Quantity or quality?

[Yeoman_dai]

What i'm thinking of here, is uber modern avionics. It struck me in a Helicopter based post, but I don't see why it shouldn't hold true for other aircraft as well - do we really need to design aircraft using the bleeding edge of modern avionic packages, when they add £10mil to the cost of each airframe purchased?

Rising costs related to wacking more and more complex computers etc into aircraft have resulted in the constant dropping in actual numbers ordered. So - are they really necessary, or should modern militaries accept slightly less capability, for more aircraft?


I'll use an example, of the F22, F35 and the new(ish) F-15SE - F22 = $140mil, F15SE $100mil, F35 $90mil+ plus infrastructure - for $40mil dollars less than an F22 there is a proven, twin engined stealthy modern air superiority fighter? It can't supercruise but it can go 1400kts

Or another, Gripen vs Eurofighter. Maybe Eurofighter is more capable, but is it worth the extra cost, as well as being harder to maintain? (I apologise for not being able to give costs here, bad drills on my part but I refuse to use wiki as a source, and thats the only cost data I can find for Gripen at the moment)

[tonker]

This whole subject could be widened, but there is just too much money, power and egos at stake.

As an example outside of the Falklands conflict how many surface to air missles have ever been fired in anger? The Vincennes aside!

Of course there will be vested interests priming the media about imminent invasion or attack. How many minutes was it again?

I'm no yoghurt knitting liberal but when you sit watching this that an the other bombing around the Yorkshire moors or sit above Portsmouth enjoying a pint it does make you think.

A boat load of Mil8 Hips primed with infrantry that are propably equiped with all the gear they need, 400 Gripens instead of the mix we now at least hope to receive with saving that could have been invested in extra assets.

Anyway a big subject with hopefully some quality answers.:ok:

[Jackonicko]

F-22 versus F-15SE

One is an aircraft which will achieve a very high kill:loss ratio against any threat aircraft (including the classic 'developed Flanker' we all worry about....) even assuming parity in pilot training, and the other is an aircraft that might, on a good day, achieve something close to parity.

A reduced RCS F-15 is not, by any stretch of the imagination, truly 'stealthy'.

Cheaper aircraft aren't cost effective if you end up losing them in droves.

[airborne_artist]

It's a variation of the 80/20 rule. You could probably achieve 80% of the functionality with 20% of the spend, but the last 20% of the functionality costs the 80%.

Still, we'll see this soon enough round the shores of the UK. Fast patrol boats with big diesels and a pair of Exocets mounted on the deck. They will try calling it the Royal Navy :ugh:

[anotherthing]

US Forces v UK Forces :}

I'll get me coat, but you were thinking the same

[Green Flash]

Still, we'll see this soon enough round the shores of the UK. Fast patrol boats with big diesels and a pair of Exocets mounted on the deck. They will try calling it the Royal Navy

RNHF and they'll call it FAA or BBMF and they'll call it the RAF. What's the betting that now the combat mission has ceased in Iraq some beancounter will be planning more cuts?:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

IMHO, the USA was sickened by the loss of life during the civil war. Ever since they have generally been risk averse to loss of life. This is not to say they are wholly risk averse - the Pacific and Vietnam may be cited and also Omaha beach - but in Patton's words, you don't win a war by dying for your country.

In other words, there is no point in aiming for parity when you can buy superiority.

[500days2do]

One day we will provide equipment based on reality not someones dream wish list or the anoraks guide to def procurement.

Once again we have proven through our desert exploits that we don't learn the lessons of reality.How many more times will we allow others to decide what is bought against what is needed.

Ego trips or future employment seem to drive every project....

5d2d

[Pontius Navigator]

One day we will provide equipment based on reality not someones dream wish list or the anoraks guide to def procurement.

But what is reality? If we buy for the NOW we are too late. If we buy for the future it is a dream wish list.

How many more times will we allow others to decide what is bought against what is needed.

Who decides what is needed? Who are these others?

If you get 4 subject matter experts in a room and ask for a considered consensus on what is needed you will get 5 different answers.

If you expect the same SME to sit down and write a reasoned case for a piece of kit when they are up to their a^se in alligators you are again deluded. For too many years now we have disbanded HQs and denuded what is left of sufficient staff officers to actually staff procurement.

You can lean so far but eventually you will fall over.

[GPMG]

At the moment we may aswell sell the Typhoons, cut the Navy and get rid of Challenger tanks etc, whilst recruiting enough for 5 more commando units, double the army and buy all the A-10's available to support them oh and buy more helicopters that work in the environment.

That'll help with Afganistan, but we'll be screwed when someone decides that our little island would be better off speaking German or Mandarin.

And anyway the F-22 may well be bloody expensive but when you lose a jet, you also tend to lose the highly trained item of nose ballast. It doesn't matter how much it costs to train a pilot or navigator, but it does matter that no country can afford to lose a small and finite resource.

If that means that the pilot has a greater chance to return to base after shooting down more of the enemy then the F-15 doesn't seem to be quit such a bargain.

[ARINC661]

Once again we have proven through our desert exploits that we don't learn the lessons of reality.How many more times will we allow others to decide what is bought against what is needed.


So which avionics aren't needed?

The Helmet Mounted Display that prevents you crashing your helicopter during brown out?
The secure radio that enables you to talk plain english without the Taleban listening?
The EO sensor that enables you to spot the team planting an IED?
The GPS/EGI that enables you to find and resupply the troops in the middle of a featureless desert?
The laser designator that enables you to hit the enemy rather than the friendly troops?
The video datalink that enables the FAC to ensure that you hit the right target rather than killing some family of Afghans?
The IFF transponder that stops someone friendly from trying to shoot you down?
The DAS that stops someone shooting you down with a MANPADS?I could keep on going. They all have a use, and unfortunately they all cost money.

[Jimmy Macintosh]

It's more than just the avionics.
The techniques required to manufactuer the F-22 are labour intensive which upped the unit cost and also limited the production run. It took too long to get them out the door. Compare that to the B-2 and it is elevated 100 fold (the B2's production time and cost). The F-35 along with new technology in the aircraft also revolutionised LM's manufacturing abilites and they can churn more of them out.

With regards to larger force sizes, the initial idea was to account for a certain level of attrition during conflict, hence larger numbers with simplified design/avionics. That level of acceptable attrition gets reduced so the aircraft need to become more survivable with all of the magic boxes that help that. You'll notice that one of the features of the F-35 is the (proposed?) ability to link to UAV's so one F-35 flies into the battle zone with a couple of UAV's, using the UAV's to fly the more dangerous parts/high risk, I believe that the F-35 is supposed to have control (all be it limited) of the UAV's. The UAV's are the force multiplier and are significantly cheaper to produce than the F-35. So the average cost of your force is reduced.

Lastly, the boundaries of technology need to keep getting pushed in order for the next generation to break different boundaries, never a truer statement than on the side of the 2 pound coin, "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants". There are a lot of features that wouldn't exist on 5th generation fighters if they hadn't been cutting edge on 4th generation, hence the block 60 F-16 etc. the old design modernised as far as the airframe can take, then the 5th generation come about. By the time the 6th generation comes the abilities and cost of the block 60 5th gen will seem perfectly capable and affordable.

[Yeoman_dai]

Ok, good points. What about the mix of types though, such as the USAF use - some high cost, very powerful aircraft, and to bulk the force out some smaller, less costly versions? I know the USAF isn't perhaps the best example, as they can afford to have two highly capable aircraft for both slots, but for other forces?

And not just F22/F35's - we could have A400's as an example, or FLynx, or Merlin, the list goes on.

Thank you for the informed replies so far

[Winch-control]

I'm just thinking gloves and boots.
Nice spoof!

[CirrusF]

Rising costs related to wacking more and more complex computers etc into aircraft have resulted in the constant dropping in actual numbers ordered. So - are they really necessary, or should modern militaries accept slightly less capability, for more aircraft?


Why not start at an even higher strategic level? Eg instead of spending money on weapons, spend it instead on good intelligence to avoid pointless wars in the first place, end agricultural subsidies in rich countries which serve to keep poor countries poor and restless, work for fairer and freer international trade to encourage more cross-border investment (which makes war even more unpalatable), stop selling arms to non-democratic countries (most wars are started by non-democratic countries). Lots more on the list, but just talking about the cost of avionics is rather ignoring the big picture...

[Pontius Navigator]

stop selling arms to non-democratic countries (most wars are started by non-democratic countries).

That is all very well but the arguement goes "If we don't the French will" or the Chinese will or the Russians want hard currency and so on.

Then what of the Swedes or the Swiss - Oerlikon, Bofors, Superfeldermous?

[Ivan Rogov]

Since pointy sticks replaced stones it has always been a case of countering the threat. You just have to decide who your enemy is, what they have now and what are they developing? It has gone on for centuries and no one is willing to be the first to give up, oh hang on NZ did and look what happened there invaded in hours, mmmmmmm ruins that theory :ugh: I guess it depends if you want to be world player too!

Wasn't the first Gulf War a good example of what technical superiority provides?

I believe Russia is currently reviewing it's armed forces post Georgia and has decided that its forces need reducing and a bit more technology. Although they "won" the war using weight of numbers they were well outclassed by the opposition man for man, mostly due to better training and technological superiority.

[CirrusF]

That is all very well but the arguement goes "If we don't the French will" or the Chinese will or the Russians want hard currency and so on.

Well that leads on to another argument - for historic reasons most "developed" countries have substantial investment in complex arms industries that they wish to protect, and market. Hence it is difficult to get them to agree to reduce spending.

This investment also explains why "developed" countries seek to outlaw so called "horrific" weapons of "mass destruction". Actually the real definition of "WMD" is unacceptably cheap and primitive weapon technology that would allow a relatively poor and technologically primitive country to gain relative military parity with a rich and technologically advanced country.

[Modern Elmo]

Well that leads on to another argument - for historic reasons most "developed" countries have substantial investment in complex arms industries that they wish to protect, and market. ...

Or maybe "developed" countries are developed and richer because they have better weapons and thus more power -- the ultimate reason and logic of history.