Miragedriver
Brigadier
All of us guys (sorry ladies) have at least a tool box and several power tools. Have you ever done a project at home that requires you to use a screwdriver? Of course…… Some projects require the use of your trusty drill with a screw attachment. However some just require a simple screwdriver (flathead or philips, take you pick)
So what has this got to do with military equipment?
Due to limited military budgets and scaling back of our militaries and in the drive to commonality of parts, maintenance and reduce training, etc. we are moving to fewer and fewer aircraft types.We no longer have multiple tool with overlap for the job we have the one supper tool for multiple jobs. In other words we are utilizing a power drill for simple projects were a screwdriver would do the job just fine.
No longer do we have strike aircraft, ECM aircraft, air superiority aircraft and close air support aircraft. Instead of a A-10, F-111, F-15, F-16, F-18 mix we are moving to F-22 and F-35 fleet and in reality, it is possible that F-35 might be the only fast jet aircraft in service doing the job of all these.
While this might be good news on one side of the cost equation it might not be as good news on another. Does the F-35 have the same range as the F-111? Can it provide ground support like the A-10?
The question we should ask is has this finance driven ruthless commonality and multi-roll gone too far, are these cost savings illusory because we are moving towards one tool that can do everything, but not do it all , that well.
While we might reap the commonality rewards of using the high end tool for low end jobs the funding reality of a finite budget means we suffer from reduced quantities, the so called procurement death spiral where increasingly expensive tools can only be obtained in increasingly small quantities, which makes the unit cost go up and…………… you get the picture.
So the question becomes: “Why not have two simpler aircraft?” “One for air superiority and one for CAS/strike missions?”
Imagine a CAS aircraft could carry out a single ‘on call’ mission of 3 to 4 hours without refueling, have the speed the speed to react to troops in contact in a reasonable time and carry enough payload to provide a range of munitions to the forward air controller that suit the requirement.
In the strike role, in permissive or semi permissive air environment, operating at a medium altitude it should also be able to either operate at significant range against pre planned targets or at a shorter range/with ASM, against targets of opportunity.
These “less expensive” aircraft can fly in conjunction with air superiority aircraft in an early theater entry for the destruction of enemy air defenses. They could also launch standoff cruise missiles.
Would the cost of introducing and operating such an aircraft be greater or less than wearing out precious F-35 airframes for destroying targets that effectively have no defense i.e. the majority of missions they are/will be used for.
I can see most of you complaining at the cost of another aircraft. However think of the number of aircraft, air crew, ground crew, support contracts, spares and tanker support (with its associated support and personnel cost), currently supporting these expensive fast multi-roll aircraft. Then factor into that the likely costs of a future UCAV.
I know we are not comparing power drills and screwdrivers, but what if all we actually need for the job is a screwdriver?
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
So what has this got to do with military equipment?
Due to limited military budgets and scaling back of our militaries and in the drive to commonality of parts, maintenance and reduce training, etc. we are moving to fewer and fewer aircraft types.We no longer have multiple tool with overlap for the job we have the one supper tool for multiple jobs. In other words we are utilizing a power drill for simple projects were a screwdriver would do the job just fine.
No longer do we have strike aircraft, ECM aircraft, air superiority aircraft and close air support aircraft. Instead of a A-10, F-111, F-15, F-16, F-18 mix we are moving to F-22 and F-35 fleet and in reality, it is possible that F-35 might be the only fast jet aircraft in service doing the job of all these.
While this might be good news on one side of the cost equation it might not be as good news on another. Does the F-35 have the same range as the F-111? Can it provide ground support like the A-10?
The question we should ask is has this finance driven ruthless commonality and multi-roll gone too far, are these cost savings illusory because we are moving towards one tool that can do everything, but not do it all , that well.
While we might reap the commonality rewards of using the high end tool for low end jobs the funding reality of a finite budget means we suffer from reduced quantities, the so called procurement death spiral where increasingly expensive tools can only be obtained in increasingly small quantities, which makes the unit cost go up and…………… you get the picture.
So the question becomes: “Why not have two simpler aircraft?” “One for air superiority and one for CAS/strike missions?”
Imagine a CAS aircraft could carry out a single ‘on call’ mission of 3 to 4 hours without refueling, have the speed the speed to react to troops in contact in a reasonable time and carry enough payload to provide a range of munitions to the forward air controller that suit the requirement.
In the strike role, in permissive or semi permissive air environment, operating at a medium altitude it should also be able to either operate at significant range against pre planned targets or at a shorter range/with ASM, against targets of opportunity.
These “less expensive” aircraft can fly in conjunction with air superiority aircraft in an early theater entry for the destruction of enemy air defenses. They could also launch standoff cruise missiles.
Would the cost of introducing and operating such an aircraft be greater or less than wearing out precious F-35 airframes for destroying targets that effectively have no defense i.e. the majority of missions they are/will be used for.
I can see most of you complaining at the cost of another aircraft. However think of the number of aircraft, air crew, ground crew, support contracts, spares and tanker support (with its associated support and personnel cost), currently supporting these expensive fast multi-roll aircraft. Then factor into that the likely costs of a future UCAV.
I know we are not comparing power drills and screwdrivers, but what if all we actually need for the job is a screwdriver?
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
Last edited by a moderator:
