircraft fly after a development period of three years.
As the RAAF considers its options for AIR 6000 Phase 7, these challenges in the US present opportunity not risk.
Rather than automatically defaulting to acquiring another 28 F-35As, the RAAF needs to seize the opportunity to embrace what might emerge from NGAD by the early 2030s and at the same time fully support the development of manned–unmanned teaming via the Boeing loyal wingman aircraft as a complementary capability to both the F-35 and a future air dominance system.
Above all else, the RAAF and Defence must shift gears to embrace rapid capability acquisition that epitomises e-development and the ‘digital century series’ of NGAD.
Delaying consideration of an F-35 replacement until the mid-2030s would be a mistake.
Instead, a ‘digital century series’ approach will allow Australia to keep pace with rapidly emerging threats and remain on a technological par with the US.
If the USAF does decide to avoid banking everything on the F-35A, it will be better for Australia to maintain a synergistic approach to capability development between the USAF and the RAAF.
That would boost our operational and geopolitical capital within the alliance beyond even what exists now and enable us to better respond to rapid adversary capability growth and technological surprise.
The time for new ideas and new thinking on future air combat capability is now.
A few dozen Phantom-IIs with the latest available electronics package and weapons load out that they can support would do quiet nicely in almost every ‘dispute’.
Unless your opponent has some sort of cloaking technology, brute force and blinding speed is pretty hard to beat.
But then again, I’m pretty prejudiced
Japan is cranking out some nice improvements of US designs I hear.
I love the Phantom but its’ use is for a fighter and a bomber (great napalm carrier but we don’t have napalm bombs anymore, a very big mistake. Great for wiping out armored columns, troop columns, ammo depots, trench-lines, command centers and CAVE COMPLEXES.
They were one of the aircraft of choice for the Red River Rats “going down town on Hanoi”.
Australia would need hundreds more planes of all types if Red China made any serious moves to seize islands/countries in the So. Pacific, though New Zealand might surrender themselves to the ChiComs just on general cowards’ principles.
In terms of range, payload, and maritime strike capability, the F-15E was a much better fit to replace the F-111C/G than either the F/A-18 E/F/G or the F-35A.
With the assembly line for the F-15 assured to remain open for at least the next few years, there is still time for the Au DoD to rectify this error and select the F-15E, or go for the newest variant, the F-15EX.
Australia already fields the F-18. Like Canada, they should upgrade to the Super Hornet. There’s no need for them to try to take the fight to China, just be able to repel China. Sydney and Melbourne are on the southeast tip anyways, China isn’t going to be able to cross the whole continent to strike their only strategic targets.
urgent need for more aircraft and ships
—
Lack of manpower for both is the bottleneck - maybe lots of illegals can help fix the manpower problem across the military? Then there is the snowflake/gender issue with those that do ‘qualify’
Australia’s opponent will be China and Phantoms will not win the day. BVR range on the J-20’s R-9 missiles is over 200 miles ...
That space in the Phantom-II’s nose was cavernous enough for vacuum tube and transistor-based avionics packages in the 60’s. (I maintained them). I’m willing to bet that amazingly intelligent packages can be fitted into that space today and be coupled to an AWACS theater control platform that wasn’t even in our dreams in our one-versus-one combat situations world.
The hard point weapons mounts don’t have to be limited to sparrows and sidewinders. If ‘their side’ has a 200 mile range missile, ‘our’ side has need for only a 201 mile range missile, to put it into overly simplified terms. And like as not, we have one.
‘our’ side has need for only a 201 mile range missile, to put it into overly simplified terms. And like as not, we have one.
—
actually no ... but they are working on one out to 100-150 miles - an area has been largely neglected due to budgets and over-reliance on ‘stealth’ - one out to 200-300 is on dream wish list.
They were counting on ‘stealth’ to make up the difference ...
Phantoms have such a huge radar return that they are non-survivable against any peer enemy, no matter what they put in the nose area.
Wing stress and hard points are load rated and, if your missile is too heavy or the hard point too weak, everything needs to be redesigned - all money better spent on a newer plane.
To be even slightly capable against any modern fighter from any country, the Phantom needs a complete redesign to make it even halfway survivable in any peer contest
Nice pipe dream, but the realities of both modern hardware and budgets preclude any such thing as a viable and survivable Phantom
Keep in mind that China has no modern combat experience. Everything they can do is solely on paper at this point. China is going to focus way too much on not failing. This strategy goes way back to the 1930’s.
My guess is they will always be bluffing, trying to get something through intimidation
Unlike America, we fixed the illegal immigrant problem 20 years ago.
Helps to be an island continent but deploying the full resources of a national military and intelligence organisations makes all the difference.
#6 All the animals and insects and hot weather will decimate the Chinese soldiers before the Aussies do if they tried the cross Australia.... : )
Great advice. They took it 9 years ago.
https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft/strike/fa-18f-super-hornet
Glad they listened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.