F-35- cost per effect makes more sense

A recent paper by the Mitchell Institute talks about how the Air Force should be using cost per effect when it comes to stealth aircraft, instead of cost per flight hour, or other metrics. Using that metric, stealth makes a lot more sense to the average person.

The example used in the paper was the first night of Desert Storm. The first strike was performed by 20 F-117s that went in alone. According to the mission plan, they had 38 aimpoints, and were able to get 28 bombs on target.

By comparison, the first non- stealth strike package consisted of 41 aircraft, including jamming, and SEAD/DEAD support. They had one target, with 3 aimpoints, and put 8 bombs on target.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

That doesn't really seem like an apples to apples comparison.

What losses would the non-stealth missions have incurred, had the stealth aircraft not gone in first?

a reply to: Mach2

The F-35 is helping out in saving the planet from a nuclear armed Iran. That's got be a good thing whatever the price

"Israeli fighter planes even managed to photograph Iran’s underground bases."

news.yahoo.com... ur8PmH52UDPVyEzlqQWlD9EsgkezWX_q-hQFxpzy-4g_s2ptoFng0ZeHKV5GgKYgoEtBixtb90D2rDK5Ki5Tvw_vIcKr_lcNxPpvOzu6aHh2H1iEeE_sPs6_b2Vd7n7EF0xHbEqd58tKeZdOtamdbP TIksm2G936RD9TN

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

The F-35 is helping out in saving the planet from a nuclear armed Iran. That's got be a good thing whatever the price

Your link says nothing about a so called Nuclear Iran. Spin much?

And when you say planet surely you mean the M.I.C.? The ones who are usually in the 1% wealthiest raking in the fat taxpayers $

a reply to: Mach2

Baghdad's defenses were heavy enough that only the F-117 was allowed to hit targets there. Projected losses of non stealth aircraft trying to hit there were fairly heavy. I don't remember the exact number though.

The problem here is that you can't do an apples to apples comparison that makes sense. A single F-35 completely changes the battlefield without ever firing a shot.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wow that’s a bad argument on many levels.

Desert Storm was 30 years ago. It’s almost irrelevant for the battlefield of today or a near-peer conflict ten or twenty years down the line.
You cannot pick a single-use case from 30 years ago to support your economic arguments of operating a stealth fleet in the threat environment of the 21st century.

Does this even need explaining?
Aerospace warfare has changed drastically to what was possible a generation ago. Technologies and capabilities have improved tremendously and will continue to evolve in the coming decade. Aerial warfare today is nothing like it was 30 years ago and it will be different again 10 or 20 years from now.

So yes, F-117s back in 1990 were able to hit more targets on the first night than a conventional, much larger strike package. But what of it?

First, the first hour / first night is an extreme use case anyway. Conventional aircraft were perfectly able to perform strike at high-efficiency levels once Iraqi AD was degraded. And this is true for every conflict everywhere. Once the enemies AD is rendered ineffective, Stealth becomes irrelevant very quickly.

Second, back in 1990, the F-117 was a new plane with the very latest targeting and weapon tech, while conventional strike packages often relied on significantly older, basically 70s hardware to get the job done. This very unique situation is not in any way relevant today.

Third, if they think the F-117 went in without support they are kidding themselves. Whether you believe the Companion stories or not, they did have at the very least EF-111 support and air cover.

Fourth, the most economic solution today, tomorrow or back in 1990 is, was and ever will be standoff weaponry deployed from ships or strategic platforms. You don’t need to send in a 40 or 20 aircraft strike package. A couple of Tomahawks or a single B-52 using JASSMs (or ALCMs back in the day) is far superior.

So, moving forward, what would a Desert Storm like conflict look like today?
First off, both conventional and stealth aircraft have basically identical targeting capabilities. There is no practical difference between using a late Block F-16, Strike Eagle, or an F-35. Yes, the F-35 has superior technology but both, 5th and 4.5th Gen would be able to hit assigned targets without any difficulty.
The same is true for the bomber department, it really doesn’t matter if a B-21 or a B-52 or B-1B drops the JASSMs or JDAMs. It just works and we’re not talking edge case here.

And you won’t need one aircraft for one Aimpoint either, if it came down to it. Fighter jets today are perfectly able to attack half a dozen or more targets with quad-packed precision weaponry. And a single strategic platform today could reliably take out the aim points assigned to multiple fighter squadrons in 1990 in one sortie. It’s just not comparable, it’s ridiculous.

Sidenote - if they want to argue economics, they should look at sortie rates in any case. A modern conventional fighter jet (if properly supported) can fly significantly more combat missions in any given timeframe compared to the 1990s. Just look at how the IAF was able to boost their sortie rates over the last ten years alone. Stealth jets have yet to demonstrate similar rates in wart time conditions.

Moving on, strike packages. The main point is, whether you fly conventional or stealth, after the first day there’s no difference anyway. Against a second-tier opponent you’ll just knock out the AD on the first day and after that, your stealth fleet converts to hauling ordnance externally anyway.
The entire ‘oh conventional aircraft are so inefficient because they need so much support’ just doesn’t fly since it’s at best only relevant for the very first few missions to kick in the door.

Never mind that against a first-rate opponent, the Stealth fleet too would be heavily supported. You’d have a fighter escort component as well as standoff jamming support. Just like they had in 1990.
And since they mention the B-21, the entire freaking program is built around a family of systems supporting the penetrating bomb carrier. If the B-21 is ever going up against targets defended by an integrated air defense system, it will do so with at the very least a recon and a jamming component in support. The idea of the single stealth platform flying through enemy airspace just isn’t a thing.
Maybe it was for a brief period in the 90s against a second-rate opponent but this is just not relevant anymore.
You just wouldn’t penetrate the enemies AD to drop short range laser-guided bombs today. The whole concept is just asinine.

The US arsenal has changed since Desert Storm and is changing even more rapidly today. Engagement ranges have increased dramatically. SLAM-ER and JASSM family missiles offer an extreme range strike precision strike capability. SiAW is just around the corner. 1990 SEAD/DEAD was a joke compared to what’s possible today with AARGM or even ordinary conventional precision glide bombs. Tomahawk are deployed in ever larger numbers and are in the process of receiving groundbreaking upgrades.
Not to mention the looming revolution that is hypersonic weaponry. It again will change the picture in its entirety and offer strike capabilities inconceivable even ten years ago.

So no, the lesson to take away is not stealth means fewer aircraft sorties, but that the fighter jet no matter the generation is the wrong platform to deploy modern standoff weapons against a first-tier opponent.

I could go on and put it in a more organized form but geez, I certainly don’t get payed to pick this bs apart

Don't rely on a conflict from 30 years ago to support your argument for the fight 10 years down the line.

/rant

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mach2

Baghdad's defenses were heavy enough that only the F-117 was allowed to hit targets there. Projected losses of non stealth aircraft trying to hit there were fairly heavy. I don't remember the exact number though.

The problem here is that you can't do an apples to apples comparison that makes sense. A single F-35 completely changes the battlefield without ever firing a shot.

Yes, that was my point.

The stealth planes took out the radar and command/control structure of the air defenses.

a reply to: mightmight

It's being used as this thing known as an example. If you haven't noticed air combat of any sort isn't exactly prevalent anywhere in the world. Everyone involved is well aware of how things have changed since then, but even OIF was against weak defenses, and Afghanistan was effectively against no defenses. So the best available example was Desert Storm.

a reply to: Mach2

The problem is that one of the arguments used in F-35 hit pieces is the cost of operating stealth aircraft. Of course they're going to be more expensive, but using a different metric stands that argument on its head.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mach2

The problem is that one of the arguments used in F-35 hit pieces is the cost of operating stealth aircraft. Of course they're going to be more expensive, but using a different metric stands that argument on its head.

They certainly are expensive, but i think you have to look at it as part of the whole "system".

Air supremacy is paramount to any large scale military operations. Failure is not an option, so overkill (and thus expense) is better than the alternative.

I don't think most ppl are against the actual real cost v value, so much as the obvious mismanagement waste and aerospace companies endless cost overruns.

a reply to: Mach2

You'd be surprised at how many people that should understand better that are against the entire program, and in favor of more upgraded fourth gen. They keep looking at it as a failed dogfighter based on old reports, and ignore everything else it brings to the table.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

The F-35 is helping out in saving the planet from a nuclear armed Iran. That's got be a good thing whatever the price

Your link says nothing about a so called Nuclear Iran. Spin much?

And when you say planet surely you mean the M.I.C.? The ones who are usually in the 1% wealthiest raking in the fat taxpayers $

Iran has many nuke sites and these are being targeted by outside forces particularly over the past fortnight..................

Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear sites signal a new phase of conflict "According to the Kuwaiti media outlet al-Jarida, an Israeli F-35 stealth jet was used to bomb the Parchin complex" www.middleeasteye.net...

Israel uses Arab airfields all over the ME to infiltrate Iranian airspace. This alongside a cyber war against the same Iranian nuke sites. Iran striking back cyber style too but it aint got anything close to the F-35 to strike at the Israeli sites.

F-35 is in use against the Iranians, expect more in the future

originally posted by: Zaphod58

It's being used as this thing known as an example. If you haven't noticed air combat of any sort isn't exactly prevalent anywhere in the world. Everyone involved is well aware of how things have changed since then, but even OIF was against weak defenses, and Afghanistan was effectively against no defenses. So the best available example was Desert Storm.

Doesn't matter. Desert Storm is not a valid example anymore. Drawing on it will lead to potentially disastrous conclusions.
We've seen this time and again in history. Technology changes and the tacticians fail to recognize its implications while fighting yesterday's wars.

Deterring and fighting China in the Pacific in the next twenty years will be nothing like bombing Iraq in 1990. There are no parallels between these conflicts whatsoever. They are probably as different as any two large scale symmetric conflict could be.

a reply to: mightmight

And they aren't comparing the two. You've completely missed the point of the article. This has nothing to do with conflict with China. They're simply talking about using a better metric than operating cost when talking about the F-35 and other stealth aircraft.

a reply to: mightmight

What do you suggest would be a better measure?

This really makes more sense.
Try comparing a smart bomb to a conventional bomb.
Sure the conventional bomb is much cheaper but the smart bomb hits its target a lot more often.

These jets would be the same.
The older designs are cheaper but in the long run the stealth is more likely to get to the target and survive.

A single aircraft can get the job done where multiple cheaper models will be used for the same mission.

This kind of change is gonna make the MIC sooooo much extra money.

I hope you guys institute this ASAP!!!!

a reply to: Zaphod58
Everything has to do with China these days. Metrics like operating costs or whatever they like to come up with don't exist in a vacuum but in a broader operational context.
The next twenty years will be about confronting China. They will not be about bombing second-tier opponents. Metrics need to reflect that.
Relying on a conflict from thirty years in the past to support your argument may prove you had a point thirty years ago. It most certainly has no bearing on today's or tomorrow's conflicts.

In any case, their argument is and will remain bs.
As already explained, stealth aircraft rely on escorting and supporting aircraft too. That was true in 1990 and it is still true today.
Both conventional and stealth aircraft can hit their targets with equal precision. This was not the case in 1990, hence larger conventional strike packages.
Conventional aircraft today are vastly more capable to defend themselves than they were in 1990. DEAD mission aircraft are equally vastly more capable today. The same is true for fighter escorts and EW support.
This would result in significantly smaller strike packages compared to 1990.

It's just an entirely different world of aerial warfare today compared to Desert Storm. You might as well compare tank warfare in 1973 with today. It's simply not possible at any level.

No to mention their argument doesn't make any sense in itself.
The F-117 supposedly flying the last leg of their first-night sorties over Bagdad unescorted isn't an argument for Stealths being more efficient.
The F-117 attacking Bagdad on the first night is an edge case in itself. If anything Desert Storm 'proved' that a pure stealth fleet is entirely unnecessary since 99% of all combat sorties were flown by conventional aircraft.

a reply to: Masisoar

A better measure to judge whether the F-35 is a good deal or not?

I'd start with recognizing its lack of usefulness in emerging conflicts.
The US is shifting toward the Pacific to confront China. The Pacific is an incredibly vast and empty place, lacking the lavish support structure the US enjoyed for the past thirty years in the Middle East. It will not be possible to deploy any fighter jet in meaningful numbers to generate decisive sortie rates against the Chinese A2AD umbrella.

The F-35 is an excellent tool to bomb second or third rate opponents incapable of fighting back. It's also entirely unsuited for the Pacific theater and its procurement needs to be adjusted significantly to reflect this reality.

a reply to: mightmight

There is a reason every Nation with a military aircraft industry is developing stealth fighters.
I would also point out that the f-15 first flew in the mid 70’s.
The airframe is approaching fifty years old.
The truth is that you never know for sure who or where you will be fighting.