Thanks for the article Peter.
However, the most convincing explanation seems to be the fear of “structural disarmament” of the ROK Air Force should it choose to buy yet another batch of expensive fighters to replace the aging F-4 Phantom and F-5 Tiger fighters. Simply stated, the more advanced the fighter jet, the more costly it is. The more expensive the jet, the fewer the South Korean military can purchase. The fewer stealth fighters purchased, the smaller the ROK Air Force.Money. It always comes back to money.
Indeed, the limitations of South Korea’s US$7.43 billion budget for fighter acquisition and procurement (A & P) seems to have been the primary motivating factor in selecting the F-15SE. As Soon-ho Lee warned last month, “if the F-X project is pursued as planned, the ROK Air Force may have to scrap the contentious Korean Fighter eXperimental (KFX) project, which [may leave] the ROK Air Force [with] only around 200 fighters.”
The S. Koreans looked at their budget, and determined what they could afford. Inside that revolutionary construct they chose a capable, but non-stealthy airplane.
What is scaring the living shit out of the F-35 program office and Amos is the idea that other nations will take a good long look at their budget. They'll also get the latest brief from Boeing on the Ultra Hornet and they'll have to decide.
If the Ultra Hornet can do 90% of the F-35 missions at half the price then why buy the more expensive airplane (this is applicable because some of the classified stuff the Navy is doing with the Super Hornet will make its way over to the F-1SE).
90% capability vs. 100% perfection.
I'll take the 90 while being able to have a balanced force over the 100 that is biased.
"...Inside that revolutionary construct they chose a capable, but non-stealthy airplane..."
ReplyDeleteF-15SE "non-stealthy"? Even if the F-15SE may not end being as stealthy as the F-35A,it is a stealth fighter, it have two weapons bay for carry weapons inside the fuselage for reduce the radar signature. The unstealthy external weapons stations are for when the opposing air defenses and air force are neutralized and stealth is no longer required then it can used them for support the ground force with lots of smart-bombs. I think that from the three competing jets the Eurofighter that lack any weapons bay fit more the category of "non-stealthy".
from what i've read you can retrofit stealth into airplanes. what you can do is reduce their signature. that's what Boeing did with the F-15SE.
Deleteone of the things that people that are fighting the F-35 (for various reasons...i say it costs too much and is unbalancing the Marine Corps) need to do is to speak clearly and plainly.
saying that the other airplanes in the competition are stealth is a lie. they have many great points and work has been done to reduce their signature but lets not follow the example of Lockheed Martin and lie.
F-15SE is not even close to "stealth" fighter class I'm afraid. It is only a modification of classic F-15 airframe, guts modification, new electronics and stuff but nothing new in case of airframe. It has a huge radar signature, main line fighter not some ninja stealth assassin.
DeleteStealth planes are weapons of attack, S.Korea need a good defense fighter not some overpriced, overcomplicated flying toy. As Sol, if I can chose, I will take more 90% capability above few 100% perfection.
"...from what i've read you can retrofit stealth into airplanes. what you can do is reduce their signature. that's what Boeing did with the F-15SE..."
DeleteFrom what I readded there is not such thing as an invisible plane, stealth technology only reduce the distance of detection by making a smaller signature. How much "stealthiness" depends on how much money we can expend on the plane. So from what size of radar signature we can call it stealthier enough for be called a stealth fighter? I think that the real question is: How much stealthiness we can afford? I guess that ROK, that don't have much money and most of DPRK's air defense are cold war radars anyway, F-15SE is ok.
"...saying that the other airplanes in the competition are stealth is a lie. they have many great points and work has been done to reduce their signature but lets not follow the example of Lockheed Martin and lie..."
Funny enough that depends on the point of view. The only fully stealth fighter rigth now is the F-22, the F-35 and the F15-SE are only "partially stealth" because they are stealthy only on the front side.
"...one of the things that people that are fighting the F-35 (for various reasons...i say it costs too much and is unbalancing the Marine Corps) need to do is to speak clearly and plainly..."
I don't need to be convinced that the F-35B cost too much, what I need to be convinced is that there is an alternative for the USMC. The USMC want a V/STOL that can be deployed with the V-22 and can fight modern aircrafts, ROK want a land based fighter-bomber that can deal with a gigantic museum of air defenses and fighters, I think that the comparison is not very good. ROK have other options, do the USMC have other V/STOL available?
i'm not going to parse your statement. i'll just answer it.
Delete* LM says that the F-35 employs full stealth.
* the F-15SE has reduced signature treatment. Boeing never claimed that they were making the plane stealth, just that it would have stealth features. never once did they claim that its partially stealth or anyother weird statement like that.
* the issue is costs and just saying that there is no alternative isn't an argument. NAVAIR has already stated that the Harrier can be kept in service beyond 2030. so we don't need an immediate replacement for that plane. what we need is an airplane that isn't going to bankrupt the Corps. additionally the once thrifty Marine Corps is operating or planning to operate the two most expensive aircraft in service besides the B-2. the F-35 and MV-22 are breaking the bank. we have got to do better and if that means a clean sheet design then so be it. the design schedule of the F-35 has been criminal. we can do better...even if that means telling Boeing to get the blueprints out on the X-32.
Stealth is primarily airframe shaping and material coatings. Its very difficult/impossible to retrofit stealth onto an existing platform, only reduce its signature.
ReplyDeleteA true stealth design is a blank sheet of paper approach covering signatures reduction for radar, thermal, visual and acoustic.
I do agree tho, the rationale for your Marines having stealth planes is dubious at best. They need bomb trucks to support the guys on the ground, not a limited payload, limited range tech fest
ReplyDelete"better is the enemy of good enough" said a former Russian CNO
ReplyDeleteCost should always be a major factor. If a military cannot field troops or platforms in sufficient numbers to be effective, then they are always at a disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteWe need Chevy and Ford, not Bugatti or Ferrari.
It would be far better to acquire 500 new F-15SE and 1000 new F-16 Block 60+ as fighters, then generate stealthy cruise missiles for the stealth strike mission.
The Strike mission doesn't need a manned aircraft. Why the Air Farce is so obsessed with having manned aircraft trying to penetrate defended airspace and deliver ordnance in the 21st Century is beyond me. It makes no sense. If all we need is a stealthy bomb truck, we can develop a really amazing cruise missile that is stealthy, small and low-risk.
A stealthy cruise missile could be a true drone, one that pilots itself and and seek out new targets and carry a mix of strike packages: Electronic warfare/EMP, submunitions, cluster bombs, penetrating unitary warheads, etc.
One version could carry submunitions like LOCAAS, Viper Strike, BLU-108, guided 120mm mortar rds, etc. to drop on signal towers, communication vans, radars, etc.
A stealthy cruise missile could be remotely piloted or use active/passive detection or pre-programmed targets. If it is remotely piloted or active/passive, it can be set to patrol over an area to detect signals emissions, IR signatures.
It is the only logical solution.
You're bringing up a lot of good points. A couple thoughts on them:
DeleteThe USAF is obsessed with stealth to win the BVR air to air battle. Stealth for air to ground is to some extent just an excuse to get what they want for air to air.
If you can take enemy AWACS out of the equation, low flying cruise missiles don't have much need for stealth: they can only be acquired at short ranges where stealth features have minimal impact. For higher altitude flight profiles, stealth would be much more important. It's an interesting set of trade offs.
Also if you start making cruise missiles smarter and smarter, you're also making them more and more expensive. At some point it makes more sense to go with an X-47 type approach to bring the smarts (including the sensors) back for re-use. In fact, if you take this same thinking and add in "autonomous sensors and decision making aren't there yet" idea, all of a sudden you've spec'd out a stealth attack plane. So again, interesting trade offs.
I don't think the artificial intelligence is that far beyond our grasp or that expensive. If I iRobot can build a robot to sense, map out your house and avoid obstacles, we can build a cruise missile that picks up signal sources and drops a Viper Strike. And that's just if we want one smart enough to seek out its own targets.
DeleteThere is still the options of programming in a predesignated target like we currently we do as well as having a programmable system that can be updated in flight like what is being added to Tomahawk now.
And if we add the capability to carry submunitions, then we are talking about a cruise missile that can do more than just plunge in at 45 degree angle with a unity warhead. If a cruise missile can take out two or three targets, it's doing the job of what used to take 3 missiles.
I wrote this a few months ago for another article, but this is my idea of a Next Gen cruise missile.
'All three versions would be capable of passive or active detection of potential targets and could be launched from submarine, air or ground/surface units (like cold-war GLCM). They'd be launched in the hundreds to fly over likely areas where MRBM, cruise missiles, aircraft, SAM batteries, aircraft would operate.
The A-version would be equipped with a unitary warhead AND sub-munitions like Viper Strike. It might detect a SAM battery or DF21 TEL vehicle, fire a submunition, then after broadcasting all known target information it has encountered, fly on to a target, destroying the target and itself.
The B-version would be equipped with a unitary warhead and a NGJ, jamming every signal it can, hacking computer networks, reporting back ELINT/SIGINT, and when it was out of fuel, find the nearest target, destroying the target and itself.
The C-version would have an EMP weapon like the CHAMP. It would collect all the information it could, relay info back to HQ and either identify optimal targets or wait for new targeting info. It could have EMP sub-munitions it could fire at a target, then proceed to the next. Once it ran low on fuel, it would find and attack the nearest target, destroying the target and itself.
All three versions could share real-time targeting information as well as receive ongoing targeting updates transmitted via satellite from HQ that reported the most up-to-date information.
With hundreds of all three versions criss-crossing target areas, it would make the environment too hostile for the enemy in his own territory for significant periods of time.
Keep launching new waves of these cruise-missile and you could suppress enemy defense to allow other traditional assets to take on enemy aircraft, surface vessels, conduct raids, etc.
And don't just launch them from tradition assets either, start looking at converted 747s, container ships and mobile ground-based launchers.'
and if the USAF want stealth for BVR air-to-air, there's nothing to stop an X-47 from accompanying F-22s, loaded with AMRAAMs, using the targeting information provided by F-22s or AWACs.
Deletewe've got to aim at building a military with Fast, Inexpensive, Simple, and Tiny as the principle because there will come a point where we will simply be unable to keep pace with the industrial capacity of China. We won't be able to build as many planes, ships, etc., so we have to find our asymmetric leverage to counter their numbers because we don't want to get into a war of attrition with China
I see cruise missiles as a better solution to strike than an expensive, underperforming, stealthy F35. Built on massive scale, they would be cheaper.