"How the F-35 lowers capability" Topic

Here's a great example of how acquiring the F-35 lowers capability:

defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/158059/f_35-cost-reduces-korea-weapons-buy.html

The F-35 lowers capability because of it's price

Originally South Korea wanted an additional 60 upgraded F-15Ks with full weapons fit.

Then there was big blow up over the Koreans ordering an old generation "non- stealth" aircraft.

They changed the order to F-35 BUT:

- They could only afford 40 F-35As instead of 60 F-15K
- It now turns out they can't afford the required weapons or spare parts due to cost of actual F-35.

The F-35 may be a wonderful weapon system but it's so expensive it reduces capabilities by reducing numbers that can be acquired. Obviously it impacts on weapons and spare acquisition.

Lower numbers = greater susceptibility to attrition ala the regular accidents and failures that are common in military operations.

Overall it would impact other capabilities too – spending more than anticipated on F-35s means less dollars for frigates, transports, rifles, boots etc etc or schools, roads, hospitals.

The same has happened across Europe too – F-35 buys are being slashed by anywhere up to 60% due to aircraft not dropping in price as promised.

In the end Western airforces will be left with token high tech forces with no ability to actually do anything with them.

With the South Koreans, the F-15 more than exceeded North Korean threat levels (their main jets are Chinese MiG-19 knock offs (F-6), various MiG-21s and only a very small fleet of MiG-23s and MiG-29s).

The F-15 is still very capable against Chinese and Japanese too and will continue to be so in the medium to long term future.

But instead of maintaining aircraft numbers, spares capability and weapons, the South Koreans are going for a silver bullet F-35 fleet much like the rest of the world.

Until we see it in action I don't know if I buy the argument. Kind of like saying if only we had not bought Saber jets we could have more Mustangs.

True, but a Saber Jet will kill a Mustang every time if all else is equal.

If the F-35 comes close to living to the billing it will eat an F-15k alive.

not if you don't have the money to put weapons on board or keep it flying.

My main issue with the F-35 is that the low numbers make strikes on birds on the ground pay off more than they currently do.

The Soviets had plans to attack airfields with Spetsnaz if the balloon went up, and I think modern airforces would be even more vulnerable due to the low number of fields and aircraft.

The F-35 program seems predicated on the idea that war won't last more than a week and that the enemy won't have time to prepare.

the F-35 comes close to living to the billing it will eat an F-15k alive.

Not really. Even top USAF general Mike Hostage, has admitted that the USAF needs F-22 to make F-35 work. That assumes opponents with Flanker equivalent aircraft.

And due to curtailment of F-22 production, the plan was to keep 245 upgraded F-15C/Ds in service and also upgrade remaining 200 odd F-15Es to more multirole capability. However with further cutbacks, F-15C/D fleet is slowly being phased out with upgrade program in question.

True, but a Saber Jet will kill a Mustang every time if all else is equal.

Irrelevant if the enemy has 100 P-51s and you have 10 F-86s with low supplies of ammunition and spares.

Indeed the Me-262 was a great example of this. It might've been more advanced than a P-47/-51/Spitfire but it's impact on war was negligible.

Also F-15K and upgraded F-15SSE are more than a match for MiG-19/21/-23/-29 fielded by DPRKAF, are even more advanced than JASDF F-2s or upgraded F-15C/Ds or PLAAF/PLAN J-10/J-11/Su-27/-30.

The Japanese are getting a measly 38 F-35s too (yet to see if anything comes of F-3). PLAAF/PLAN are probably a decade or more from fielding stealth J-20/21 by which stage F-35 should hopefully come down in price.

My main issue with the F-35 is that the low numbers make strikes on birds on the ground pay off more than they currently do.

The Soviets had plans to attack airfields with Spetsnaz if the balloon went up, and I think modern airforces would be even more vulnerable due to the low number of fields and aircraft.

There's also missile strikes and enemy's own strike fighters.

Let's face it, if you're facing an opponent in a situation where you need an all-stealth fighter fleet, then we should assume the enemy is also reasonably equipped and trained and also capable of proactive action.

For anything else including actions such as those in Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Serbia in 1999 let alone Mali or Iraq or Afghanistan, current fleet is more than capable and still offers absolute overkill capability.

The F-35 program seems predicated on the idea that war won't last more than a week and that the enemy won't have time to prepare.

The F-35 also assumes that the F-35 operator is always the attacker.

It is based on Iraq 1991. However "Iraq 1991" opponents are virtually extinct.

All that is left with is COIN/third world where an F-16 is often overkill or super power level conflict against China or Russia.

The worst thing is that for most F-35 states, they can only afford enough aircraft for COIN or limited third world operations and not enough aircraft to sustain any ability in a major conflict.

This sounds like the same 'problem' the UK has with it's carrier. The carrier costs so much that they can't afford to buy all the F-35's they need for it.

F-35 beats the F-15? Okay you take the F-35 and I'll take the F-15.

Guarantee it will.

People on TMP get way too caught up on individual pieces of hardware and they love to trash any type of new weapon. The reality is that the F-35 will be part of a combat operations team and not just going it alone in high threat environments. With a force of F-22s, EA-18Gs, AWACS, JSTARS, and soon some of the larger UCAVs it will play a definite role, but not ALL of the roles.

Also, too many gamers here again think that's it the 80s all over again where A-10s and F-15Es need to carry mass amounts of cluster bombs to drop on the advancing Russian tank hordes or fight off swarms of Su-27s. Look at most of the airstrike operations over the last few years, which mainly consist of aircraft dropping a few weapons that are extremely accurate on the few targets that present themselves. Also, who has an air force that is going to challenge the F-22s to get to the F-35s?

China. Russia. They are not our friends. :) both are empire building one small bit at a time. small numbers of super weapons have not ever done the job.

Aegis – fair points for the US maybe (although assuming your current operations are a good template for your next decade or two has often proved dodgy) but for other customers, not so much. Many air forces are going to end up with 2-4 squadrons of F-35s and stuff all else – extremely vulnerable to being overwhelmed, or simple attrition, and in many cases with no dedicated air superiority fighter to support it. (Especially as the F-22 is a big fat "no chance" for export; fine for countries with Eurofighters as well, but for smaller air forces the F-35 is going to have to fill all roles.)

Taking the original article, it's hard to see how the F-35 is an optimal choice for South Korea. For some reason this rather springs to mind.

link

Of course if you need the F22 to make the F35 ofany use you have the problem that only the US has the F22 and they would not let any of their allies aquire it. I know the RAAF wanted the F22 and were politely told no.

Dom one of my favorite short stories.

…I'm sure it could never happen to us…