Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Scrap AWACS, JSTARS; Plough Dough Into F-35, Wynne Says

By Colin Clark@DODBuzz; Monday, January 31st, 2011 12:52 pm

Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Policy

Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne wants the Air Force to get rid of large surveillance and reconnasisance aircraft such as AWACS and JSTARS, which are vulnerable to attack because of their huge radar cross-sections, and take the money saved and shove it into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Wynne made his arguments on the website Second Line of Defense, run by the international defense consultant Robbin Laird. I spoke with Wynne this morning. His essential argument is that large aircraft such as these, while possessing excellent capabilities, are so vulnerable in time of war that the enormous amounts of money spent paying the large crews needed to fly and maintain these systems would be better spent making F-35s into the flying intelligence and targeting networks that they are designed to be.

“The F-35s are far more survivable and therefore effective,” he said. Combine F-22s and F-35s with a capability like Gorgon Stare and you would have a difficult to beat combination of highly survivable intelligence gathering and offensive capabilities.

Following is the full text of Wynne’s commentary.

The Air Force as well as the rest of the Armed Forces and the rest of the United States government faces an unusual crisis in budgeting. All are scrambling about trying to determine the least-bad parts of the budget to trim, or, in worst case, cut. Clearly this needs radical thought, but should be driven by mission in each case. When survivability is added as a requirement, and the threat is assessed as it is seen today, this becomes easier. Let’s consider the end of the large aircraft ISR fleet.

The large aircraft command and control as well as the large aircraft intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance fleet are artifacts of a different era, the era of satellites with insufficient range and scope, the era where remotely piloted vehicles were small and not worthy of the name C4ISR. Now, however, times have changed. The MC-12 is highly touted as the solution where one dominates the air domain. The Global Hawk and Predator B reigns supreme in many aspects of the fight. The need for the large C4ISR platforms has drifted away.

In a future era, where the air domain is disputed, can we really risk the large, populated C4ISR airplanes when we actually have penetrating stealthy aircraft with better radars and M-Int devices, and the 3-digit surface-to-air missiles are valid to 200 or 300 miles? This is well beyond the range for the systems known today. No wonder the Air Force is looking to partner with the Navy on the P-8 follow-on; there is no survivable mission when you get far off shore. Indeed, our ships are protected by an array of surface-to-air missiles with standoff range enough to truly discourage errant approach by these very expensive aircraft.

This is well beyond the range for the systems known today.

Recently, in a paper titled “Renorming the Asymmetric Advantage, I cited the need to leverage available stealthy technologies and their sensors to stay alive on the battlefield of the future. There seem to continue to be a belief system that indicates that the enemy will allow these airplanes to operate with impunity, but will otherwise attack the tanker aircraft that support TAC air assets. Where does this logic prevail? Well, for the most part, within the ISR force structure and the contractor community that supports this force structure. Strangely, it also dwells in the hears and wallets of the air combat community that pretends that they will have a very hard time surviving a future air battle yet defers to the ISR community for leveraging the sensor assets they and they alone carry.

I would strongly recommend to the present air staff that they do something radical, and that is to argue to stand down any C4ISR asset that is larger than an F-22 or F-35, and ask the question: what gap does this create, and how best is this gap filled? This is the true battlefield outcome. Much like thinking about a day without space, let’s really think about just how long the force will have access to the large C4ISR assets. And while we are at this analysis, consider how many lives that we systematically put at risk when reach back seems so very satisfactory in every other element of the expeditionary command and control, in this Internet age where satellites dwell and relay tremendous data streams and where Global Hawks and Predators infuse CAOCS with highly reliable target and intelligence information.

NATO is presently arguing whether they should own an AGS, and in response to September 11, 2001, they very generously allowed the deployment by the United States of their Airborne Warning and Control aircraft, illustrating that when used in the defense, there may well be merit in the C4ISR fleet. It is also noteworthy that in the Mid-East there is a small enough battle space that if they are aloft, they could provide some warning from incoming enemy aircraft. It is also known that in that role, they won’t last the first 10 minutes of the exchange. The United States is opting for missile defense and essentially integrated air defense system for missiles. Aircraft in that case are relatively easy to spot, and many countries are in fact installing such integrated air defenses around their countries.

Secretary Gates likes to eloquently equate a lack of use in the current engagements for assets he doesn’t wish to fund, and yet here is a marvelous opportunity to save an entire force structure. Where is the argument that they are a serious element of the fight in AFPAK? How long has it been since they were employed in Iraq? This argument needs to be seriously examined, because perhaps they have value in the defense of the American continent. But in this era where it is questionable whether even 4th generation will survive, a 737 or 767 would have no chance. The excess savings should be redistributed to leveraging TACAIR into a truly integrated attack force, in such a way that it is clearly capable of defeating all comers and to include present triple digit defenses. This is a deterrent effect which is credible, and if needed, deadly to the aggressors. Question

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/31/scrap ... into-f-35/

Another article today by By Angus Batey@Aviation Week; ISR Needs Put Fighters in Surveillance Role; puts some teeth into this discussion.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... adline=ISR Needs Put Fighters in Surveillance Role &channel=defense

F-16.net Sponsor

In part this seems to me how the USMC will use their small force of distributed F-35Bs 'in the new age' according to articles about this issue (usually in SLDinfo online).

spazsinbad wrote:

In part this seems to me how the USMC will use their small force of distributed F-35Bs 'in the new age' according to articles about this issue (usually in SLDinfo online).

Agreed, I call the F-22/ 35 a/c "the software planes". The JSF may be three types of a Swiss Army Knife. It may not be the best, but it will get the job done. The tools it carries in the mission system, EOTS, DAS, Barracuda, MADL, etc. are astonishing separately, but integrated they are mind boggling. Tactics for these data streams will be breaking new ground beyond the cutting edge of the Super Hornet and the Strike Eagle. The pods and techniques being developed by our allies will also enhance the future revisions of this system. The Marines must have the "Bees" if only for the ISR; not counting? the missles, bombs and the cannon; oh yeah that supersonic stealth thingee, also! I cringe to think of being on the receiving end of that platform. Who was that masked man? Semper Fi. Salute

Note that most of the missing planned features of the F-22 are software, not hardware fixes. It's not like it's going to be loaded up with external pods, F-15 style.

You will still need a battle fighting command and control crew, there's just no reason the crew of the "virtual" AWACS can't be sitting in office chairs, next to the UAV operators.

Last edited by Rapec on Feb 02, 2011 - 09:04 AM; edited 1 time in total

Quote:

Note that most of the missing planned features of the F-22 are software, not hardware fixes. It's not like it's going to be loaded up with external pods, F-15 style.

Yea ... but what about side arrays? Those would improve F-22 capabilities as an AWACS plane (without adding external pods), but from what I'm seeing all money und upgrades should go to F-35 ...

It's seems that in those current hard times all everybody need is F-35 Smile

.

Regards

Double post, please remove Smile

.

Rapec wrote:

Quote:

Note that most of the missing planned features of the F-22 are software, not hardware fixes. It's not like it's going to be loaded up with external pods, F-15 style.

Yea ... but what about side arrays? Those would improve F-22 capabilities as an AWACS plane (without adding external pods), but from what I'm seeing all money und upgrades should go to F-35 ...

It's seems that in those current hard times all everybody need is F-35 Smile

.

Regards

I'm hopeful that the F-22 will get its cheek arrays and other upgrades eventually.. nothing like a perceived threat in the forms of the PAK-FA and J-20 to loosen the purse strings.

Don't let this clown fool you, these top guys are more politicians than warriors. They have real emotional attachments to big money programs. One might suggest they have monetary motivations to keep F-35 on track. When they get out of military service guess where they'll be feeding? There has been plenty of precedence in the past for their actions. They expect rewards for their loyalty to the program.

Btw - Do ground commanders think JSTARS is useless? Would seemtheir input would be important. Maybe JSTARS is not important to AF leaders - a sacrifice they'd be willing to make - but would ground commanders be left with a void?

The new bomber would be the best choice to replace the AWACS and JSTARS. It will have much more time in the sky then the F-35 and f-22 and can carrier more sensores.

Replacing the fatty ISR platforms is an interesting idea, especially in a high threat war, but, as madrat mentioned, in a low threat war they are fairly highly valued. I can see beginning to use the distributed and datalinked sensors in the new fighters and UAVs to provide even better situational awareness across a battlefield theater. But what happens after the couple hours of a strike mission? Do we have to keep 20 fighters airborne to keep long range sensors downtrack to maintain a defensive posture - more than a couple DCA CAPs worth? Offensively, we probably can go without an AWACs now - if everything is datalinked and THAT doesn't get shutdown. Defensively, I'm a little more skeptical.

Also, madrat is right in that the Ground Force CC's highly value the capabilities from JSTARs, but they could get replaced by some of the UAVs soon - although the technical capability of that platform is beyond my SA. If BACN is airborne (itself vulnerable) and/or we are all SATCOM equipped then maybe we don't need the comm and link capability assist from AWACS . . . but as of right now, today, I think it's a step too far,

In a time of war between near peer enemies (say that 5 times fast) hasn't the conventional wisdom always dictated that you go after the force multipliers?
I would think that in the age of ultra long range SAM's and BVR missiles the first targets would be the tankers and the AWACS birds. Even the ISR Rivet birds would be high on an enemies list.
I can't imagine that the USAF would not have tactics and countermeasure to protect these assets-still how easy is it to protect a target the size of a 707?

A purpose built F-22X would be a better choice than the -35 for AWACS. Greater speed, range, pk values... a fleet of 72 would be sufficient for retiring all 22 AWACS.

ChippyHo wrote:

In a time of war between near peer enemies (say that 5 times fast) hasn't the conventional wisdom always dictated that you go after the force multipliers?
I would think that in the age of ultra long range SAM's and BVR missiles the first targets would be the tankers and the AWACS birds. Even the ISR Rivet birds would be high on an enemies list.
I can't imagine that the USAF would not have tactics and countermeasure to protect these assets-still how easy is it to protect a target the size of a 707?

Back in 2008 a number of simulations were run wherein this scenario popped up. One of the most famous was done by the RAND Corporation, involving a hypothetical confrontational over Taiwan. In the scenario, every F-22 killed six opponents and suffered no losses, which may be a bit optimistic. However, it didn't matter. What the opposition did was go for the AWACS and the tankers. The former partially blinded the Raptor force, but the loss of the latter basically meant they all fell in the water.

That reinforced the axion that sometimes, quantity itself can be a quality.

It would be easier and more cost effective to modify the F-35 for this roll. More specifically, the F-35C.

I chose this mode for a specific reasons.

1. Carrier capability: Since most battles that the US fights will be well away from our bases, a carrier capable AWACS is more appropriate.

2. Range: It beats the F-22 in range, even without EFTs.

3. It's here now: No need to try and redesign the F-22 to do the mission. This is especially true for point #1 (carrier capability).

4. AWACS are not combat units. So the above example where they have a higher speed & pK is moot. You want them far from combat, not mixing it up.

5. Any change to the F-22X to give it longer range (body stretch, EFT, etc) could be done on the F-35C to greater effect due to better fuel economy in the F135 vs the F119.

How I would do it would be to add a module to the bomb bays that would contain the RAT (for power) and embed the antennas into the doors. IF this can be done in a single bay only then the other bay can be used for self-protection AAMs. I would also install a larger and more sensitive IRST in the nose section.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Shoots Down AWACS and JSTARS