Back to news

November 9, 2020 | International, Aerospace

F-35 gives European air forces an edge over Russia, but coordination is key

By 5 November 2020

The growing number of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters possessed by European air forces would give the NATO alliance an edge over Russia in high-intensity conflict.

That's according to a report by think tank RAND, released last month, which explains that Russian political and military leaders are already concerned about NATO's advantage in the air domain – a worry that is likely to worsen as the number of fifth-generation aircraft grows to the west.

There are seven European NATO nations that operate or plan to buy the F-35: Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and UK.

By 2025, those militaries ought to collectively own more than 200 examples of the stealth fighter. “This will exceed the number of US fifth-generation aircraft stationed in the European theatre by a wide margin,” says the report. The combined force of F-35s possessed by European allies is likely to approach 400 aircraft by 2030 and would represent roughly 30% of the combined fleet.

For its part, Russia plans to acquire 76 examples of Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighter by 2028. Moscow said recently the first such stealth aircraft would be delivered by December 2020.

European allied air forces have around 1,900 fourth-generation fighters comprising types such as the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed F-16. The combined force currently has less than 100 F-35s fielded, according to RAND.

Those fourth-generation aircraft would be vulnerable in a high-intensity conflict against Russia, a country with robust surface-to-air missile defences.

“During the opening phases of a conflict with Russia, vulnerability to advanced ground-based threats would constrain the roles of most fourth-generation and so-called fourth-generation-plus platforms,” says the report. “As long as an extensive [integrated-air defence] threat persisted, more advanced platforms such as the Rafale or Eurofighter could theoretically perform strike missions inside the threat zone in conjunction with fifth-generation platforms, although this approach could yield unacceptable attrition.”

But with fourth-generation fighters likely still to make up 70% of European NATO air forces by 2030, the alliance needs to find ways to make better use of the aircraft.

MISSILE TRUCKS

The fast jets could be used to launch long-range missile strikes from beyond the range of Russia's surface-to-air missiles. And, if upgraded with active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, European fourth-generation fighters would be more capable on defence. AESA radars can detect, track and identify more targets, faster and at much longer distances, notes RAND.

“The resultant situational awareness and ability to defeat multiple threats at the same time makes an AESA capability essential for aspects of high-intensity operations—for example, to intercept cruise missiles,” says the think tank report. “The French decision to procure AESA [for the Rafale fighter] is informed by the opportunity to provide a 50% increase in detection range, including of low-observable targets, and maximise the value of new weapon systems such as the [MBDA] Meteor beyond-visual-range missile.”

The Meteor is an active radar guided beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile that is reported to have a reach of 54nm (100km). In theory, if a fourth-generation fighter like the Rafale has an AESA radar and is armed with a beyond-visual-range missile like the Meteor it ought to be able to see and hit incoming Russian aircraft, while staying out of reach itself.

However, beside the addition of AESA on the Rafales, other European fourth-generation aircraft lack the advanced radar.

“Uncertainties remain as to which nations will invest in AESA radar technology, advanced and long-range munitions, and secure communication links, among other important capabilities,” says RAND. “The degree to which European air forces acquire these technologies will directly impact their ability to contribute to the range of combat air missions expected in a high-intensity conflict.”

The UK Royal Air Force announced in September plans to add the Leonardo UK ECRS Mk2 AESA radar to 40 examples of its Tranche 3 production-standard Typhoons, with initial operational capability targeted for 2025.

Ultimately, to make the most of a mixed fleet of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft NATO will need to invest in communications technologies to link the jets, as well as training exercises to practice coordinating the combat aircraft.

F-35's can communicate among themselves with their multifunction advanced data link (MADL), a low probability of intercept communications link. RAND points to a fourth and fifth generation fighter operating concept called “combat intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) mode” described by Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

“In the ‘combat ISR' mode, a four-ship flight of F-35s connected by MADL generates situational awareness and shares targeting data with legacy platforms that can then fire their payloads from outside the range of the most capable of the enemy's air defences,” explains RAND. The fourth- and fifth-generation combat aircraft would communicate and pass targeting information with the Link 16 system, adds the report.

RUSSIAN EW HAS A VOTE

However, this might be a vulnerability point. “It is reasonable to assume that the Russian military would seek to disrupt this synergy during a conflict, particularly in light of recent Russian investments in EW [electronic warfare] capabilities,” RAND says.

Still, European NATO militaries are getting more practice with the F-35. “Already, allies have undertaken initial steps to establish common tactics, techniques, and procedures for incorporating fifth-generation assets into combined operations through targeted exercises as well as preliminary synthetic training systems that link fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft,” the think tank says.

One of the highest hurdles to NATO collaboration might be investment in aircraft readiness. “To be operationally relevant during a theatre conflict, NATO's air forces must maintain a sufficient number of available aircraft, munitions, and aircrew,” says RAND. “Currently, most European air forces maintain around half of their existing fleets or less at mission-capable status, with some allies falling below that mark.”

What's more, many fourth-generation aircraft are suffering from “rising maintenance costs from platform age, operational wear and tear resulting from a high operational tempo, and challenges associated with spare parts pipelines serve as significant constraints to aircraft availability”, says the report.

The new F-35 also has teething problems, including its Autonomic Logistics Information System, a support system that is so troubled that it has to be replaced across the worldwide fleet.

RAND recommends a number of solutions to NATO aircraft readiness problems including making public data on mission capable rates. It also suggests “public agreement by NATO leaders on standard availability objectives could provide renewed political and budgetary focus on efficient and adequately funded maintenance and sustainment”.

Ultimately, RAND concludes that the growing number of stealth aircraft in Europe means the “trend lines lead in the right direction”.

“With additional budgetary and policy attention to increasing readiness, European allies have the opportunity to significantly enhance combat airpower over the coming decade,” says the think tank.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/f-35-gives-european-air-forces-an-edge-over-russia-but-coordination-is-key/140992.article#:~:text=Fixed%2DWing-,F%2D35%20gives%20European%20air%20forces%20an%20edge,Russia%2C%20but%20coordination%20is%20key&text=The%20growing%20number%20of%20Lockheed,Russia%20in%20high%2Dintensity%20conflict.

On the same subject

  • Israel’s defense export contracts were worth $7.2B in 2019

    June 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Israel’s defense export contracts were worth $7.2B in 2019

    By: Seth J. Frantzman JERUSALEM — Israel's defense export deals from 2019 totaled $7.2 billion and involved 120 different defense companies, according to the head of the Defense Ministry's International Defense Cooperation Directorate. The country's defense-related sales have been slightly declining over the last decade. Israel's defense export contracts in 2010 also totaled $7.2 billion, but was down to $5.7 billion in 2015. In his announcement, Yair Kulas said the large number of companies selling abroad “reflects the strength of the Israeli defense industry.” The former brigadier general added that he anticipated growth in government-to-government agreements in 2020, but noted that the coronavirus pandemic has “devastated the global economy and the defense sector.” Israel's three largest defense companies are Elbit Systems, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries. The local defense industry has experienced consolidation in the past few years, with IMI Systems now part of Elbit, and Aeronautics Limited acquired by Rafael. Ten years ago Israel was a world leader in UAV sales, but as its focus has changed, unmanned aerial systems now make up only 8 percent of the country's sales. Today's major markets for Israel are in radars and electronic warfare. The Elta ELM-2084 — the radar used in the Iron Dome air defense system — was sold to the Czech Republic in a government-to-government deal last year worth $125 million. Elta is a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries. Israel has also inserted itself into the missiles market, among other products, in India, where there are several joint ventures. Israel is also a leader in multilayered air defense thanks largely to its Iron Dome and David's Sling systems, which Rafael co-produces with the American firm Raytheon. Elbit and other Israeli companies are also major suppliers of electro-optical technology. However, many Israeli defense deals are not made public, and the destination country for products is often not released. Israel says radars and electronic warfare suites made up 17 percent of the sales last year; missiles at 15 percent; and optics at 12 percent. Naval systems and vehicles were among the smallest portion of contracts. Slightly over 41 percent of sales were in Asia, while Europe and North America each accounted for a quarter of contracts. Africa and Latin America were both at 4 percent each. Israel historically sold UAVs and other items to Latin America and Africa, but the size of the purchases and lack of demand for the highest-end technologies appear to have led to minor contracts in these regions. Israel has been trying to turn the COVID-19 pandemic into an opportunity to work with foreign allies and partners, and not necessarily on defense but also medical needs. Israel's Defense Ministry says that Israel is among the top defense exporters in the world. Certainly per capita, the country is a global leader in defense exports. Up to 80 percent of its defense production is exported, according to the ministry. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/06/22/israels-defense-export-contracts-were-worth-72-billion-in-2019/

  • Lockheed picks engine to bolster interim tanker case for US Air Force

    June 6, 2023 | International, Aerospace

    Lockheed picks engine to bolster interim tanker case for US Air Force

    The Air Force is considering skipping a competition for its interim tanker and instead buying more modified KC-46s for Boeing.

  • Congress to buy 3 more LCS than the Navy needs, but gut funding for sensors that make them valuable

    September 19, 2018 | International, Naval

    Congress to buy 3 more LCS than the Navy needs, but gut funding for sensors that make them valuable

    WASHINGTON — Congress loves buying littoral combat ships, but when it comes to the packages of sensors and systems that make the ships useful, lawmakers have been less enthusiastic. In the 2019 Defense Department funding bill that just left the conference committee, lawmakers have funded a 33rd, 34th and 35th littoral combat ship, three more than the 32-ship requirement set by the Navy. But when it comes to the mission modules destined to make each ship either a mine sweeper, submarine hunter or small surface combatant, that funding has been slashed. Appropriators cut all funding in 2019 for the anti-submarine warfare package, a variable-depth sonar and a multifunction towed array system that the Navy was aiming to have declared operational next year, citing only that the funding was “ahead of need." The National Defense Authorization Act had authorized about $7.4 million, still well below the $57.3 million requested by the Navy, citing delays in testing various components. Appropriators are also poised to half the requested funding for the surface warfare package and cut nearly $25.25 million from the minesweeping package, which equates to about a 21 percent cut from the requested and authorized $124.1 million. Nor are this year's cuts the only time appropriators have gone after the mission modules. A review of appropriations bills dating back to fiscal 2015 shows that appropriators have cut funding for mission modules every single year, and in 2018 took big hacks out of each funding line associated with the modules. The annual cutting spree has created a baffling cycle of inanity wherein Congress, unhappy with the development of the modules falling behind schedule, will cut funding and cause development to fall further behind schedule, according to a source familiar with the details of the impact of the cuts who spoke on background. All this while Congress continues to pump money into building ships without any of the mission packages having achieved what's known as initial operating capability, meaning the equipment is ready to deploy in some capacity. (The surface warfare version has IOC-ed some initial capabilities but is adding a Longbow Hellfire missile system that will be delayed with cuts, the source said.) That means that with 15 of the currently funded 32 ships already delivered to the fleet, not one of them can deploy with a fully capable package of sensors for which the ship was built in the first place — a situation that doesn't have a clear end state while the programs are caught in a sucking vortex of cuts and delays. “This is a prime example of program issues causing congressional cuts which lead to further delays, then more cuts in a vicious cycle," said Thomas Callender, a retired submarine officer and analyst with The Heritage Foundation. The Navy has been pursuing a strategy of buying 32 littoral combat ships and then 20 more lethal frigates now in development. Surface warfare boss Vice Adm. Richard Brown told Defense News in August that both the surface warfare package and the anti-submarine warfare package were on track to be ready in 2019, but that future is now in doubt, Callender said. “The appropriators' FY19 cuts of zeroing out ASW module and cuts to the MCM [mine countermeasures] module will likely delay IOC and operational testing,” Callender said. But the appropriators shouldn't take all the heat, he added. The development of the different modules have hit technical issues and are all drastically behind schedule. The minesweeping package, for example, was initially supposed to deliver in 2008, but now isn't slated to IOC until 2020, a date that will be further in doubt if Congress passes the appropriations bill as it left committee, sources agreed. “The technical development issues and subsequent delays with several modules, especially the ASW and MCM mission packages, contributed to congressional angst and some of these cuts,” Callender said. “Many of these cuts, including the cuts recommended from the House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee for FY19 were reductions in the number of initial modules purchased until they have successfully completed operational testing.” Both authorizers on the House and Senate Armed Services committees and the Appropriations committees have taken hacks at the funding to the modules, but ultimately the National Defense Authorization Act from the services committees is more of a guide for appropriators than a set of handcuffs. Appropriators can fund what they want to fund. A statement from the office of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said the committee works with the Navy on these programs and funds what is ready to be funded. “The Committee has worked with the Department of the Navy to understand the mission system test requirements — which have often changed due to variety of reasons — and focused on funding those requirements that are ready for production,” said Blair Taylor, Shelby's communications director. Merry-go-round Part of the reason the program is vulnerable to these cuts in a way that, for example, the Arleigh Burke destroyers are not to the same extent is because of the program's structure. The ships were to be purchased separately and designed to be highly versatile, switching out in a matter of days when pierside from anti-surface systems to countermine systems to anti-submarine systems as the missions changed. But a reorganization of the program in 2016 ordered by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson and led by then-head of the Naval Surface Force Pacific Adm. Thomas Rowden changed each of the ships to single-mission ships, with the first few ships slated to be surface warfare variants. But the warfare packages are still being developed under separate programs, leaving them as low-hanging fruit for cuts. “The separation of the mission modules from specific LCS hull procurement does leave them more vulnerable to these type of programmatic cuts,” Callender said. The whole issue is taking on increasing urgency as LCS builders Fincantieri in Marinette, Wisconsin, and Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama, begin pushing ships to the fleet by the handful each year. As of August, the Navy had 15 LCS vessels delivered, with 29 awarded and 11 in various stages of construction. But as the development modules has devolved into a merry-go-round, where cuts beget delays that beget more cuts, the fix in which this puts the Navy becomes more real by the day. The fleet needs the capabilities the LCS modules are supposed to deliver. For example, the Navy is slated to decommission its last Avenger-class minesweeper in the 2020s. This means the minesweeping package really can't suffer too many more delays without greatly increasing the threat posed to the Navy by cheap marine mines, leaving the fleet with only ad hoc solutions for combating them until the minesweeping package can be fielded in numbers. And while there are other ships in the fleet such as the DDGs that can do anti-submarine and anti-surface missions, it's the minesweeping package that has Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant with The FerryBridge Group, worried. “I'm concerned that there aren't enough MCM modules coming along fast enough, and I am concerned that there aren't enough LCS in the current plan (four on each coast) dedicated to the MCM mission,” he said. “I'd like to see the LCS plan re-evaluated and more of them devoted exclusively to MCM.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/09/18/congress-to-buy-3-more-lcs-than-the-navy-needs-but-gut-funding-for-sensors-that-makes-them-valuable

All news