What a great concept, right?
F-35s loitering around the aerial battlefield, unseen, picking out
hapless targets to be dispatched with ruthless efficiency by shooter aircraft
dripping with missiles. What’s not to
like?
You know, though, I feel a vague sense of uneasiness about
this concept. Think about the history of
modern aerial combat. It's not an ordered, neat affair. It's a confused,
incredibly rapid, constantly changing melee and that's completely at odds with
the idea of a sensor aircraft leisurely spotting targets and passing off to a
somehow unseen, unhindered, non-stealthy shooter while the enemy obligingly
remains lined up and relatively static, just waiting to be shot. If all that
happens, I guess it could work. However, the reality, especially as the enemy
employs more and more of their own stealthy aircraft, is that the sensor
aircraft will be frantically engaged in their own life or death struggle to
survive and won't be leisurely passing on targets to shooters. The shooters,
being non-stealthy, will likely be targeted by enemy stealth aircraft and long
range missiles and will also be frantically maneuvering for survival rather
than calmly and methodically launching missile after missile.
Let’s think about the concept in a bit more depth. What are the requirements for the concept to
work?
For the sensor platform,
- It must be close enough to see the targets with its sensor(s). Depending on the target, that could be a hundred miles away for a larger bomber or AWACS type aircraft or it could be a dozen miles to spot an enemy stealth fighter. Even spotting modern semi-stealthy fighter aircraft will require moderate proximity, say 30 miles or so. Now, the flip side of this requirement is that if the sensor is close enough to see a target, it’s also close enough to be seen unless we think the enemy doesn’t have the same kinds of radar, IRST, and other sensors that we have.
- It must be unengaged. In order to calmly and methodically pick out target after target, the sensor aircraft can’t be engaged in its own frantic, twisting, turning, battle for survival. So, the sensor must be able to loiter around the battlefield, unseen and unengaged. Referring back to the previous requirement about range and mutual detectability, does this seem likely?
Similarly, for the shooter platform,
- It must be close enough for the missiles to be in range. Our standard long range missile is the AIM-120C/D which has ranges of 50-100 miles although the effective range is likely closer to 30-70 miles. As with sensing, if the shooter aircraft is in range to shoot, it’s also in range to be shot. In fact, Russia and China reportedly have longer range missiles in service than we do!
- It must be unengaged. In order to calmly and methodically conduct launch after launch, the shooter aircraft can’t be engaged in its own frantic, twisting, turning, battle for survival. So, the shooter must be able to loiter around the battlefield, unseen and unengaged. Refering back to the previous comments about sensor and missile ranges, does this seem likely? Is a non-stealthy, heavily loaded (further increasing detectability) aircraft going to be able to loiter near an aerial battlefield without being detected and engaged?
Now, some of you may be saying, wait, we do this kind of
sensor/shooter operation all the time on the ground. For example, a spotter, hiding in the
mountains of Afghanistan, calls in shooter aircraft to bomb the enemy into
defeat. Yes, we do. However, note the key differences. The sensor (spotter) is able to remain
completely hidden (thanks to long range optics, the presence of significant
cover, and the ‘stealthy’ nature of a single human) while still spotting
targets and the shooters are completely unengaged and unhindered because the
enemies that we’ve used this tactic on have no aerial capability of their
own. Our shooter aircraft are able to
loiter over the battlefield with no interference, whatsoever, from the enemy. None of this will happen in the aerial
sensor/shooter scenario against a peer enemy.
Thus, the ground example has no relevance to the aerial scenario.
We’re left with a concept that sounds appealing but seems
unworkable under realistic combat conditions.
This seems like yet another example of the military's tendency to
believe that everything we do will work and that the enemy will cooperate in
their own destruction.
The military seems committed to this concept with absolutely no basis to support it. Where is the realistic testing that has proven this concept will work? As is so often the case, the military has latched on to a concept without any foundational study and testing to justify it.
That's my view of how this concept plays out. Do you see it
differently?
Ok thisxwondeul flying machine that's so spectacular does everything until 1.its parts system crashes 2.Its sensors crashes therefore it needs parts which it doesnt have 3.Really isnt a true dog fighter in that it had better not get into a twisting turning fight with just about anything so tell me why are we spending 1.3 trillion dollars in something that cant do the job its Vietnam all over again with F4s and F105s against the Migs because guess what these dastardly things called rules of engagement negate all of the advantages of Situational Awareness and Sensor Fusion
ReplyDeleteThe last USN a/c to be able to this the F-14, had a guy in back to run the sensors, and missiles that out ranged the enemy. Some good news, LockMart has figured out how to load 6 Amramm internally on the F-35, +2x Aim9, progress.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like the Russian approach of more different BVR missiles withdifferent programing and targeting packages if you are going to bet the farm on BVR. Just the Amramm is single point failure.
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge, the 6x AMRAAM capability is a theoretical (prototyped?) feature that the manufacturer claims is available but the military has not pursued it and it is not a production capability. Am I correct about this? Also, the aircraft is not certified for 6x AMRAAM, as far as I know. Again, am I correct?
DeletePresumably, 6x AMRAAM would add some weight and reduce the range a bit.
Final caveat: manufacturer's claim many things, only some of which actually pan out. So, it's encouraging that they think they've worked out how to do it but it remains to be seen whether it's actually achievable.
Referring to below link:
Deletehttps://seapowermagazine.org/lockheed-develops-rack-to-make-f-35a-c-a-six-shooter/
When you think about it, it does make a certain amount of sense. The F-22 carries two AMRAAMs in the space of a 1000 lb bomb, the F-35's internal bays carry 2000 lbs bombs with more diameter...
6x AMRAAM will definitely add some weight vs the present 4x AMRAAM but it's definitely less of an issue vs bombs. Six AMRAAMs total is 2010 lbs. Weight of the sidekick rail is unknown, so i'm doing some guesstimates here. The LAU-127 rail weighs 87 lbs; using that as a starting point, and being overly conservative, let's assume the sidekick rail is 5 times heavier, or 450 lbs. 1 rail per bay means 2 Sidekick rails total, so theoretically we're looking at maybe 2910 lbs of missile and launch rails.
It seems to me that this is partly due to how Congress doesn't allow new capabilities to be added to the developmental portfolio, which IMO is a strong factor in why the DoD has been so eager to declare the F-35 operation: exiting the system develpment and demonstration phase allows DoD to start enabling work on additional capabilities that will take years to mature. 6 internal AMRAAM wasn't an original program requirement, so that's probably why it took so long for it to happen. The timing kinda works: F-35 officially exits SDD in April 2018, a year later 6 AMRAAM becomes a thing.
The other thing, I think, is that looking at all the weapons integration testing with the F-35, it seems pretty clear that the Pentagon was prioritising air to ground weapons. And to an extent, it does sorta make sense. 4 internal AMRAAMs isn't much of an air to air load, but two internal AMRAAMs is pretty much a typical defensive load for an aircraft on a strike mission.
It should be noted also, btw, that LockMart has only said the sidekick rail will work on the F-35A and F-35C. No mention of it working with the F-35B.
DeleteMy guess is that either the smaller weapons bay can't fit the Sidekick rail (the F-35B weapons bay is several feet shorter than F-35A/F-35C bay, but same diameter), or the USMC has chosen not to pursue this option.
It does seem to be an afterthought, but it's not as big a leap as it sounds.
ReplyDeleteModern long range missiles, as I understand them, work as follows
Plane detects enemy
Plane fires missile at enemy
Plane periodically or continually directs missile to enemy
Missile detects enemy
Missile kills enemy, hopefully.
It's not a massive leap for A to provide the initial targeting, B to provide mid course update, and C to fire the actual missile.
Its not going to be for every shot, but it could be a handy capability.
" it's not as big a leap as it sounds."
DeleteYou're falling prey to the military's weakness of assuming perfect conditions. To take a very poor analogy, crossing the street is simplicity itself, right? Look both ways and then cross. However, try crossing a freeway during rush hour and it's a completely different story.
For this missile guidance concept, under ideal conditions, you're correct. In fact, we can do that today. The problem is when you try to do that in an aerial combat scenario and A, B, and C are all fighting for their lives and have no focus/time for guiding/launching someone else's missile and you're trying to communicate and control in the face of heavy ECM, then the concept falls apart. As I keep saying, if we think this is what we want, we need to test it thoroughly and under realistic conditions.
The Swedish JA-37 Viggen (thunderbolt) could do that back in the 1980ies. One aircraft directing a missile from another aircraft. The technology is not that impressive.
DeleteThere are however other problems involved.
When any radar is transmitting you are no longer a stealth aircraft, everyone with radar warning or another EW system will know where the aircraft is and be able to shoot at it.
To remain hidden passive sensors are required, and IRST is sensitive to the weather and detection distances are variable to say the least.
Also to be able to guide other aircraft to a target or to guide a missile the radio communication can also be detected by opfor.
As CNO said, sounds good, don´t plan on it to work.
/W
@ComNav
DeleteHow about if, under mediocre conditions, and with no pilot interaction, it can happen?
No one is saying every missile requires it, but if it can be done, why not do it?
@Anon
I actually think it happen the other way.
The legacy fighter will provide the initial targetting and launch AMRAAMS, possibly keep going for a little while to provide a bit of extra guidance, then turn and run to avoid return fire.
The F35s can quietly keep going, and then light up targets who were expecting little missile seekers to be the problem.
"No one is saying every missile requires it, but if it can be done, why not do it?"
DeleteBy all means, let's do it if it can be done. My concern, based on anticipation of realistic combat scenarios, is that the concept is completely unworkable. Think about it … it requires a passive, almost cooperative enemy - one that has no sensors of their own, will fly in straight, predictable paths, has no long range missiles of their own, and has zero tactical understanding. How often do you see that set of conditions occurring?
"I actually think it happen the other way.
The legacy fighter will provide the initial targetting and launch AMRAAMS, "
Again, this is an example of the unrealistic assumptions so intertwined in military thinking today. A non- or semi-stealthy legacy aircraft is going to be able to approach to within missile launch range undetected while seeing all the enemy targets, launch missiles, and turn and fly away, all without any enemy response. Then the F-35, somehow able to detect every enemy aircraft but remain totally invisible itself despite the enemy having the exact same sensors (maybe better!) we do and lay waste to every enemy aircraft.
Is it just me or is that kind of totally one-sided assumption utterly ridiculous?
" A non- or semi-stealthy legacy aircraft is going to be able to approach to within missile launch range undetected while seeing all the enemy targets, launch missiles, and turn and fly away, all without any enemy response. "
DeleteNot at all
As happens today, aircraft will fly around, see each other, fire missiles, and maintain target locks until they break them to run or dodge.
As does not happen now, is when the launching platform leaves the missile to fend for itself, a second platform can continue to provide guidance.
"Is it just me or is that kind of totally one-sided assumption utterly ridiculous?"
CEC isn't an F35, US, or even NATO specific idea, if you think Chinese missiles wont be able to take cues from multiple sources, you are mistaken
"a second platform can continue to provide guidance. "
DeleteIt's this assumption that a second aircraft will be able to loiter in the aerial battlefield, completely undetected and yet seeing all enemy aircraft, remain totally unengaged, and leisurely guide missiles. This is the part that no one has yet explained to me. Who is this miracle second aircraft that no enemy sensor can see that apparently has true invisibility across the entire electromagnetic spectrum?
"CEC"
You know that CEC has never been tested under even remotely realistic conditions and yet we're pinning all our future combat hopes on it or variations of it. If that's what we want our future combat advantage to be then let's test it and find out if will work under real world conditions, not some perfectly contrived test that proves nothing.
Let's send an F-35 sensor and F-15/18/whatever shooter against a Chinese simulating threat force of F-22s, F-35s, F-15s backed by ECM and see if this sensor-shooter concept works. I'm 99% certain it won't but let's find out.
"It's this assumption that a second aircraft will be able to loiter in the aerial battlefield,"
DeleteIt doesnt have to loiter, it might show up later, it might never really enter the battle.
CEC is one program, its not the only possibility or the entirety of the concept.
As I keep saying, at the moment, missiles already receive mid course updates from the firing platform, its not a huge leap to pass that update from another platform.
"its not a huge leap to pass that update from another platform."
DeleteYou're correct. It's not a huge leap. In fact, we can already do that in carefully, unrealistically stage test. What we can't do is place a platform near enough to an aerial battle to detect and guide on stealthy and semi-stealthy aircraft without, itself, being seen and engaged. You have yet to tell me how that will be accomplished. Do you have an idea how that will be accomplished or not?
"As I keep saying,"
DeleteYes, you keep saying it but without any supporting logic. Obviously, there is little or no relevant data but there is plenty of logic. I've described the logic that argues against the concept (similar sensors on both sides, stealth aircraft on both sides, ECM environment, pilots too busy trying to survive, etc.). If you still believe your (and the military's) concept is correct, offer some logical analysis to support your view. Don't just keep saying it - analyze it and support it! That's the essence of this blog: analysis.
Making an assumption that we are fighting in the Chinese back yard, its important to note that ground-based EW is orders of magnitude more effective than anything that can be mounted on an aircraft, particularly on an aircraft that has some pretense of being even slightly stealthy.
DeleteTo put that in context, cold war GATR (Ground to Air Transmitter/Receiver) sites used 20KW Klystron-powered voice transmitter sets, instead of the maybe 100w on an aircraft. When you have effectively unlimited power generation capacity you can do cool things, and jamming is one of them.
I think we are going to lose the network(s) and GPS almost instantly which is going to make a huge dent in any "team" strategy. Even something simple like expecting radar missile homing to work is problematic.
"ground-based EW is orders of magnitude more effective than anything that can be mounted on an aircraft"
DeleteAn excellent reminder and a great caution for our various network schemes. I would think the same enhanced power capability would apply to ship based EW provided that the ship was designed for the required power.
Agreed. A lot to be said for ship-mounted EW. Power generation is relatively easy with GT power plants and the platform is mobile. One caution is that you want multiple platforms you can disperse. It would both make your EW more effective and give you some level of redundancy to mitigate the inevitable losses.
DeleteIt's an interesting thought experiment as to what such a vessel should contain aside from the EW suite. AAW perhaps? Likely not a good combination as the EW would cause too much interference with the anti-air sensors. Maybe combined with an ASW picket would be a more appropriate match?
I'm not a fan of bigger is better unless there is a compelling reason to go big.
"One caution is that you want multiple platforms you can disperse. It would both make your EW more effective and give you some level of redundancy to mitigate the inevitable losses. "
DeleteExcellent! To address your question of what else an EW ship should contain, why should it contain any other function? Why not a small, cheap, dedicated EW vessel? A Cyclone class ship could make a nice EW vessel, for example. Or, if we need to be a bit bigger, the LCS, if it had any endurance, could be a EW vessel if we stripped out other functions. Everyone automatically wants to add functions to every ship. Why? That's how we end up with unaffordable ships. Keep it simple (as simple as EW gets!), dedicated, single function, and affordable.
Consider the land equivalent. If we build an EW vehicle we don't add turrets, missiles, armor, and artillery to it, do we? No, it's just an EW vehicle. Simple and cheap.
One possible strategy is for the deliberate use of the legacy missile truck as bait. It will be seen. Meanwhile the F35 all fly different tracks so that while some may be seen briefly the others will not. The sensors constantly switch tracks so they appear and disappear. The missile trucks, I like the F15, can be accompanied by Growlers and heavily use MALD decoys. I don't know how effective this strategy would be but it is plausible.
ReplyDeleteAnd what would the enemy, also with stealth fighters, low probability of intercept radar, decoys, IRST, etc. be doing during this time? Would they be obligingly flying in slow, straight formations waiting patiently to be shot down or would they be hunting us just like we're hunting them?
DeleteThese kinds of concepts all sound great until you add in the enemy's lack of cooperation. Then they fall apart.
Another way to mix it up would be to add drones that appear as missile trucks so when the opponent reveals themselves by firing, which is the whole point here, detection.
ReplyDeleteLike the idea of "bait" BUT 2 problems come to mind: F15s are crewed, how long will they be OK with being "bait"? OK, we replace them with some drone, drones with that kind of performance and models US is coming out with aren't cheap, how long could we use those expensive drones as "bait"?
Delete"... when the opponent reveals themselves by firing, which is the whole point here, detection."
DeleteAnd when we fire our missiles … detection. And then the enemy missile trucks launch on us using their stealth fighters to provide targeting. This stuff works both ways which is what the military invariably ignores.
Does the enemy not have drones that could be bait? Why is it that the enemy is idiots who will fall for our deceptions and we'll be immune to deception while achieving 100% situational awareness?
Yeap, what happens if China uses the same bait and switch on USA? We are in even more trouble then China, we cant keep firing AMRAAMS like there's no tomorrow and/or replace all these lost jets overnight....
DeletePLUS, isnt USAF/USN assuming qualitative superiority (maybe,maybe not) and/or numerical superiority (maybe occasionally but always?), what happens if CHINA shows up for 1 engagement with 30 or more J20s against our 4 F22, 4 F35s and 4 F15s? I doubt all US jets are coming back from that engagement....
" Why is it that the enemy is idiots who will fall for our deceptions and we'll be immune to deception while achieving 100% situational awareness"
DeleteIn all likelihood, the opposite will be true. However, there is a scenario in which we can assume this; a premeditated surprise strike. Part of the premeditation is ensuring surprise and planning the strike at an opportune time - when stealthy and deceptive PLA platforms (SSBNs, EW craft, J-20, etc.) are not immediately available in the chosen battle space and/or have been detected and ID'd before the operation.
The choice to achieve surprise and exploit its benefits or to cede those benefits to the PLA is ours to make, but most indications are that we're making the wrong choice.
“…loitering around the aerial battlefield, unseen, picking out hapless targets to be dispatched with ruthless efficiency by shooter aircraft dripping with missiles.”
ReplyDeleteThese requirements seem to be more appropriate for a really large aircraft, with powerful synthetic aperture radar, LADAR, thermo-optical, and other sensors, communications equipment, and critically *aircrew* to direct the battle.
Seriously, one pilot cannot do all this even with an AI pilot doing the flying.
Sounds a lot like a modernized E-2, E-3, 737 AEW&C, etc. aircraft.
Sven Ortman suggested that something along the lines of a B-1, with the necessary sensors/communications, [*aircrew!*], and sprint speed to escape threats.
I think there is much to recommend in this argument, although the price tag will be huge.
GAB
I really wonder how much a single seater like F22/F35 can be the QB. I know we have heard anecdotes from Red Flag of F35 quarterbacking and alerting other blue force players BUT again, what happens when 10 J20s take a volley of shots at those 2 F35s quarterbacking? All that nice talk and nice analysis goes out the window when you have to save your own skin...plus, ok, F35s survive, those pilots just dont go back to work scanning and QBing like nothing happened. They might be out of position, fight might have moved on, they need to regain their own SA and their minds back in the game,etc...how long does that take before they are back online? What happens to everybody else in the meantime??
DeleteI always thought we needed a twin seater F22 or F35....I dont think a single seater can pull it over, maybe here and there but not everyday against Chinese forces.
"I know we have heard anecdotes from Red Flag of F35 quarterbacking"
DeleteWhat you haven't heard - and this is incredibly important - is that the F-35's in exercises were NOT up against other F-35s (simulating enemy stealth fighters). Now, add a note of realism and give the enemy exercise force F-22s/35s and let's see how the leisurely quarterbacking concept works out.
Today's military invariably assumes that all of our technology will work flawlessly and that the enemy has no technology much beyond the biplane era and that the enemy will obligingly line up to be shot down. I just don't see that happening, do you?
Agree, China wont line up that easy....that QB concept sounds great but I just dont see it working for long against Chinese LO fighters. Especially if US F35s could well be out numbered.
DeleteUSAF sure is keeping very close to their vest the results of RedFlag when Blue F22s have gone against Red F22s....I think they tried it out a few years ago....as far as I know, nothing has leaked out about the outcome. Bet that was immediately classified!!!
I think the F35 as a quarterback (is that like a halfback?) is a transitional thing. It obviously wasn't designed for that role (why are there no two seaters at all?).
DeleteBut from the material cited it seems a good use of low density F35 to enable the legacy force. As the F35 numbers grow they'll probably act as they were meant too and dump their legacy fighters.
"it seems a good use of low density F35 to enable the legacy force"
DeleteYou understand that the key assumption in this 'enabling' is that the F-35 can loiter around the aerial battlefield, seeing everything, while remaining totally undetected by enemy aircraft that have all the same sensors that the F-35 does (and more, and better, perhaps!). So, we think that the F-35 will see everything and yet nothing the enemy has will see us? Does that sound remotely realistic to you?
To me, "low density" asset in this scenario means "overwhelmed".....
Delete"These requirements seem to be more appropriate for a really large aircraft, with powerful synthetic aperture radar, LADAR, thermo-optical, and other sensors, communications equipment, and critically *aircrew* to direct the battle. … B1"
DeleteAs you're well aware, the concept of a large missile truck is not new. Even the F-14 was designed somewhat to that concept. The idea of a sensor/guidance truck is a more recent development. A B-2 would probably be capable of performing either role as long as it didn't wind up directly engaged (which is a major, unproven assumption!). The aspect I'd like to discuss, however, is that use of a B-2 removes it from the realm of a strategically useful weapon and drops it into the realm of a tactically useful weapon.
If we don't increase the size of the bomber fleet, we'll be subtracting strategic assets to perform tactical operations. On the other hand, if we increase the bomber fleet size significantly, we'll be hit with a staggering bill to pay. B-2s cost $1B-$2B, depending on what cost basis you want to use, and the new B-21, despite the Pentagon's ridiculously optimistic cost estimates, will likely cost $1B each.
The USAF in particular, over decades, have this vision (fantasy) where they should be allowed to bomb with impunity. It's in their service journals in 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is really the same mission of the A10. You need to have won the air battle for it to be realistic. Once that is done any plane can loiter over 15000 feet.
JSFs are designed to penetrate not loiter, AFAIK their stealth is optimized from the front and use speed to egress. Australia plans sensor shooter if necessary (we have 24 super hornets that need something to do) but the concept is penetrating JSF with growler, wedgetail, MC55, loyal wingman, triton and P8s, and maybe super hornets, combined arms team.
Combined arms teams make complete sense. I always have always thought that highly capable aircraft directing larger numbers of less capable aircraft using link 16 etc is a great way to multiply force. In the Australian context a 2 flights of f18a supported by a f18f and f18g. The f18a wluld not use there radars and deploy missiles forward and then retreat while the f18f in the rear directing the missiles and f18g blocking the targets response. With the f35 now in control it really amplifies the target
Delete"highly capable aircraft directing larger numbers of less capable aircraft ... The f18a [would] not use there radars and deploy missiles forward and then retreat while the f18f in the rear directing the missiles"
DeleteYou didn't give a lot of details but how do you see this working? An F-18F, far to the rear will see targets and provide target data for an F-18A out in front, I gather. How is this F-18A, out in front, with no radar to see enemies, going to survive long enough to launch its missiles? If the target is within range of the F-18F's radar then the F-18A must be WELL WITHIN radar range of the enemy. Why won't the enemy simply destroy the F-18A since, without its own radar, it will never see the threat coming?
This is the kind of poorly thought out concept that is going to get us killed!
If you think this concept is viable then you need to game it out, completely, factoring in enemy actions, and explain how it will work. I'm just not seeing it.
"f18g blocking the targets response"
DeleteThis is more of the same 'everything we do will work and nothing the enemy does will have any effect' thinking that is so prevalent in today's military.
If you think an F-18G will be able to negate the enemy's response, why don't you think the enemy will be able to negate our actions? After all, they have the same types of sensors, jammers, electronic warfare, etc. To think that ours will work and theirs will have no effect is delusional. By all accounts, Russia and China are ahead of us in electronic warfare, if anything. Explain to me how this will work?
One anonymous to an unknown. The blogger loves well thought out arguments. Turkey might be getting a third rate stealth aircraft from Russia. Russia can't afford to build it and I doubt it has all the technologies of the JSF (MALD, ALIS, all round sensing and the helmet). I also note that Russia's primary plane strike weapon is gravity bombs - it was a big deal when they upgraded the fire computer in Syria. China cannot make military jet engines.
DeleteBut more to the point strike packages use the inherent advantages of airpower. Speed to mass and then leave. The JSF will not be loitering except on maybe CAPs near their airbases as they will one day be the only fighter.
And it is mainly a ground strike weapon.
This is the RAAF Plan Jericho. It is well thought out. Note is is based on the JSF but the JSF is just a cog.
Delete1. Autonomous processing to infuse machine processing power throughout the force to enhance decision-making quality and tempo.
2.Advanced sensors to detect and track challenging targets in difficult environments. [this includes quantum sensors]
3.Combat cloud to optimise decision and action tempo by integrating the fifth-generation force and enabling resources from across the force to be distributed and applied as a unified whole.
4.Human-machine augmentation to optimise individual and collective human and human-machine performance within a proactively developed ethical, moral, and legal framework.
https://www.airforce.gov.au/our-mission/plan-jericho
This is well thought out and would have a lot of input from USAF and USN.
SSN will dismantle the IADS from the inside. Planes will nibble the edges till they break through.
DeleteThe US army tried to go deep in the Iraq war with AH64s. Out of 24 one crashed, 22 were severely damaged, and 1 was relatively ok. They achieved little.
The only reason it wasn't 23 crashed was their armor.
When they went back against the Guard division they fought their war in rather ignoring the enemy.
"RAAF Plan Jericho"
DeleteThat was an interesting link. However, it read like a marketing brochure and consisted entirely on non-existent technologies. Let's be fair and honest, here, and acknowledge that any and every plan that relies on non-existent technology will sound good because no one can dispute it!
On a related note, I'm continually struck by the various plans of the US, UK, Aus, and whomever else that talk about how *this plan*, whatever it is, will give us the decisive advantage over our enemies. Just a question to ponder: do our enemies ever come up with plans to give them a decisive advantage over us? If they do, do we take those plans into account or do we blithely go about our business unconcerned about what our enemies might do?
Will our enemies not develop advanced sensors thereby negating the Plan Jericho advantage?
Will our enemies not develop "Autonomous processing to infuse machine processing power throughout the force", whatever that means, thereby negating the Plan Jericho advantage?
Will our enemies not develop combat cloud computing thereby negating the Plan Jericho advantage?
Will our enemies not develop human-machine augmentation (and without ethical limitations!) thereby negating the Plan Jericho advantage or even surpassing it since they won't be constrained by ethical considerations?
We develop these wonderful plans while, seemingly, assuming that our enemies will remain locked at a stunted level of technology. Does that seem realistic?
Russia develops weapons/tactics/doctrine to overcome their weakness. The west reacts, Russia reacts, etc. And Russia exploits it strengths which is indirect fire.
DeleteChina is becoming a western clone military force. They have advantages of skipping some technologies, be geographically focused, being very large. One of their disadvantages is they don't get hi tech quite right - they know the theory of military jet engines but cannot build them as they didn't steal the knowledge of the companies that learnt over decades how to make a turbine blade that doesn't fail.
Western militaries have been at war (is it forever?) for a while. A lot of friction points have been eliminated. China doesn't know how it will all work when stress is applied.
China and Russia are playing catchup. The goalposts will keep moving and if the west remains committed will keep our advantage. China may catch up one day, Russia won't.
Plan Jericho informs government spending. The Australian Govt just funded 14 quantum projects. Bought 4 MC55 whose job is to talk via MALD to JSF.
"Russia develops weapons/tactics/doctrine to overcome their weakness."
DeleteA great observation!
"Russia exploits it strengths which is indirect fire."
In more general terms, I would state it as, Russia recognizes that firepower/lethality rules the serious battlefield and builds to that recognition - artillery being one of the major expressions of firepower.
"China doesn't know how it will all work when stress is applied."
To be fair, the Western militaries have been developed for very small conflicts (can't call them wars) and counter-insurgency. The West doesn't know what will work in major combat, either!
"Russia won't."
In the broadest sense, I agree. Russia simply lacks the resources to match the West. However, they have huge advantages in artillery, armor (some very nice armor family vehicles), firepower (cluster munitions, in particular!) and electronic warfare that the West is trying to catch up to.
Plan Jericho seems to be a very large bet on non-kinetic, non-lethal (at least not directly lethal) technologies. If those do not turn out to be the magic technology that Australia is betting on, what's the fall back position? It sounds like an all-or-nothing bet and those are always very risky.
We always out-teched Indonesia. Mirage Jets + F111 were sufficient. China changed the goal posts. We can't outmass them.
DeleteWe have to be totally interoperable with US forces so we CAN add mass (and keep the US in Asia). We have to be more advanced than China - that will be difficult. But our 12 Frigates, 6 battalions, and three fighter squadrons cannot anything on their own.
We are undergoing a Pacific pivot - deny China any chance of bases in the South Pacific. This is with New Zealand and the US is mouthing interest. Aust and the US are developing a WW2 naval bases in PNG (that Australia made the US leave after WW2 so the US stripped everything from the port, now 70 years on we are rebuilding it).
Australia hasn't required SAMs (a handful of RBS-70s for training) as we had assumed that there would be US air supremacy. Now we are buying SAMs incl ABM are in the plans.
Strikes me that the USAF, having understood that a big and non-stealthy radar aircraft, like an E-3, can do battle management, but needs fighters to defend it, wants something better.
ReplyDeleteThat's not an unreasonable desire, but claiming that a conditionally stealthy single-seat aircraft can do the same job without defenders is just self-delusion. Do USAF officers just believe whatever they're told to, or are they being cynical about what the public and politicians will believe?
Why do you say there is no defenders. A flight of four f35 will be able to carry 24 air to air missiles once the bomb bay modification comes on line. They are training with four aircraft flights at red flag. They are using the late model amraams which have a very long range.
DeleteUSAF Gen Holmes breakingdefense interview Feb 22, 2018 saying they need to change from the BIG, LARGELY INDEFENSIBLE planes, JSTARS, AWACS and Rivit Joint, to fused networks of sensors.
ReplyDelete"The justification is the plane’s vulnerability to threats, combined with the Air Force’s conclusion that data can be better collected from a wide array of ground, air, space and sea sensors and fused together // Holmes told me that the Air Force has decided to greatly expand its Advanced Battle Management System Analysis of Alternatives (ABMS AOA) to consider the best ways forward in light of the much changed threat environment // The world is changing; the threats are changing. We are going to take a look at all the threats we are facing."
(USAF Advanced Battle Management System program to replace JSTARS ground surveillance planes with a network of existing and new air and space-based sensors, won't be easy)
While considering the wildly optimistic Advanced Battle Management System, I merely note that the F-35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) has been a dismal failure of epic proportions and yet it would be a miniscule portion of a battle management system. Does anyone really believe we can produce a flawlessly functioning battle management system when we can even come close to a producing a functional logistics program which should be orders of magnitude easier?
DeletePlans are great, reality is a bitch.
It seems to me that if you carry through the assumption that EW is going to be really effective on both sides, you degrade down to a Battle of Britain combat environment very quickly. All the sophisticated electronic cooperation is stymied and the fight gets back to basics with mostly IR missiles and maybe guns.
DeleteWhat am I missing?
"the fight gets back to basics"
DeleteDoesn't it always? All the (one-sided!) technology we had at our command in Vietnam and it still came down to the individual soldiers slogging through swamps and jungles, shooting rifles. Great reminder.