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

  • Japan Could Pick And Choose Components From Tempest

    December 2, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Japan Could Pick And Choose Components From Tempest

    Bradley Perrett Japan says it wants international collaboration in developing its Future Fighter for the 2030s, but it wants to lead the project despite limited experience in fighter development. And it aims at a fighter much larger than any operated by a western European country ; the U.S. is not offering a possible joint project. That seems to leave only the choice of indigenous development, perhaps with help from a foreign technical partner. Nevertheless, participation in the UK's Tempest program may also be feasible. The Tempest project—which includes the Royal Air Force, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and MBDA—has a cooperation concept that leaves scope for Japan and other partners to use their own systems, weapons, propulsion and even airframes, says Air Commodore Daniel Storr, head of combat aircraft acquisition at the UK Defense Ministry. The model described by Storr gives Japan the flexibility to choose the size of its own fighter. Though evidently not an objective, this mix-and-match approach also creates an opportunity for Japan to continue to claim development leadership—but also to save money by sharing systems. The policy goal of running its own fighter program, stated in 2018, has looked like a big obstacle to Japan's participation in the Tempest or the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project initiated by France and Germany. But if the Future Fighter shared only some features with Tempest, Japan could reasonably say it was leading its own program. BAE Systems promoted the Tempest program at the DSEI Japan exhibition held in Tokyo fromNov. 18-20. Prospective FCAS prime contractors, such as Airbus, did not show their concept. Storr outlined the flexible model of cooperative development at an exhibition conference, but Japanese speakers at that event did not comment on the prospect of Japan joining Tempest. In a Nov. 1 interview with The Financial Times, newly appointed Defense Minister Taro Kono seemed to play down the possibility of participation in a European program, saying Japan should explore all possibilities but needed to maintain interoperability with U.S. forces. Storr addressed that point, emphasizing that working with the U.S. was a high priority for the UK too. Japan's alternative to international cooperation is developing a fighter by itself with the technical help of a foreign company. Lockheed Martin is supporting the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X and BAE is helping the Turkish Aerospace Industries TF-X in such an arrangement. By working with Lockheed Martin, Boeing or Northrop Grumman, Tokyo would partially compensate the U.S. for its expenditures in defending Japan. But the U.S. would gain little from technical support fees, and Japan is already committed to buying 147 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings as the aircraft to precede the Future Fighters. The defense ministry has asked for the development of the Future Fighter to be launched in the fiscal year beginning April 2020. It is not clear whether that means mobilizing resources to commence full-scale development or taking some lesser step to firm up the commitment to create the aircraft. For the past year, the government's policy has been to launch no later than March 2024. However, Japanese companies, especially fighter builder Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), are pushing for a launch as soon as possible. They want to transfer knowledge to young engineers from the older generation that developed Japan's last fighter, the MHI F-2, which the Future Fighter will replace. The UK does not want to commit to launching full-scale development of the Tempest before 2025, but its date for entry into service in 2035 meets Japan's objective, which is sometime in the 2030s. Meanwhile, the FCAS program is aiming at 2040. Sweden and Italy are cooperating with the UK during the current early stage of Tempest research, while Spain has joined France and Germany for FCAS work. Like Storr, BAE has stressed the advantages of partners taking only as much of the Tempest as they want. “There is a range of different partnership models that can be considered,” says Andy Latham, who is working on the program. “Japan has some great technology that any partner can benefit from. Their avionics industry is pretty effective.” The cooperation concept replaces the standard model, one in which partners spend years negotiating and compromising to define a design that all of them must accept. Instead, according to Storr, they can save time and money by agreeing to disagree—to the extent that each is willing to pay the extra cost of independent development and manufacturing of design elements. The Japanese defense ministry's studies point to a need for a very big fighter with an empty weight well above 20 metric tons (40,000 lb.), larger than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Superior endurance and internal weapon capacity are the key factors behind this choice. No western European country has operated a fighter more than about two-thirds as big, but Storr said a large configuration for the Tempest cannot be ruled out. The mockup exhibited at the 2018 Farnborough International Airshow was bigger than the F-22. Still, the UK and other European partners might want a much smaller fighter; concept designs that have not been shown are not as big as the mockup. But the concept for cooperation would allow for Japan to devise its own airframe while, for example, using the same engine and some weapons, software and avionics as other partners. The architecture of the software is intended to be open, accepting different programs easily. Tempest researchers will consider which systems and capabilities will go into the fighter and which will be incorporated into the ammunition or an accompanying drone, which could be fully reusable or optionally expendable, Storr says. The FCAS program is taking a similar approach. The Tempest will need great capacity for generating electricity, he says, and the weapon bay should be regarded as a payload bay, perhaps for holding additional fuel that would extend endurance on surveillance missions. The Japanese finance ministry is insisting upon private investment in the Future Fighter program, in part to ensure contractors are fully incentivized to prevent failure. Contractors will be able to make money in civil programs from technology developed for the fighter, says the ministry, which is highly influential but does not have a final say. “Judging from past program examples, it is clear that the Future Fighter program would bring a risk of a budget overrun and schedule slippage, but would also benefit the private sector,” the finance ministry said in an October presentation to the Council on Fiscal Policy, an advisory body. “The government and private sector should invest funds and resources to build a failure-proof framework.” Noting that MHI used technology from the F-2 program in its development and manufacturing of the outer wing boxes of the Boeing 787, the ministry says contractors can expect to gain similar opportunities for civil applications of technology from the Future Fighter program—so they should invest in it. https://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-could-pick-and-choose-components-tempest

  • After latest flight test failure, US Air Force hopes to keep first hypersonic missile on track for production

    August 5, 2021 | International, Aerospace

    After latest flight test failure, US Air Force hopes to keep first hypersonic missile on track for production

    The AGM-183A program still needs to complete booster and all-up round flight testing before the Air Force will approve production of the new hypersonic weapon.

  • With coronavirus on the loose, US shipyards make adjustments but keep building

    March 18, 2020 | International, Naval

    With coronavirus on the loose, US shipyards make adjustments but keep building

    By: David B. Larter and Courtney Mabeus WASHINGTON — U.S. shipyards are adjusting to meet the new coronavirus threat, but work continues across the country. In the wake of news that Fincantieri's shipyards in Italy has suspended operations for two weeks to help stem the spread of the illness, US shipyards have responded with more modest changes: suspending international travel, limiting domestic travel and suspending participation in conferences and trade shows for shipyard employees. Yards are also changing leave policies to allow workers time to adjust to restrictions that have closed schools and businesses across the country. While to date the changes have been minor, several company officials told Defense News that the situation was evolving and more could be coming down the pike as the government responds to the unfolding crisis that has rocked the country over the past week. Huntington Ingalls Industries' president and CEO Mike Petters addressed employees in a video message posted to the company's website Monday. Peters said he is meeting regularly with division leadership and the company has posted links to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which he urged employees to check for the most accurate information. Employees who are experiencing symptoms or believe they may have been exposed should let the company know, he said. “Now more than ever we need to work as a team and look out for each other,” Petters said. Also on Monday, HII's Newport News Shipbuilding division president Jennifer Boykin extended "liberal leave" policies through second shift on March 20. In a post on the company's website, Boykin added that work would be "minimized" during the weekend and that with some exceptions, parking lots at the yard – the nation's only aircraft carrier manufacturer – would be open through Friday with no reserved spaces. Newport News Shipbuilding spokesperson Duane Bourne said the health and safety of workers remained the primary focus, calling it "premature to speculate on the impact of COVID-19 on our contracts." "We are having ongoing discussions with our customers and will continue that dialogue in preparing contingencies and future plans," Bourne wrote in an email. Fincantieri's Marinette shipyard in Wisconsin has suspended all international travel, all noncritical domestic travel and has suspended intracompany travel to prevent any potential spread between shipyards, said Eric Dent, the company's spokesperson. However, to date the company has seen no delays in operations. “So far, we have experienced no production delays,” Dent said. “Obviously like other businesses and shipyards, we have to balance force health protection and production as we work through this.” At General Dynamics' shipyards, both Bath Iron Works and submarine builder Electric Boat are continuing work, though they – like all the other yards – are allowing anyone who can work from home to do so, said Jeff Davis, a GD spokesperson. GD has likewise curtailed travel and ceased company participation in trade shows, Davis said. Electric Boat spokesperson, Liz Power, said the submarine builder is following all government recommendations. “Electric Boat remains open for business,” Power said. "Our ongoing mission is to provide our Navy with the high-quality submarines they require to complete their missions. “We have initiated all government-recommended measures to mitigate spread of the disease and continue to work closely with our employees, customers, suppliers, stakeholders and our community to keep them informed.” The ship repair industry is also taking precautions. Colonna's Shipyard Vice President Bob Boyd said the company is also asking its estimated 700 employees to follow the CDC's guidelines and advising anyone who feels sick to stay home. The company is doing additional screening with non-employees at its entrance, asking about recent travel and contacts, and talking with subcontractors about policies, Boyd said. With schools closed throughout Virginia, Colonna's "just taking it day-by-day." Dock landing ship Gunston Hall left Colonna's Shipyard in Norfolk last week and the company is currently working on Coast Guard vessel as well as Military Sealift Command's expeditionary fast transport ship Burlington, Boyd said. He said he couldn't speculate on what an order to stop work to counter the spread of the virus could mean for federal contracts. “Obviously, if they're shut down or we're ordered not to perform work, then you know, we'll follow those orders and resume work once we're cleared, but you know, it hasn't happened,” Boyd said. "We can't speculate that it will. So, we don't really know what will happen if and when those types of decisions are made, but so far they have not. " https://www.defensenews.com/coronavirus/2020/03/16/with-coronavirus-on-the-loose-us-shipyards-make-adjustments-but-keep-building/

All news