On Sept 9th I posted a link by Giovanni where he predicted that Western Air Forces would in essence disarm due to the high cost of the F-35.
The Netherlands are the first example of this happening.
They're buying a total of 37 F-35. No one is saying it but that won't even meet home defense requirements and will in essence keep them out of participation in NATO/UN actions overseas. They have been neutered by the F-35. Read the article here to see how spot on his prediction was but a few tidbits to remind you....
The current Dutch government now simply plans to buy as many aircraft as it can with its €4 billion budget – fewer than 40, the Rekenkamer estimated. But even to afford this reduced number, it must cut most other defense spending.Yeah. They sold their Logistics Support Ship, are going to mothball their F-16s and we're soon to see the Army Battalion go away.
The latest round of cuts, reported Sept. 5, is worth €330 million, and will entail the sale of a logistics support ship which is still being built, the scrapping of an entire Army battalion and the mothballing of six or seven more F-16 fighters.
Wouldn't those elements that are being sold away be more useful for coalition warfare than a few F-35s? Additionally we have his view on the USAF, which was basically confirmed by the clown also known as the USAF Chief of Staff.
On current trends, the US Air Force one day will fly only F-35s, KC-46 tankers and the future Global Strike bomber, along with a few – by then elderly - F-22s. This will be a stunning loss of capability compared to the large and diversified combat fleet it operates today, but that is their choice, made by elected representatives and, indirectly, approved by voters.Yep, Captain America told the audience at the AFA Association that he told the US Army that he was scrapping the A-10 and that they weren't happy.
Awesome.
Many doubted that the USAF was serious about Close Air Support and this confirms it. Sorry Elements of Power Blog, the truth is indicated by action, not words.
The Conventional Ground Forces now have two essential items on the to do list. First they must get their artillery house in order. Close Air Support is a skill set that has been abandoned by the air arms of our nation. That means that mechanized, towed and rocket artillery has to fill in the gap. We must adjust numbers and tactics to make up for the shortfall. Additionally, the numbers just don't make sense. By that I mean planning must account for the fact that attacks by enemy aircraft, cruise missiles etc...will have a better chance than ever of attacking our forces. Air Defense Artillery must take a more prominent role in planning.
Expecting our air forces to deal with that threat is pure fantasy now.
Proactive planning to deal with the reality of air arms designed to fight only the air offense, deep strike, naval strike and strategic recon must happen now.
Giovanni told us as much almost 3 weeks ago.
Yep : same business here !
ReplyDeleteIn France : We cancelled frigates, rafales, missiles and so much materials : The problem is that these cancellations rise prices at the same level as without cancellation, but with a smaller units ! And polititians maintain their choices, despite this clear comptability !
Just with what they wasted ONLY this years, ONLY with series reductions, we could BUY A SECOND AIRCRAFT CARRIER !!!
We need revolution.
Ehh, Hollande needs to pay for his social programs somwhow :)
DeleteGotta pay for 50,000 teachers....
It's a shame that with no more exports, the Rafale line will completely shut down in 2019 :(
And the FREMM may be cut to only 9 ships, which is a joke.
Interesting since the original Dutch goal was 85 F-35s.
ReplyDelete"In total, spreading the Barracuda and FREMM program is expected to cost up to 1.2 billion euros. And this, not to mention the impact on employment and social spending that will make compensation for the newly unemployed."
ReplyDeleteSource : http://www.opex360.com/2013/09/18/letalement-des-programmes-fremm-et-barracuda-va-couter-cher/
you're absolutely right Gents but this leads me to the question that no one is answering.
Deletewhy aren't we already in the death spiral if they cut from 85 to 37 airplanes? don't reduced number mean increased prices for everyone else?
See Solomon, while the F-35 isn't cheap, even European nations that aren't buying it are going on a cutting frenzy.
DeleteFrance in particular looks to cut loads of orders.
As for reduced prices, as long as the US order of 1,774 remains fixed, the costs won't rise dramatically. The Brits HAVE to have the B to operate off their carriers, same with the Italians. The Japanese are locked in at 42 As. The Israelis also really want a stealth jet and will pay for it.
Also, as for the Dutch causing a death spiral... they are still buying the jet, just fewer. The 85 number was estimated a LONG time ago back when an F-35A was $50 million apiece.
you're missing the point. the French are cutting because the Rafale is a expensive, low volume airplane. the US order won't hold. its been proven with the B-2, F-22 and soon with the F-35. stealth just costs too much.
DeleteIt isn't realy the rafale which is killing our army, but the fake socialist governement... They cut in army budget because army don't vote socialist, and haven't rights to protest ( in contrary of ALL OTHER nation workers).
DeleteThey cut today programs, for immediate politician benefit of lowering deficit, and ignoring future because they know they won't be in command after next elections... In contrary we keep some stupid orders, because of clientelism : they want to build a french pentagone, and the firm which build it feed political party with money and local jobs so they don't cancel it ( just almost 1 billion, for a building)
It's more this that happend with your F35, but in american size...
It just democraty fail, oh forget that, olligarchy fail.
I can see costs increase further(especially on parts), apparently the GrippenNG was offered for 56.4M each(including a very comprehensive support/equipment contract and offsets) which is about 1/3rd what Netherlands plans to pay for the F35 (162M ea) and should cost about 1/2-1/3 the per hour flight cost of the F35. An airforce of 37 aircrafts is not even worth operating and a military without tanks, artillery, air defence forces and an airforce is just a 'job creations program'. At this point they should consider complete disarmament(why not they hand over all their sovereignty to the EU anyway), it wouldnt leave them much less defended and they could spend that extra money paying more people not to work...
ReplyDeleteAnd fabser I don't understand why you don't just build your own planes, that has been what france has always done.
I tried to focus on the F-35 issue in the Netherlands, I really did, but I got seriously distracted from the decision while looking at the decision-maker, Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis.
ReplyDeleteimages: http://tinyurl.com/lhtmv3t
i'd hit it at closing time...otherwise...pass.
DeleteGeneral Bogdan was asked about the "death spiral" but in answering he only talked domestic orders.
ReplyDeletenews report:
"I do not think this program will suffer from that model. I just don't think it will," Bogdan said, noting that he saw no indication that the U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps planned to significantly reduce their orders for the F-35 program, despite mounting budget pressures.///
The figures I have on domestic/foreign F-35 program orders are 2443/657 = 3,100 with the foreign constituting 21% of the total. So a significant loss in foreign orders below the plan would have a significant effect on price. Also, the foreign orders are coming in not only low but slow (like an A-10).
I have the foreign orders optimistically now at about 500 and dropping.
well thats what has me confused. there is no way the USAF will buy its full allotment of this jet. neither will the USMC. that means we're heading toward a death spiral.
Deleteits funny that they never adjusted the numbers even as costs and delays mounted.
someone is outright lying about the current status of this program.
I think that hiding the costs has a lot to do with that. The only thing we hear is that they are cutting the costs by X%, and the projected (fanciful) costs will go from Y to Z, but they never say what the actual current costs are.
DeletePlus they got seriously burned on the F-22. By cutting its order from 750 to 183, the Pentagon helped to drive the program cost per aircraft of the F-22 up from $149m to $342m.
The per unit cost of the F22 probably would have been alot lower in full rate production, from memory it was going to be well under 100M (maybe 80m from memory?). Remember when they F35 program came about it was supposed to only be 40M per unit Full-Rate-production, and so they where comparing that to the projected FRP costs of the F22. However now the Engines alone cost more than 40M. I would rather have 750F22s for 80Mea than 1500F35s or 3,000F35s at 40Mea for A2a.
DeleteBut that is such bullshit, they blame high total per unit costs (over LRIP, and like 1/5th of total production) and cancel the program only to go with another program from the same group...
Ooops, I'll take ketchup on that hat--
ReplyDeletethis just in:
Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 Lightning II Program, said the cost for an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant has dropped to less than $100 million per aircraft.
“That’s a great milestone for us,” Martin said, noting that in negotiations from low-rate initial production (LRIP) 1 aircraft to LRIP-5, costs per airframe dropped 55 percent. “We are dragging costs down across the entire program.” ///
She doesn't say so, but (as she hints) that's probably just the airframe cost. The government contracts and provides the engine separately. You want an engine with that? The F135 engine cost is still a mystery. Looking at contract awards for Lot V I calculate it at about $38m, probably something less now. So guessing at a unit cost of $130m or so -- way over their current goal of $90m. (And again, why did the Dutch budget at $162m + 10% contingency.)
Interestingly the F35 is supposed to get a new 'Adaptive Engine' increasing range by 25% (maybe allowing it to go over mach1 and fixing acceleration issues?). If they could fix the range, speed(acceleration/cruising), stealth and price it might not be such a bad plane(still preffer something like the F15 for mid-range).
DeleteCurrent Engine Price=35.7M
>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/16/us-unitedtechnologies-fighter-enginers-idUSBRE98F0ML20130916
From the link:
Delete"Pratt reached an agreement valued at over $1 billion for 28 engines"
Come on, "over" isn't "equal to." Why can't they give us real numbers, is my point, not "over $1 billion". It's childish.
Even now, ". . .has dropped to less than $100 million per aircraft" -- how much less? Drives anybody nuts.
Hiding F-35 numbers is also what they do in Canada, and have done -- it contributed to the fall of their government recently and they're still doing it.
Hahaha they tricked me. Wait till we get these new 'fancy engines', bet they cost even more. Also if the cost is less than 100M an aircraft why is netherlands planning to spend 162m each (undoubtably without any spares). I can just see it, entire netherlands military grounded because they cant afford spares....
DeleteIt's bullshit. The only way they can get those numbers is by assuming labor costs will be frozen for 25 years. They also 'predict' cost-savings from economized manufacturing which might or might not happen considering how often they are needing to replace old, poorly designed parts.
Deleteand it is without engines, spares, etc. Wheeler has a great write up in TIME about the boondoggle that is the F35 program.
RE: Sorry Elements of Power Blog, the truth is indicated by action, not words.
ReplyDeleteCAS is a MISSION, not a PLATFORM. I've gone over this so many times in so many places I can mostly copy-paste:
A-10s are completely obsolete for anything other than LICs, and you don't have to spew DU all over the place to do the job anymore. The Army just likes them because they understand the 'gun': They see it as some kind of a security blanket and it makes them 'feel' warm and loved.
Scr*w that - do the job with the least amount of drama.
The Army can capitalize on recent tech developments to increase their own patrol-level organic fire support and situation awareness. Between that and a Roving Linebacker B-1 or any other precision-weapon equipped platform with advanced comm and sensors, CAS is handled by fast and faster.
Low and Slow when you don't need to is stupid..
And OBTW the Army wouldn't know how to spell, much less exploit Airpower if they tried. (One reason I turned down Army Warrant Officer as an AF E-5 BTW) They seem to think of it only as an adjunct support to direct ground combat. They are still in denial over Operation Allied Force, or even what Airpower did in OIF while they were hunkered in a sandstorm.
Honestly folks, get some history under your belt. http://www.elementsofpower.blogspot.com see "Close Air Support Myths". If there is a factual (versus emotional) counter-argument I've yet to hear it.
Heaven save us from the Lingering Legions of Nostalgia.
...And analytically, 'Giovanni' couldn't find his a** with both hands and a proctologist's supervision.
that is the most arrogant, self aggrandizing statement you've ever made.
Deletebut one part says it all.
The army can capitalize on recent tech developments to increase their own patrol level organic fire support?
what do you think they're doing? why do you think they're flying UAVs now (the same UAVs that the Air Force fought them over?)
no one is in denial over what airpower did in OIF. plenty of shot up Army and Marine Corps vehicles shows what misguided airmen can do.
you're cool with me Elements but don't go spitting venom when its so easy to toss it right back.
To SMSgt Mac:
Delete-There is also the myth that the A-10 is vulnerable because it is slow.
Most A-10 hit in DS where so because they were doing a 3rd or 4th run on the target.The targets were aware of the attack and ready.Still these aircraft performed very well.An F-16 or F-35 would drop its load and started searching for a tanker or an airfield...no secound run on target and nevermind if thousands of targets were not destroyed because of no loiter time.
-Many in the USAF(off the record)defend that new build A-10s with digital cockpit,missile warning system and towable decoy would be a major asset in future wars...there is even an A-10/F-16 pilot that did an article on it:http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/ireton.html.
His conclusions on the losses during the 1st Gulf War are also different from yours.All lost A-10s were so because they were pressing a tird or fourth attack.If they just did one passing the losses would be inferior to the faster jets...
-Also,in case of a future war in Africa how would an F-35 destroy a Toyota pick-up with a reccoilless rifle on top ?With an SDB?Not only it looks expensive but those old vehicles can go up to 150/160 km/h...can an SDB kill then?Would it be pratical?
If the JSF attack them with is cannon ,then its on the rangeof HMGs,small SAMs and small AAA...and it cant survive...
And can the F-35 pilot tell appart a civillian pick-up from a «technical»?
No Sol, I’m not "Self Aggrandizing". I'm merely expressing "Righteous Indignation" (in the strictest definition thereof). Not at you or any individual, but at the IDEA that retiring the A-10 would in ANY way shape or form be an indication that the Air Force was abandoning the CAS mission OR taking the CAS mission and responsibility less seriously than if they did not. It comes from literally an adult lifetime of hearing emotions-based argumentation that the AF doesn't take CAS seriously; argumentation that simultaneously is devoid of material evidence to back it up -- while at the same time...KNOWING men who flew those missions in Vietnam in their F-100s, F-4s, A-4s and A-7s and what it meant to them, having witnessed the A-X 'flyoff' in 1972 that 'selected' the A-10, having participated in writing the 'book' on A-10 CAS as the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center Weapons NCOIC in TASVAL'79, having a friend and colleague who was Congressional Liaison Officer for the Secretary of the Air Force during the years when it was determined how many A-10s would be bought and why, and having another friend and colleague who is a retired AF Colonel (coincidentally also the lead AF test engineer on the COIN Piper Enforcer while at Eglin in his youth), and now Chief Engineer for a small 3rd Party Logistics Company that makes its bread and butter reverse engineering parts for the A-10 because the drawings/engineering on the plane were as incomplete and insufficient as the airframe structure itself.
DeleteToo much of my sweat, and the sweat and blood of my predecessors, contemporaries and successors has gone into CAS to ever NOT be Righteously Indignant over the idea the AF hasn’t or didn’t care about, or was somehow abandoning CAS because of a 'hardware' change.
The A-10, as great a technical approach and idea as it was for its milieu, is 'DONE' for all but the most benign operating environments. We need to stick a fork in it.
My comment concerning organic tech was about the ability to place indirect precision fire, such as found in the XM395 mortar rounds, ideas like the robotic ‘mule’ to increase the trooper’s payloads without loading down the trooper, and next gen comm gear that will help the guy on the ground do a better job of showing others (artillery, attack helos, or fixed wing assets) where to place their fires and seeing where those fires will be going before they’re sent.
The AF went after control of the UAVs only in the sense it was important to unify control of the air. The Army, being the Army, likes to fly UAVs in the darnedest places without telling anyone, and there have been several close calls between Army unmanned systems and AF manned systems that are going to get some mother’s child eventually without better cooperation. I hear cooperation has improved, but still needs work, since the brouhaha back under Gate’s tenure.
BTW: OIF and OEF fratricide events were way down compared to previous wars. I can think of only two off the top of my head that involved aircraft. One was F-16 human judgment and procedural error (compounded by prescribed aircrew ‘pep’ pills) that killed some Canadians and the other involved an A-10 and an errant weapon. No one finds fratricide ever ‘acceptable’ and everyone works to eliminate it, knowing the risk will always be there.
Hi Nuno,
ReplyDeleteI’ll have to check the link later. That website is down right now (I got an e-mail about it with this month’s ASPJ in pdf format this week.) so I’ll look at it later. In any case, if you have to make more than one pass, you have to make more than one pass. Inefficient at best, dangerous at worst.
Your ‘technical’ pickup and ‘worth it’ example is an unfortunate ‘strawman’ argument. What is relevant is not the value of the truck/ gear/ crew vs the cost of an SDB, but what is the value of STOPPING the ‘technical’? Obviously, if it is attacking a pinned-down US force that wants it taken out, the value is easily worth an SDB, JDAM, or whatever. BTW, just one (1!) 30mm PGU-13/B HEI round for the A-10’s GAU-8 cost $53.00 in 2008. We had to buy over a quarter-of-a-million rounds to get that bulk ammo discount. You can shoot up an SDB’s worth of cannon rounds pretty quick. Gun barrel replacement is also frequent and not cheap either BTW.
Between Desert Storm and OAF, from 1991 to 1999, and if we throw out the EF-111 that lost control because they thought someone was shooting at them, exactly half of the Air Force aircraft lost (6 of 12) were A-10s of assorted type. All the other types had far less or NO attrition.
The A-10 IS vulnerable because it is low and slow. That is no ‘myth’, and that is not just ‘my’ opinion. As I’ve cited General Horner on the subject:
LtGen Horner: “Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.”
Interviewer: “This [Desert Storm] conflict has shown that?
LtGen Horner: “It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.
The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's fine if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.”
Interviewer: “At what point did you do that?”
LtGen Horner: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this." ....
So it was the ‘Air Boss’ of Desert Storm was already saying in 1991 that the A-10’s days were numbered. (End of Part 1)
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteNow you’ve just GOT to appreciate the beauty of how this wraps up...
Among the F-16 operators that Lt Gen Horner had going after the Republican Guard when he pulled back the A-10s was a key group of F-16s from my base at the time (Hill AFB). They were tasked with a new ‘hybrid’ Fast FAC/Attack mission, one conceived by a special tactical planning cell in CENTAF HQ. Coincidentally, the 388th TFW operators who were about to deploy had almost the same idea at the same time, and the concept became the “Killer Scouts”. The core pilots were 4thFS (’Fujiins’) F-16 drivers with FAC and/or A-10 CAS experience. One of them, a jock who had about 1000 hrs in the A-10 before he was assigned F-16s would later write an Air Force magazine article about it as a LtCol in 1993. That Lt Col is (…drumroll…) the same guy who talked about retiring the A-10 at the AFA Symposium this week and sent weaker Army hearts aflutter: AF Chief of Staff, General Mark A Welsh III. Everyone would like a specialized tool for every job, but no one can afford it.
The F-35 has sensor, situational awareness and communications system capabilities the Killer Scouts couldn’t have dreamed about in their wildest dreams, when they had to use binoculars to see down below without going down below.
I expected the announcement to cause a stir, so I’m preparing a post showing exactly how the current crazy notions concerning the AF and CAS are not only unsupportable, but also provide an example of how they get planted and fertilized in unwary minds.
G'night all!
Thank you for you answer ,Sir.
ReplyDeleteI will investigate your arguments,and post a later answer to them(be it pro or against).