Hi,
I've been lurking for a bit, but never put my toe into the water so far... I wanted to ask what people's opinions are regarding the increasing pressure the current economic and political situation has one the military, and more particularly the air components of the armed forces, and how it might be reflected in Naval War... <Warning, this may ramble a little >
I've read a few articles specifically regarding fighters, fighter-bombers and attack aircraft of late, including one in this month's 'Combat Aircraft' addressing the spiralling costs of modern multi-role aircraft, both on land and sea-based. This obviously also affects other capabilities, such as the UK's mis-handling of the Nimrod MRA4 program and it's subsequent cancellation, leaving as as an island nation without an effective maritime patrol aircraft. There is also the issue of the sliding scale of the F-35's development schedule and costs... Currently predicted at £111 million per aircraft, as I recall.
It seems to me it comes down to 4 areas: Cost, Numbers, Stealth, and Manned or Unmanned
Cost.
Take Switzerland as a prime example. They have, currently, F-18Cs and F-5s. When they invited tenders for replacing the Tigers, they were offered various options, including Typhoon and Rafale... And yet it was a shock when they chose the Gripen!! The Gripen came in at half the price, while still being easily the equivalent in a lot of ways of the F-18s they will work alongside, but is, of course, not as capable as the Typhoon and the Rafale. It also didn't have the same heavyweight government backing. But the Swiss actually paid attention to the fact they needed to watch the bottom line. No-one has as much money for defence anymore, and they were replacing a lightweight fighter with some attack capability.. but they were being offered heavyweight multirole interceptors and other big ticket programs, because that's what everyone is buying these days. Instead they took a smaller option, with a more capability than the platform it replaced, bought into the proposed Gripen NG advancement program, and saved themselves a lots of money. Can anyone, even the US, currently say they have unlimited money to pour into a bottomless hole? They capped the F-22 at about a quarter of the production the USAF originally wanted, then just over half, because it was so expensive, but then, they refused to sell it for export to keep their capability lead, keeping the unit price up... Maybe that was an acceptable price?
The F-35 is the current big ticket program everyone wants, but it's currently looking like it will be at least $122 million per unit not bad for an "Affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon system" ... Not bad compared to $339 million per Raptor, but still, strange for a plane originating in a program called "Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter". And yet look at all the countries agreeing to buy it... The UK, Norway, Japan, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Canada.... Everyone wants it, so much so that as the price increases and budgets don't, they just downsize their orders for a chance to buy it. But that means that they won't have the number of aircraft they originally said they needed to fulfill their needs?
At the moment the US are facing a huge capability gap... the aircraft the F-22 and the F-35 were supposed to replace are getting old, and there aren't going to be enough to replace them, so they're having to look at programs to extend the life of the aircraft in place.. The F-15s, F-16s and early model F-18s. The question is starting to be asked: Can we afford the F-35? The manufacturers of the 'Less capable' aircraft are, and have been working on constant updates and improvements of their products anyway, to the point where the F-15s and F-16s their allies have bought are more capable than may of the US' newest planes, and especially more capable in many ways to the F-16s some of the European nations bought and are keeping working, or selling off.
Numbers
I think it was Josef Stalin who was quoted as saying "Quantity has a quality all of it's own". The man was a homicidal psychopath in a lot of ways, but he had a point. At the moment, all the western powers and their allies are facing an issue of affordability versus capability. Everyone wants the latest high-tech fighters for their air arms. They want it to outmaneuver everyone in the air, outshoot at range, deliver bombs behind enemy lines unseen, and and to be able to choose whether they hit the enemy in the right nostril or the left kneecap. the problem is, that rolling all these capabilities into one aircraft costs money. and because each aircraft costs more, we can only afford to buy less of them than the aircraft they replace. Therefore we have to hope that the new aircraft are more capable than their predecessors by orders of magnitude, to offset the loss of numbers. But there are issues there... One aircraft can only be in one place at a time. If it can move fast, it can be in 2 places within a short space of time, but it also has then to travel to the second target/location after it's revealed it's existence by blowing someone or something up. An aircraft staged in the UK will take, say, 4 hours to reach Libya. An aircraft in Italy will take half or a quarter of that, burning less fuel, and being able to therefore reattack more frequently.but an aircraft in the UK could respond to a request for some form of armed action in the northern part of the UK's territorial waters in under half an hour if on alert. An aircraft based in Italy would take 2 or 3 hours minimum. Similary, you cannot stage air defence in the Falklands from the Mainland UK, or vice versa. Governments are still making commitments to use force in many different places, but they won't admit that the sums don't add up when they buy less aircraft for the same money. However, they still say it is more responsible to not overspend. The assumption is that the military will find a way to make do, and the knowledge that the politicians will wiggle out of the blame, and put some poor sod in a uniform out for the lions. the truth of the matter is, if we need more aircraft than we can afford of a particular type, then maybe we are trying to buy the wrong aircraft for the wrong reasons? To keep a pilot properly trained for air defence AND strike is very expensive, in both time and money, and he can still only be in one place at one time, IF there's an aircraft available. But if you buy less of the all-singing aircraft, and use the money to buy a greater number of dedicated attack or fighter platforms, they will be more capable and better designed for their individual roles, and they can be in more places. also, if you shoot down 1 plane, there are still more to perform the tasks it now cannot.
Stealth
Everyone wants stealth. It just sounds awesome, doesn't it? Radar invisibility. But it's not invisibility, is it? It's just a case of playing the numbers, making it harder to get a good return. and it only works under the right circumstances. And it's expensive, in more than just a financial sense. To be stealthy a plane has to follow some very particular geometric rules in the way it is shaped and constructed, and it has to be aware of where the radars are, and steer clear of visual and auditory detection. It often needs expensive coatings to be applied, and reapplied to enhance that shape's ability to evade detection. And it requires an aerodynamically unstable airframe, which needs expensive computer equipment to manage it's flight and keep it from turning into a very expensive crater. And sometimes, even with all that computer technology, it can compromise performance in some way. All this, and once you've attacked your first target, or flown over a couple of unexpected guard posts, and people know where to look... well, you're only slightly less vulnerable then.
And stealth reduces your weapon load, because you have to carry them internally, protected from radar. So if you want to fly into hostile territory and attack a couple of buildings with 2 bombs, then fine. If you want to go tank hunting, and fly low and slow, idling above the battlefield and carrying wing racks full of Mavericks or Hellfires? Well then, you have a problem. So the overall utility of a stealth platform after a 'First day of war scenario' is lower, because normal battlefield missions negate it's stealth for utility purposes. So maybe stealth is a nice niche capability, but for general utility, it's an obvious compromise... And it is worth it, at the current level of technological development, as a general capability to pay for?
Manned/Unmanned
UAVs and UCAVs are fashionable at the moment. You can have one person monitoring and controlling several aircraft. They're generally low powered, high endurance platforms, so the pilots can works in shifts, and drive home every day, instead of living in a tent somewhere in Africa or Asia for 2 or 3 months at a time. and they can now carry weapons.. but a human is still need to aim and fire, because we don't, no CAN'T trust the computers to make those value calls.A UCAV can pull higher Gs than a manned aircraft, cos there's no squishy component to black out. You can buy 3 or 4 UCAVs for the price of a 4.5g fighter.
But a UAV or UCAV has a limited field of vision in many ways. Instead of a pilot sat in a big, bubble canopy, it has one or 2 cameras with a narrow field and range of view. to control a UAV from a distance requires satellite communications, these are expensive, of limited capacity, and can be jammed by a moderately sophisticated enemy. A manned pilot is still in his plane and in control if you jam his radar aand radios. He won't crash as easily under those circumstances. BUT, if he does lose control of the aircraft, he can be captured and interrogated. He may even be displayed as a trophy. That never makes anyone happy back home.also, a UAV or UCAV has an inherently long.... Reaction.... time.... Governed by those same satellite or RF links taking a pre-defined time to travel back and forth. so they aren't as capable of protecting themselves.
Overall, we need to stop pretending there's any one solution to air power and air support. You can either throw money at the problem and buy a lower number of expensive toys, or you can logically break down your needs in terms of the number of aircraft/platforms/missions, your budget, and then find a solution to match it. If you need 10 MPAs, 60 QRA Fighters Interceptors 80 Naval multirole aircraft, 60 bombers and 40 fighters for tactical missions, plus 150 helicopters, then you need to buy those aircraft, or you will not only compromise your ability to do what you've promised to, but you will spend more money than expected on maintenance and training and crew rest, and the aircraft will wear out sooner than expected. We need to build an appreciation of this into the way our countries approach defence appropriation. And if we can't manage that, especially now, when the budget is shrinking, then our armed forces will either fail, or fold in the attempt, as they always do, to do the best they can with what they have. Someone has to be brave enough to make the call, surely? Even the USAF is considering what it might need to do if the F-35 gets taken off the table.
What do you all think? (If you're still awake). Sorry it became a bit of a rant, but it seems to me, when deciding what units you will include in NW, you have to balance reality with fiction, but I'm wondering if you've thought about what you could put in that might reflect this, and possibly enhance or change the gameplay by forcing people to utilise the differing capabilities of their units, or try to find a way to do everything without enough aircraft, no matter how capable.
I've been lurking for a bit, but never put my toe into the water so far... I wanted to ask what people's opinions are regarding the increasing pressure the current economic and political situation has one the military, and more particularly the air components of the armed forces, and how it might be reflected in Naval War... <Warning, this may ramble a little >
I've read a few articles specifically regarding fighters, fighter-bombers and attack aircraft of late, including one in this month's 'Combat Aircraft' addressing the spiralling costs of modern multi-role aircraft, both on land and sea-based. This obviously also affects other capabilities, such as the UK's mis-handling of the Nimrod MRA4 program and it's subsequent cancellation, leaving as as an island nation without an effective maritime patrol aircraft. There is also the issue of the sliding scale of the F-35's development schedule and costs... Currently predicted at £111 million per aircraft, as I recall.
It seems to me it comes down to 4 areas: Cost, Numbers, Stealth, and Manned or Unmanned
Cost.
Take Switzerland as a prime example. They have, currently, F-18Cs and F-5s. When they invited tenders for replacing the Tigers, they were offered various options, including Typhoon and Rafale... And yet it was a shock when they chose the Gripen!! The Gripen came in at half the price, while still being easily the equivalent in a lot of ways of the F-18s they will work alongside, but is, of course, not as capable as the Typhoon and the Rafale. It also didn't have the same heavyweight government backing. But the Swiss actually paid attention to the fact they needed to watch the bottom line. No-one has as much money for defence anymore, and they were replacing a lightweight fighter with some attack capability.. but they were being offered heavyweight multirole interceptors and other big ticket programs, because that's what everyone is buying these days. Instead they took a smaller option, with a more capability than the platform it replaced, bought into the proposed Gripen NG advancement program, and saved themselves a lots of money. Can anyone, even the US, currently say they have unlimited money to pour into a bottomless hole? They capped the F-22 at about a quarter of the production the USAF originally wanted, then just over half, because it was so expensive, but then, they refused to sell it for export to keep their capability lead, keeping the unit price up... Maybe that was an acceptable price?
The F-35 is the current big ticket program everyone wants, but it's currently looking like it will be at least $122 million per unit not bad for an "Affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon system" ... Not bad compared to $339 million per Raptor, but still, strange for a plane originating in a program called "Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter". And yet look at all the countries agreeing to buy it... The UK, Norway, Japan, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Canada.... Everyone wants it, so much so that as the price increases and budgets don't, they just downsize their orders for a chance to buy it. But that means that they won't have the number of aircraft they originally said they needed to fulfill their needs?
At the moment the US are facing a huge capability gap... the aircraft the F-22 and the F-35 were supposed to replace are getting old, and there aren't going to be enough to replace them, so they're having to look at programs to extend the life of the aircraft in place.. The F-15s, F-16s and early model F-18s. The question is starting to be asked: Can we afford the F-35? The manufacturers of the 'Less capable' aircraft are, and have been working on constant updates and improvements of their products anyway, to the point where the F-15s and F-16s their allies have bought are more capable than may of the US' newest planes, and especially more capable in many ways to the F-16s some of the European nations bought and are keeping working, or selling off.
Numbers
I think it was Josef Stalin who was quoted as saying "Quantity has a quality all of it's own". The man was a homicidal psychopath in a lot of ways, but he had a point. At the moment, all the western powers and their allies are facing an issue of affordability versus capability. Everyone wants the latest high-tech fighters for their air arms. They want it to outmaneuver everyone in the air, outshoot at range, deliver bombs behind enemy lines unseen, and and to be able to choose whether they hit the enemy in the right nostril or the left kneecap. the problem is, that rolling all these capabilities into one aircraft costs money. and because each aircraft costs more, we can only afford to buy less of them than the aircraft they replace. Therefore we have to hope that the new aircraft are more capable than their predecessors by orders of magnitude, to offset the loss of numbers. But there are issues there... One aircraft can only be in one place at a time. If it can move fast, it can be in 2 places within a short space of time, but it also has then to travel to the second target/location after it's revealed it's existence by blowing someone or something up. An aircraft staged in the UK will take, say, 4 hours to reach Libya. An aircraft in Italy will take half or a quarter of that, burning less fuel, and being able to therefore reattack more frequently.but an aircraft in the UK could respond to a request for some form of armed action in the northern part of the UK's territorial waters in under half an hour if on alert. An aircraft based in Italy would take 2 or 3 hours minimum. Similary, you cannot stage air defence in the Falklands from the Mainland UK, or vice versa. Governments are still making commitments to use force in many different places, but they won't admit that the sums don't add up when they buy less aircraft for the same money. However, they still say it is more responsible to not overspend. The assumption is that the military will find a way to make do, and the knowledge that the politicians will wiggle out of the blame, and put some poor sod in a uniform out for the lions. the truth of the matter is, if we need more aircraft than we can afford of a particular type, then maybe we are trying to buy the wrong aircraft for the wrong reasons? To keep a pilot properly trained for air defence AND strike is very expensive, in both time and money, and he can still only be in one place at one time, IF there's an aircraft available. But if you buy less of the all-singing aircraft, and use the money to buy a greater number of dedicated attack or fighter platforms, they will be more capable and better designed for their individual roles, and they can be in more places. also, if you shoot down 1 plane, there are still more to perform the tasks it now cannot.
Stealth
Everyone wants stealth. It just sounds awesome, doesn't it? Radar invisibility. But it's not invisibility, is it? It's just a case of playing the numbers, making it harder to get a good return. and it only works under the right circumstances. And it's expensive, in more than just a financial sense. To be stealthy a plane has to follow some very particular geometric rules in the way it is shaped and constructed, and it has to be aware of where the radars are, and steer clear of visual and auditory detection. It often needs expensive coatings to be applied, and reapplied to enhance that shape's ability to evade detection. And it requires an aerodynamically unstable airframe, which needs expensive computer equipment to manage it's flight and keep it from turning into a very expensive crater. And sometimes, even with all that computer technology, it can compromise performance in some way. All this, and once you've attacked your first target, or flown over a couple of unexpected guard posts, and people know where to look... well, you're only slightly less vulnerable then.
And stealth reduces your weapon load, because you have to carry them internally, protected from radar. So if you want to fly into hostile territory and attack a couple of buildings with 2 bombs, then fine. If you want to go tank hunting, and fly low and slow, idling above the battlefield and carrying wing racks full of Mavericks or Hellfires? Well then, you have a problem. So the overall utility of a stealth platform after a 'First day of war scenario' is lower, because normal battlefield missions negate it's stealth for utility purposes. So maybe stealth is a nice niche capability, but for general utility, it's an obvious compromise... And it is worth it, at the current level of technological development, as a general capability to pay for?
Manned/Unmanned
UAVs and UCAVs are fashionable at the moment. You can have one person monitoring and controlling several aircraft. They're generally low powered, high endurance platforms, so the pilots can works in shifts, and drive home every day, instead of living in a tent somewhere in Africa or Asia for 2 or 3 months at a time. and they can now carry weapons.. but a human is still need to aim and fire, because we don't, no CAN'T trust the computers to make those value calls.A UCAV can pull higher Gs than a manned aircraft, cos there's no squishy component to black out. You can buy 3 or 4 UCAVs for the price of a 4.5g fighter.
But a UAV or UCAV has a limited field of vision in many ways. Instead of a pilot sat in a big, bubble canopy, it has one or 2 cameras with a narrow field and range of view. to control a UAV from a distance requires satellite communications, these are expensive, of limited capacity, and can be jammed by a moderately sophisticated enemy. A manned pilot is still in his plane and in control if you jam his radar aand radios. He won't crash as easily under those circumstances. BUT, if he does lose control of the aircraft, he can be captured and interrogated. He may even be displayed as a trophy. That never makes anyone happy back home.also, a UAV or UCAV has an inherently long.... Reaction.... time.... Governed by those same satellite or RF links taking a pre-defined time to travel back and forth. so they aren't as capable of protecting themselves.
Overall, we need to stop pretending there's any one solution to air power and air support. You can either throw money at the problem and buy a lower number of expensive toys, or you can logically break down your needs in terms of the number of aircraft/platforms/missions, your budget, and then find a solution to match it. If you need 10 MPAs, 60 QRA Fighters Interceptors 80 Naval multirole aircraft, 60 bombers and 40 fighters for tactical missions, plus 150 helicopters, then you need to buy those aircraft, or you will not only compromise your ability to do what you've promised to, but you will spend more money than expected on maintenance and training and crew rest, and the aircraft will wear out sooner than expected. We need to build an appreciation of this into the way our countries approach defence appropriation. And if we can't manage that, especially now, when the budget is shrinking, then our armed forces will either fail, or fold in the attempt, as they always do, to do the best they can with what they have. Someone has to be brave enough to make the call, surely? Even the USAF is considering what it might need to do if the F-35 gets taken off the table.
What do you all think? (If you're still awake). Sorry it became a bit of a rant, but it seems to me, when deciding what units you will include in NW, you have to balance reality with fiction, but I'm wondering if you've thought about what you could put in that might reflect this, and possibly enhance or change the gameplay by forcing people to utilise the differing capabilities of their units, or try to find a way to do everything without enough aircraft, no matter how capable.