Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

batek688
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:49 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by batek688 »

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.


User avatar
Dutchie999
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:46 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by Dutchie999 »

ORIGINAL: batek688

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
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:50 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by Dobey455 »

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.
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
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:47 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by NickD »

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
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:49 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by batek688 »

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
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:39 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by Denixen »

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
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:49 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by batek688 »

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
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:33 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by ckfinite »

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
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:49 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by batek688 »

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
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:33 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by ckfinite »

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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
batek688
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:49 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by batek688 »

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
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.

That's my point. Australia, for example, should weigh in how likely it will be to need a strike capability against an opponent that has spent that level of capital on IADS as well as consider the likelihood of doing so on their own. That provides the economics of purchasing a squadron of F-35s or any other weapons platform.

While that expensive platform may be able to withstand attacks from 40-50 inbound munitions -- that comes with a price. If the opponent focuses their air defense that way, then you still have other options -- and that level of a target may be worth the cost of 40-50 cruise missiles on the attacker side as well.

Should the US purchase the capability? That's a different argument because the US seems to bear the brunt of "peacekeeping through explosives" around the world. I would love for all of NATO to spread the overhead to help conserve my tax dollars -- unfortunately that doesn't really happen.
User avatar
Dutchie999
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:46 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by Dutchie999 »

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.

Current F-35A cost around $148 million. If you count everything. Although this is still excluding research and development. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-mu ... f95d239398

So that is 4 F-35A for the price of one S-400 12 TEL + Nebo M radar system + SHORAD systems (lets say $600mil). If you ask me to take sides. I am pretty sure that I am going to go with the S-400 (and NO I am NOT a fan of the Russians!). Just playing reality here.
The Nebo-M system is clearly designed to hunt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The VHF-Band component of the system provides sector search and track functions, with the X-Band and L-Band components providing a fine track capability. By good placement of the radars relative to the threat axis, the L-Band and X-Band components illuminate the incoming target from angles where the target RCS is suboptimal. Attempts to jam the Nebo-M will be problematic, since all of these radars have a passive angle track capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits passive triangulation of the target using three angle track outputs. The RLM-S and RLM-D have better elevation tracking accuracy than the RLM-M, and therefore the Nebo M should be capable of producing high quality tracks suitable for midcourse guidance of modern SAMs and full trajectory guidance of legacy SAMs.

Image

My worry is that the USA is building a plane which is already partially absolute before they even have them out in force. Usually the idea is that you built a new generation platform and it takes some 10+ years before your potential enemy comes up with a newer generation and creates something better.
Denixen
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:39 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by Denixen »

This was exactly what the article in JFQ issue 57 talked about, I just wasn't able to put it into words :)

With the use of different band radars from different angles you can get all the info you need, including height which is usually hard to get with VHF, to guide a missile into the proximity of the F-35. then once the missile is close enough it can use it's lower wave-length radar to home in on the plane, particular from the F-35s rather unstealthy sides.
ckfinite
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:33 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by ckfinite »

Current F-35A cost around $148 million. If you count everything. Although this is still excluding research and development. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-mu ... f95d239398

That's why I mentioned LRIP, and the costs have came down somewhat since then (we're in LRIP 7 I think), to about $110 million. The FRP price is going to be between $80 and $90 million, with projected price $77 million. LRIP costs are always going to be higher than FRP costs, it's a consequence of the low rate of production as well as developing the techniques. Don't use LRIP costs and assume that FRP costs will be the same.

This means that you could buy 7 F-35s for the same cost as the S-400 site. The F-35s provide substantially more strategic depth, and provide major additional capability.
My worry is that the USA is building a plane which is already partially absolute before they even have them out in force. Usually the idea is that you built a new generation platform and it takes some 10+ years before your potential enemy comes up with a newer generation and creates something better.

VLO is not partially obsolete, you're just holding it to an unreasonable standard of obsolescence. These advanced radars are even more effective against the traditional, non-VLO, aircraft than they are against F-35, and by a substantial margin as well, at least an order of magnitude. This translates to being able to halve the distance to a radar compared to any non VLO aircraft.

This is additionally a physical property. No computational development will be able to overcome this - a VLO aircraft will always be able to get closer to the the threat radar than a non-VLO aircraft.
With the use of different band radars from different angles you can get all the info you need, including height which is usually hard to get with VHF, to guide a missile into the proximity of the F-35. then once the missile is close enough it can use it's lower wave-length radar to home in on the plane, particular from the F-35s rather unstealthy sides.

Nebo is interesting, but the point is that F/A-18 (and its ilk) is even more vulnerable to these radars than F-35. People seem to think that stealth = invisible, but this isn't true. Instead, what VLO offers here is the ability to get closer to the radar site without detection than would be possible with non-LO platforms. This reduces enemy reaction times while increasing ownship safety.

Again, the point is that the SAM site won't be able to see F-35 at the same distance as they could see a non-LO platform. This enables the strike package to get closer, while entirely avoiding a missile shot.

F-35 is also reasonably stealthy from the side, .01 m^2, according to APA.
User avatar
Dutchie999
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:46 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by Dutchie999 »


A bit of miscommunication I think. I am complete agreement that all 4th generation aircraft are basically useless against a modern and up to date enemy. That was not my point. My point was that the F-35 has no advantage on SAM systems that Russians are currently acquiring. And that is the problem. The US is building an aircraft when at the same time the Russians are building a counter system for it. Why build something that is already effectively countered?

If you should build something as big and expensive as the F-35 project you should at least have multiple advantages for the coming 10 years on your potential foes.
ckfinite
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:33 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by ckfinite »

A bit of miscommunication I think. I am complete agreement that all 4th generation aircraft are basically useless against a modern and up to date enemy. That was not my point. My point was that the F-35 has no advantage on SAM systems that Russians are currently acquiring. And that is the problem. The US is building an aircraft when at the same time the Russians are building a counter system for it. Why build something that is already effectively countered?

The F-35 is not useless against these systems, for the aforementioned reasons. JASSM, SDB-II, and AARGM, combined with the ability to get closer to these sites enable vastly superior SEAD and DEAD capability from F-35 than from any other platform. Additionally, S-400 and S-500 are SARH systems, and cannot leverage the additional detection range provided by the VHF band radars against F-35.

Furthermore, APA is a very questionable source when it comes to the F-35's downfalls and comparisons to Russian SAM systems. Nebo is very far from a perfect counter to VLO, and more or less nothing counters everything perfectly.
If you should build something as big and expensive as the F-35 project you should at least have multiple advantages for the coming 10 years on your potential foes.

What else is there to do? F-16 and F/A-18C/D need replacing, and F-35 is wholly superior. It has reasonable verging on substantial capability to penetrate IADS, unlike the aircraft it replaces, and is longer ranged, can carry more, while maintaining similar kinematic characteristics.
batek688
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:49 am

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by batek688 »

But the cost of 65 tomahawks is < $140 mil since that was the price to the UK in July 2014 which included all of the spares and support. So rough equivalence is that for a single F35 I can purchase 65 Tomahawks. So for the price of the S-400 system (i'll assume Dutchie's price tag is close), I can purchase 260 t-hawks -- more than enough to overwhelm that S-400, whatever it was protecting, and several other targets as well. Did I miss something in the math? That of course assumes that the price tag for the F35s includes the munitions and fuel for the mission.
User avatar
Dutchie999
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:46 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by Dutchie999 »

ORIGINAL: ckfinite
The F-35 is not useless against these systems, for the aforementioned reasons. JASSM, SDB-II, and AARGM, combined with the ability to get closer to these sites enable vastly superior SEAD and DEAD capability from F-35 than from any other platform. Additionally, S-400 and S-500 are SARH systems, and cannot leverage the additional detection range provided by the VHF band radars against F-35.

Which is why the Russians build the SA-22. Precisely to deal with PGM like the JASSM, SDB-II and AARGM. And by the way you can't shoot at something that isn't radiating. Shoot and scoot practices would be a hell to find or even defeat.

Why do you think that VHF and SARH missile are not compatible? Because of accuracy? That is exactly why the Nebo M system is made up of multiple radars in multiple bands from multiple angles. And the VHF radar (RLM-M) is also capable of staring at a target with sufficient accuracy (something low band radars always lacked) to guide a missile.
ckfinite
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:33 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by ckfinite »

Which is why the Russians build the SA-22. Precisely to deal with PGM like the JASSM, SDB-II and AARGM.
Pantsir is relatively easily swamped when compared to the assets it is protecting. The approach times are too small for it to handle more than 2-3 targets.
And by the way you can't shoot at something that isn't radiating
All three of the systems I named were designed to handle non-radiating threats. SDB-II and AARGM incorporate sophisticated millimeter wave radars, and JASSM has IIR terminal guidance.
Shoot and scoot practices would be a hell to find or even defeat

Good luck shoot-and-scoot with S-400. It takes 2-3 hours to pack up and move.
Why do you think that VHF and SARH missile are not compatible? Because of accuracy?
Physics. The antennas needed to receive the VHF signal are too big for the missile to carry. This is why the HARM can't engage the EW radars, and also makes VHF SARH SAMs physically impossible.

And the VHF radar (RLM-M) is also capable of staring at a target with sufficient accuracy (something low band radars always lacked) to guide a missile.
An ARH missile which patently doesn't exist outside of the US.
ckfinite
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:33 pm

RE: Interesting analysis of an Australian F-35B purchase

Post by ckfinite »

But the cost of 65 tomahawks is < $140 mil since that was the price to the UK in July 2014 which included all of the spares and support. So rough equivalence is that for a single F35 I can purchase 65 Tomahawks. So for the price of the S-400 system (i'll assume Dutchie's price tag is close), I can purchase 260 t-hawks -- more than enough to overwhelm that S-400, whatever it was protecting, and several other targets as well. Did I miss something in the math? That of course assumes that the price tag for the F35s includes the munitions and fuel for the mission.

The fundamental assumption that you're making is that the F-35 is only a IADS killer, and cannot do any other role. For one, the single F-35 will be able to deliver several multiples of the ordinance that the TLAMs could, especially in an environment where external stores are amenable, and can also provide AAW cover.
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”