Possible Israeli Mega Arms Deal for 5+ Billion Dollars

     From Defense News: 

TEL AVIV — Israel’s Defense Ministry is asking the US government to guarantee billions of dollars in low-interest bridge loans for a Pentagon-proposed package of V-22 Ospreys, F-15 radars and precision-strike weaponry that it ultimately intends to fund with future military aid from the US.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, when visiting here in April, announced that Washington “would make available to Israel a set of advanced new military capabilities” to augment Israel’s qualitative military edge.

At the time, Israeli defense and industry sources criticized the premature publicity generated by the Pentagon-proposed package, insisting negotiations on cost, quantities, payment terms and delivery schedules had not yet begun.

But in the past two months, MoD efforts to secure a US-backed loan for eventually US-funded systems on offer have intensified, with preliminary responses from relevant authorities in Washington expected later this summer, sources from both countries said.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon aimed to advance the issue in meetings with lawmakers and Jewish leaders on Capitol Hill on Thursday. On Friday, Ya’alon is scheduled to fly to the Pentagon aboard an Osprey, where he will be greeted by Hagel ahead of their talks.

Under the novel, Israeli-proposed funding plan, US government guarantees would allow MoD to initiate near-term contracts for advanced, Pentagon-offered weaponry with cut-rate cash from commercial banks. Israel would pay only interest and servicing fees on the government-backed loan, with principle repaid from a new, 10-year military aid package that President Barack Obama — during a visit here in March — promised to conclude before the current bilateral aid agreement expires in 2018.

Israel is slated to receive $3.1 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant aid through 2017, minus some $155 million in rescissions due to US government-mandated sequester. Those funds, sources from both countries say, have already been tapped to cover payments on existing contracts for Israel’s first squadron of F-35I joint strike fighters, heavy armored carriers, trainer aircraft engines, transport planes and a host of US weaponry.

Read the rest at Defense News. What the Isrealis are asking for is 5 billion dollars in free military equipment, maybe as much as 8 billion if a second squadron of F-35Is is included in the deal. I'm all for selling the Israelis military equipment, and supplying them in wartime. However, in a time when our own military is rapidly heading for the point where it will fall apart, I cannot support loaning the Israelis 8 billion dollars so they can buy U.S. military equipment. That 8 billion dollars could better be used in Navy shipbuilding, DoD R&D, buying aircraft for the services, or even paying off the debt. This deal is nothing more than giving the Israelis free military equipment.

Stealth: Too Much Of A Good Thing?

     Stealth. Since the development of Northrop's Have Blue prototype in the 70s the Air Force has fallen in love with the concept, and has bought 4 types of stealth bomers and fighters since. But at what cost to capabilities? Stealth is an extremely valuable resource, but today and for the next 10 years we will be fighting an asymmetric war against third world terrorists, rather than large conventional wars on the plains of central Europe. The question I ask, has stealth destroyed the Air Force and naval aviation?

     Exhibit 1: The A-12. The A-12 Avenger II was supposed to be a stealth bomber successor to the tried and true A-6 Intruder. The A-12 was canceled in 1991 due to cost and weight overruns, and problems with the radar system. Because the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6 , the Navy canceled the A-6F Intruder II which would have had new engines, electronics, and 2 extra hardpoints for carrying ordnance. However, since the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6, the Navy turned Grumman's proposal down. Then when the A-12 was canceled in 1991 the Navy was left without a tanker aircraft and bomb truck.  And because the Navy placed all it's bets on the A-12, it was forced to use the F-14 as an attack aircraft, and purchase the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, while an excellent fighter, is acceptable in the attack role, but is not meant for it. Conclusion: Because the Navy relied too much on new technologies (read A-12) that had kinks to be worked out, lost their deep strike and tanker capability. 

    Exhibit 2: The F-22 Raptor. The F-22 Raptor has become darling of the Air Force, as it  can enter a dogfight with any type of aircraft and come out on top. However, in recent months the F-22 has had problems with it's oxygen system resulting in one pilot killed and a six month grounding for all F-22s. That does not include it extreme cost at 350 million dollars each, which has only been surpassed by that of the B-2 Spirit at 2.1 billion dollars. The damage to the Air Force done by the F-22 is not as obvious. And rather than manifest itself in loss of capability, it shows itself in quantity. With only 187 combat aircraft produced, the Air Force is forced to rely on a small number of extremely capable platforms. Not only that, but the Air force will be reluctant to risk a 350 million dollar piece of equipment in hostile airspace, simply because of it's cost and the technical secrets which the enemy would obtain. Conclusion: Because the Air Force was set on buying the newest, coolest airplane, they lost several good legacy fighters for each F-22, rather than buy better, new build fighter fighter like the F-16E of F-15SE.

     Exhibit 3: The F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 is the latest and greatest of Air Force programs, and is the planned replacement of the F-16, F/A-18, and A-10. The problem here is the number of F-35s to be purchased. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are planning to to buy ~2400 F-35s of all types. I agree with many that the F-35 is a good fighter, but we simply cannot afford to buy enough to cover all the services. The Air Force has stated that they alone need 2200 fighters of all types, subtracting the 187 F-22s that leaves 2013 fighters that the Air Force needs. Subtracting the 680 F-35Bs and Cs the Marine Corps and Navy are buying, the Air Force is only buying 1233 F-35As, leaving a shortfall of 800 fighters. And the idea that the F-35 will replace the A-10 in the CAS role is a pipe dream (see example here, point made?), simply because the F-35 cannot absorb the punishment or carry the ordnance an A-10 can. Conclusion: The F-35 is a good bird, but at the moment it is not what we need, as it is too expensive, and it's mission can be performed by new legacy fighters. However, that does not mean it should be canceled, rather it should shelved for the moment until a need arises.

     The other issue that hasn't been mentioned, is that are we willing to deploy stealth fighters into hostile airspace? The F-22, and F-35 are cutting edge fighters with some of the newest technologies in the West on board, and if lost would hand a technical goldmine over to enemy forces. Back in 1999 an F-117 was shot down, and it is almost certain those stealth materials fell into enemy hands. While obsolete by our standards, the F-117 is cutting edge for the rest of the world. Frankly, the Air Force or Navy would probably not risk stealth aircraft in hostile airspace like Iran, simply because of the rick of valuable technical secrets being lost.

     Stealth is here to stay, that is a fact. However, in our current fiscal condition we cannot afford the number of stealth fighters or bombers we need to maintain our commitments worldwide. We also must be willing to risk our stealth aircraft in hostile airspace, even if that risks technical secrets falling into enemy hands. Even if we are willing to risk stealth aircraft in enemy airspace, we still don't have the money to afford enough stealth fighters. To answer the question posed at the beginning of this post, yes, stealth has destroyed the Air force and naval aviation.

     The solution? The F-16E/F and F-15SE. The F-16E/F is the latest version of the venerable F-16, and is already in production. The F-15SE is a stealthier version of the F-15E, with conformal weapons bays (CWBs) rather than the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs). Both types are cheaper than the F-35 at around 80 and 100 million each. They are not the most advanced fighters in the sky today, but have two advantages. 

We can afford them in the numbers we need, and they are proven in CAS and air-to-air combat. As to the Navy and Marines, the Marines would have to keep flying AV-8 Harriers off of helicopter carriers, and use F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for land-based aircraft. The Navy is another story, the A-6F needs to be resurrected, and a new cheap naval based fighter developed.

    The problem for so many years has been that aviators across the board (with the possible exception of the Marine Corps) have become fixated on buying new aircraft. The "if its new, if its high-tech, we need it" mantra has killed the Air Force and Navy at a time when tried and true beats new and unproven. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

    

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy and USAF

Photo: F-35B's Gun Pod

    That right there is a GAU-22 20mm cannon in an external pod. Unlike the F-35A, the B and C don't have an internal gun. Kinda like the SUU-16 without the gunsight problems. 

Photo Credit: USAF

F-35 & Old Glory

     Hat tip to Solomon at SNAFU!.

Quantity or Quality? That Is The Question

     Over the last 55 years the American mantra has been "Quality over Quantity" in military equipment. Examples are the F-35, F-22, B-2, Zumwalt-class destroyer, Seawolf-class submarines. In a war with a country that has a capable military/ has an enormous numerical advantage, the technological edge America has always held becomes moot.
     During WWII, Nazi Germany often held the technological advantage over the Allies (Radar being a notable exception). The Panther and Tiger series of tanks consistently outclassed American and British tanks, and it wasn't till 1945 with the advent of the M90 Pershing and A34 Comet that Allied armor could truly match German armor. Another example is the ME 262 "Swallow", the world's first true jet fighter, it could outrun and outgun any Allied fighter of the time, but was defeated because of it's vulnerability when taking off and landing (just like every other fighter). Other examples of Germany's technological advantage include Type XVII, XXI U-boats, He 219, Ta 152, Do 335, Go 229, Ju 290, Ju 390, Ar 234, Ju 287, V-1, V-2, Wasserfall, Enzian, and the Rheintochter. Unfortunately, I can't go into detail into detail on all these systems at the moment, but the point I'm attempting to make is that Germany had an enormous technological advantage. However, it was moot because they did not have the production capability, time, resources, trained personnel, trained production personnel, Hitler's meddling, and the Allies numerical advantage.
     During the Second Persian Invasion of Greece, 300 Spartans held off the Persian army for 3 days at the Battle of Thermopylae buying time for Greece to unite and organize to defeat the Persians. The Spartans, who were better trained,  killed several times their number, but because of the Persians sheer weight of numbers they were defeated. Later, at the Battle of Plataea 10,000 Spartans supported by roughly 30,000 other Greeks defeated 300,000 Persians. The reason I bring up the Spartans is because in their day they had the equivalent of a technological edge in their training. When you have a technological edge it only matters when deployed in large numbers like at the Battle of Plataea.    

      The question in your mind at this point is probably, what does this all have to with question of quality over quantity?  There will be a war between the U.S. and a country with an actual military, which country is up for discussion. However, the fundamental flaw in our war fighting strategy is dependence on our technological edge in stealth. The cornerstone of our war fighting strategy is providing air support to the Army and Marines. If we do not have air superiority to allow bombers hit their targets the forces on the ground will be forced to retreat because of the lack of air support and the enemy's numerical superiority. A prime example of this flaw is the F-35 Lightning II. The reason I say this is because of a CBO report a few years ago called "Alternatives for Modernizing U.S. Fighter Forces". Basically there will be a shortfall in Air Force, Navy, and Marine fighter forces
with the F-35 being purchased in currently projected numbers. The F-22 is another example with only 187 being built, at extreme costs, which in an extended conflict will be useless because of their small numbers. Other examples include Nimitz and Ford-class aircraft carriers, the LCS, and B-2.
     The solution? Strike a balance between quality and quantity. The T-34 is an excellent example, as it was simple so unskilled labor could manufacture it in large numbers, and at the same time was could beat the Tiger and Panthers because of it's angled armor and its ability to withstand cold Russian winters. Use a high-low mix similar to the F-15/F-16 or F-22/F-35, but in much greater numbers. Make the KISS principle the cornerstone of weapons development, and keep costs to a minimum.
     Josef Stalin once said the "Quantity has a quality all its own". What Stalin said was true to a point, but rather a balance must be struck between quality and quantity. Otherwise, you will be overwhelmed in a war against an actual military.

Photo Credit: USAF 

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 8: The Air Force

     The Air Force. Airpower has in the last 100 year, determined America's success on the battlefield, and is the key to winning a war. That is why the Air Force is so important. However, the Air Force is among all the services, is the service with the most problems, here they are, and some ideas on how to fix them.

     1. Stand By The F-35A to the end. Have a contingency ready if the F-35 is canceled. The Air Force has hung it's hat on the F-35A, and must not back down. In recent months, writers like Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia, and Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week has stepped up attacks on the F-35 (I tend to agree with them on the fact that the F-35 is a piece of crap, but at the same time a piece of crap is better than no piece of crap). The Air Force must move forward and defend the F-35A, they have done an excellent job of this, but must keep it up. Also, the Air Focre must have a Plan B in case something does happen to the F-35A, something along the lines of the F-15SE, F-16E/F, or a watered down F-22. 

     2. Develop a new ICBM and nuclear weapons. The U.S. has not developed a new ICBM since 1986, and a new nuclear weapon since 1988 (as a interesting side not, the U.S. has not conducted a nuclear test since Operation Julin in 1992). The Air Force has begun looking into developing a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III. However, as I outlined in "Air Force Looking Into Producing A New ICBM"  there will be many problems with developing a new ICBM, especially since the the skills honed during the Cold War have been all but lost. 

     3. Develop a replacement for the B-52. The B-52 was developed in 1945, but was not actually fielded until mid-1955. The B-52 was originally a long range nuclear bomber, but is now used as a low cost bomb truck. The B-52 can carry 32,000kg (70000lbs) worth of ordnance, and with it's long range it was optimal for staying over an area and providing air support as needed. The Air Force plans to operate the B-52 through 2040, 85 years since it was first fielded in 1955. The problem here is that the Air Force has no plan for after 2040. The Air Force needs to have a replacement for the B-52 ready before 2040, as they would lose an extremely valuble capability with the retirement of the B-52.

    4. Develop a replacement for the A-10. As of 2012, the Air Force plans to field the A-10 through 2028, when it will be replaced by the F-35A. This is NOT  a smart move by the Air Force, the A-10 is designed to go low and slow and take a lot of punishment, and still get the pilot home (see example here, point made?). The F-35 simply cannot absorb several dozen 23mm hits and stay airborne.

     Once again, these are just a series of ideas, that if implemented would go aoong way towards bringing the Air Force back on track.

F-35B Lands On The USS Wasp

Ares posted this video showing a F-35B making the first landing by an F-35B on a helicopter carrier. This a big milestone for the F-35B, as for the most part it will operate off of helicopter carriers.

Video Credit: U.S. Navy

Video: F-35 Flyby

Video Credit: YouTube

Are The F-35C And F-35B Going To Be Canceled?

     Aviation Week reports that U.S. Navy undersecretary Robert Work has ordered the Marine Corps and the Navy to  look for less costly alternatives to the Navy's current tactical aviation plan, and reexamine the consequences of canceling either the F-35C or the F-35B. Work also directed the Navy and Marines to find out if they could operate fewer than the planned 40 squadrons of F-35Bs and Cs. The order came in a June 7 memo that also ordered that "The key performance differences between the Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with all planned upgrades, F-35B and F-35C." 

     This is a major event in the F-35 Lightning II program, as there has always been solidarity in the high levels of all three participating services, in that they all supported the F-35 program and fiercely defended their service's variant. 

Thus, with this report it shows that the Navy at least is having some doubts about the F-35 program. This report could be based on fears that the F-35B's exhaust could be hot enough to melt the deck of the ships it lands on, and the fear that the F-35 could be canceled in future budget cuts.

      This is simply the beginning of a whole new F-111 fiasco, when the Navy left the F-111 program. During the 1960s then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara merged the Air Force's requirement for a high speed low altitude nuclear bomber, and the Navy's requirement for an aircraft capable of shooting down Soviet anti-ship missiles at long range. This snafu of a program became known as the F-111 Aardvark (hint: not a bird). The Navy eventually left the F-111 program because the aircraft was extremely expensive, overweight, under powered, just to name a few reasons.  The Navy then replaced the F-111 with the F-14 Tomcat, which today could be the F/A-18E/F, F/A-XX, or even the X-47B. The Air Force eventually bought the F-111 using it as a long range precision bomber and as an ECM aircraft (Electronic CounterMeasures) formerly known as the EF-111A Raven. 

     While the F-35 was originally a good idea, attempting to squeeze three different aircraft into one common airframe is a recipe for disaster, which we will see in the next couple of years. The Navy will probably pull out of the F-35 program, the F-35B will probably be canceled, but the Air Force will probably stick with the F-35 and rode out the storm.  

       

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

Is Support For The F-35 In Australia Weakening?

     Aviation Week reports that Australia is considering purchasing an additional 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to bridge an air-power gap that will occur when Australia's older 71 F/A-18A/B Hornets are retired. If Australia does purchase the additional Super Hornets, it would be the second order they have made for Super Hornets.

     Australia has committed to purchasing at least 14 F-35s already, but if the order is decreased to the minimum, it would be a blow to the F-35 program overall as Australia decreasing it's order would be a high profile blow for the F-35.

     Up till the last couple of years Australia has been planning to purchase 100 F-35As to replace the aging Hornets, but when a RAND study came out that claimed the F-35 would be at a disadvantage against Chinese fighters support has started to weaken. On top of this, the present administration in Australia, and the last administration have both stated that they will not tolerate a decline in Australia's air combat capability. Thus, with the F-35 suffering from delays, and Australia's aging F/A-18A/Bs being retired, Australia will probably order the additional Super Hornets.

     Possible reasons for Australia replacing the F-35 with the F/A-18 would be the fact that the F-35A has a shorter combat range than the U.S. Air Force required, and range is an extremely important factor in the south Pacific as the distances are great in that area. Another reason could be that the F-35 has only 4 internal hardpoints for carrying ordnance and placing ordnance on the wing hardpoints would disrupt the F-35's stealth capabilities. Other possible reasons could include lack of maneuverability, speed, and high costs.

     Whatever the Australians choose in this matter it will be interesting to watch these events unfold, and as a result watch how Lockheed responds.

     

       

Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force

Did Russia Sell China Tech For The J-20?

      Aviation Week has an extremely interesting article about the possibility that Russia is helping China with the J-20. This possibility lies in the fact that the J-20 looks remarkably similar to the canceled MiG 1.44 "Flatpack".

     The MiG 1.44 was a prototype stealth aircraft developed in the 1990s meant to compete with the F-22 and the Eurofighter, in that it was built with stealth capabilities for the air superiority role, but also with a large air-to-ground payload. The MiG 1.44 was also said to have a top speed of over 1,500 MPH at altitude, and a wing span of about 49 feet. The MiG 1.44 also looks similar to the J-20 as the photo below shows.

     If Russia did provide China with help in building the J-20, it would not be the first time that the Russians/Soviets gave the Chinese help in producing military equipment. Back in the 1950s the Soviets gave the Chinese help in producing Chinese versions of the MiG-15 fighter (J-2), AK-47 assault rifle (Type 56), and the T-55 Main Battle Tank (Type 59). After the Sino-Soviet split during the 1960s, China aligned with the U.S. (this affects America's foreign policy and domestic policy to this day), but in recent years has mended relations with Russia and is now much friendlier than during the Cold War.

     There is some speculation by the folks over DoDBuzz that Russia might be intentionally givng China help with the J-20 to increase the number of stealth fighters vs the number of F-22s and F-35s. Aviation Week also quotes a Russian analyst who speculates that China might have paid Russia for the tail of the MiG 1.44 and some parts.

     If the Russians did provide the Chinese assistance with the J-20, it is not only a dangerous precedent, but at the same time it shows that Russia is willing to sell anything to anybody with a big enough wallet.

      

Photo Credit: Wikipedia, Global Security

     

Russia Offers PAK FA To South Korea

     Stephen Trimble over at The DEW Line reports that Russia is offering the PAK FA to South Korea for the FX-III section of the FX fighter competition.

      When the PAK FA was unveiled last year, Russia has been working with India to develop a variant of the PAK FA for the Indian Air Force. The PAK FA is still in the testing phase, and will probably not enter service for another 1-5 years, but that does not mean it is unavailable for export (a good example of this would be the F-35). 

     South Korea has been running a fighter competition since 1999, with the 1st and 2nd phases culminating in the purchase of 61 F-15K Slam Eagles. Competing in in the 3rd phase for an order of 60 aircraft, are the Lockheed Martin F-35, Boeing F-15SE, and the Sukhoi PAK FA. Of these three the F-15SE is, in my view the leading contender for the contract, due to the fact that South Korea already manufactures parts for the F-15K, and thus would be compatible with some parts from the F-15K. The other two contenders, the F-35 and PAK FA, are not as appealing to Seoul, due to the facts that the F-35 is having problems, and is rising in cost, and that the PAK FA is still in flight testing and would cause South Korea to rely on Russia for parts and weapons for them. On top of this, the F-15SE offers a reduced radar signature, and similar payload, when compared to the F-15K. Along with proven performance compared to the F-35 and PAK FA.

       Another one of the main factors South Korea will be factoring in, is how these aircraft will perform in a war with North Korea. The F-15SE has a larger payload and better maneuvering than the F-35, and is compatible with American missiles which is what South Korea uses. The PAK FA on the other hand is only compatible with Russian missiles, which would mean South Korea would have to purchase weapons from Russia, and that brings up the possibility of Russia not selling the missiles in a war with North Korea.

     As the F-X contest continues, it will be interesting to see which aircraft South Korea chooses, and why they chose it.

     

     

Photo Credit: The DEW Line 

It's The Weekend! 6/25/11

     Since it's the weekend, I give you this funny video.

     I did not make this.

Boeing Is Still Sore About JSF Loss 15 Years Later

     Thats right folks, Boeing is still sore about losing the JSF contest to the Lockheed Martin 15 years ago and is calling Lockheed on the F-35's rising costs as Ares reports.

     Boeing has recently been getting more and more vocal about the fact that the F-35 continues to rise in cost and continues to be delayed. Boeing's main focus appears to be on the F-35C which is the naval variant of the F-35 as it continues to push for the for either the cancellation of the F-35C or increased purchases of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, I am not sure which. Boeing's most recent accusations against the F-35 hinge on the F-35C's costs, as Boeing says that Super Hornets would be cheaper than the F-35C.

     As the F-35 program continues to be delayed and rise in cost it it will be interesting to see how Lockheed Martin handles increasing dissent about the F-35, especially with Boeing entering the fight.   

Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force

F-35 Makes It's First Air Show Appearance

Last weekend the F-35 made it's first air show appearance take a look.

I hope they have a F-35 down here in Texas for the Wings Over Houston air show.