Israel pays for additional F-35s

[element1loop]

Interesting little clash of views re merits and real effects of F-35A.

" ... He added that even the Americans have not yet learned the full operational capabilities of the F-35 “and what they do know they not always share with us. So we have to learn by ourselves and this is being done everyday”

He said that it will be a mistake to invest in another platform based on its capability to carry heavy loads of weapons systems: “The Israeli defense forces have enough ways to use massive fire power against faraway targets”.

Modified Israeli F-15Ds known as F-15 Baz

Another retired IAF brigadier general, who asked not to be identified, said that he was against the acquisition of the F-35 from the outset: “This is a very expensive aircraft that will not really change the capability of the IAF in the coming 20 years.” With the current Israeli defense budget there is no way to create a critical mass buying F-35s. “This is a niche system that cannot serve as a game changer. The combat now is based on standoff weapon systems, which makes the presence of an aircraft like the F-35 in the fighting area less important,” the retired general said.

The contrasting views of the two former high ranking IAF officers symbolize the debate within the IAF. The crucial factor may be the senior leadership of the Israeli Defense Forces and Israel’s intelligence community. ..."

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/wil ... p-balance/
----

Depends how deep, how far, and who you want to strike without losing jets or battles. And not to be seen to be ineffective. Obviously not all war is standoff precision air attack. It could be argued the F-35A A2A and ISR is a niche requirement, when IDF can win the air battles already, and has advanced ISR drones and SATS.

Do ya need it?

[blindpilot]

Interesting little clash of views re merits and real effects of F-35A.

[i]" ... we have to learn by ourselves and this is being done everyday”

Another ... “... an aircraft like the F-35 in the fighting area less important,[/b]”

Do ya need it?

How soon they forget 1973 Yom Kippur and the changes that can appear suddenly ... operation Nickel Grass and over 100 replacement aircraft (including right off the assembly line 40 F-4's and 46 A-4's) and 200 replacement tanks. Yes the Israelis could have gone nuclear(and some say were considered it). That's their unique existential circumstance. But ...

When things change ... they change FAST. I don't think they want to wait for replacement F-15s, from a factory that is about to shut down. Especially if those aircraft are going down so fast they need replacement ...

I often tell my 92 year old dad ..."I know you don't really need that cane/walker .... until you do! So use it!"

MHO,
BP

[sunstersun]

It doesn't really matter. Israel is going to order another 25 planes no matter what. Obviously for optics I'd prefer the F-35, but ultimately there are also benefits in keeping the F-15 line open longer.

[marauder2048]

Another aspect is that the Israelis don't want to endanger their export market for standoff
weaponry; with the exception of the Turks, F-35 weaponry is almost all Western and the
Israelis don't seem to have competitive offerings in that space.


And the other open question is how well Israeli airfields that can host F-15Ds heavily laden
with standoff will stand up to rocket/missile barrages.

And if its about standoff then it's unclear why a nation unconstrained by the INF treaty
wouldn't rely on surface-to-surface missiles.

Fast-jets are the most expensive way to deliver standoff and there are cheaper options
open to the Israelis if it has to be an airborne delivery platform.

[element1loop]

The geography of the battle seems to be a huge factor in answering the question. Do ya need it?

If you have strategic depth and long-range sensors and comms network the F-35A is the obvious tactical choice, and holds a genuine game-changing capability over every other strike fighter in existence. In Australia's geography I can't imagine ADF being sure of winning a joint air-sea battle without F-35As. But flat top F-35Bs, backed with AWD and frigates, plus Romeo and P-8, would send a strong message to deter anyone even getting into an air-sea-gap battle with Australia, in SE Asia, SW Pacific, and NE Indian ocean.

Seems Israeli, Korean and Taiwanese geography would benefit greatly from 50 or so F-35B, not necessarily the A, but a mix of both would be the ideal. Same for in-your-face USMC attack--a mix of B and C is vastly better than a mix of AV8B (poor range, loiter and small payload) and the knackered classic hornets. 420 F-35B/C ... holy crap.

But then there's the extra cost of the B for the small states.

Short to medium standoff, via ground launch, seems a good cheap-ish insurance policy, and one that's in place now for all such states. But you need more than that if you want to make the situation clear, via having a 'niche' capabiliy to knock out the industrial core production and economy of an enema, that's up to 1,O00 nm away, using adequate internal standoff stealth weapons unrefuelled, for a nice hard-core deter and punish mechanism.

Fortunately Canada and Germany won't need to defend themselves again or win a war before 2060, so they can spend much more $ and € on importing ME refos. Gotta get yer priorities right.

Japan is a frontline major regional power with some standoff and strategic depth, but Japans' also well inside the strike range of several really gigantic enemas. So F-35A seems a no brainer for Japan. Plus flat tops with F-35B. I can't see them holding their own in future, without a preponderance of F-35s in Japan, including Allied.

But on top of this, the J20, J31 force developments make F-35s essential, else suck up to CHICOMs, and take it up the Khyber pass. Fun times. But 4th-gens alone, of whatever flavor you've got, is a losing formula in East and SE Asia from here.

Israel doesn't have that problem, yet.

But in Asia, despite the current ructions, I think F-35s will be the primary stabiliser and enforcer of the peace, untill 2050.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

But it may take one solid demonstration of why a global allied force armed with F-35s will quickly win high-end, before everyone fully agrees. If that's clearly demonstrated, Israel would see the deterring benefits as well. Then more F-35s would make some justifiable sense to IDF, verses more F-15. Because F-15s are going to be increasingly taking a back-row position in Asia as the enforcer of the rules as to where the agreed borders exist, or don't.

F-35B seems to be a better longer-term tactical-mix option for Israel, from here.

[hornetfinn]

Interesting little clash of views re merits and real effects of F-35A.

" ... He added that even the Americans have not yet learned the full operational capabilities of the F-35 “and what they do know they not always share with us. So we have to learn by ourselves and this is being done everyday”

He said that it will be a mistake to invest in another platform based on its capability to carry heavy loads of weapons systems: “The Israeli defense forces have enough ways to use massive fire power against faraway targets”.

Modified Israeli F-15Ds known as F-15 Baz

Another retired IAF brigadier general, who asked not to be identified, said that he was against the acquisition of the F-35 from the outset: “This is a very expensive aircraft that will not really change the capability of the IAF in the coming 20 years.” With the current Israeli defense budget there is no way to create a critical mass buying F-35s. “This is a niche system that cannot serve as a game changer. The combat now is based on standoff weapon systems, which makes the presence of an aircraft like the F-35 in the fighting area less important,” the retired general said.

The contrasting views of the two former high ranking IAF officers symbolize the debate within the IAF. The crucial factor may be the senior leadership of the Israeli Defense Forces and Israel’s intelligence community. ..."

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/wil ... p-balance/
----

Depends how deep, how far, and who you want to strike without losing jets or battles. And not to be seen to be ineffective. Obviously not all war is standoff precision air attack. It could be argued the F-35A A2A and ISR is a niche requirement, when IDF can win the air battles already, and has advanced ISR drones and SATS.

Do ya need it?

I think such statements could be found from almost every F-35 user country from some retired generals. Who knows how long ago he retired and what he did and does still. He clearly has no idea about many things regarding F-35 like costs or ability to use stand-off weapons better than previous systems. Besides currently the rather low-intensity fighting against relatively low-tech enemy with small resources Israel has done during the last 35 years can probably be done with F-16s and F-15s in the future pretty well with stand-off weapons. However, what if that changes and there is need to fight against high-tech enemy with large numbers (like the largest wars Israel has been in, or worse)? That might not seem that likely now, but it's still possibility given the volatility of the region. And besides,what's the alternatives for the next 30-40 years?

[popcorn]

I suspect it's a generational thing.

[element1loop]

I think such statements could be found from almost every F-35 user country from some retired generals. Who knows how long ago he retired and what he did and does still. He clearly has no idea about many things regarding F-35 like costs or ability to use stand-off weapons better than previous systems.

I agree with your remarks, we had a lot of those.

However, that does not mean he's in the retired wingnut camp. He may think F-35 is incredible, just surplus to the likely outcomes, particularly if he sees half the bucks for the same bang, with surplus F-15s, plus a strong Allied support sentiment. Then his remarks are not necessarily wrong, nor unreasonable, just a different take, and one worth putting in thread.

BUT ...

If near (i.e. in range) neighbour is 'Erdogan-for-Life', armed with E-7A, F-35A, SOM and JSOW, then by default Israel needs some minimum number of F-35s.

[SpudmanWP]

I suspect it's a generational thing.

He probably still uses a flip phone.

[marauder2048]

I suspect it's a generational thing.

I dig the double meaning!

Part of the debate in Israel is probably stimulated by the incipient Missile Corp
where the IAF is supposed to be using air-launched derivatives of Israel's Extra
MLRS rocket that will be produced in quantity for the Israeli Navy and ground forces.

I think the argument goes that missile attacks on Israel's air bases will reduce
the sortie generation rate which when combined with the transit time for
a fighter to deliver GBUs starts to eat into the amount of payload you can
put on targets per day.

But fighters equipped with Extra would have relatively brief sorties where they mainly
get into position to fire Extra off-axis.

[michaelemouse]

Interesting little clash of views re merits and real effects of F-35A.

" ... He added that even the Americans have not yet learned the full operational capabilities of the F-35 “and what they do know they not always share with us. So we have to learn by ourselves and this is being done everyday”

He said that it will be a mistake to invest in another platform based on its capability to carry heavy loads of weapons systems: “The Israeli defense forces have enough ways to use massive fire power against faraway targets”.

Modified Israeli F-15Ds known as F-15 Baz

Another retired IAF brigadier general, who asked not to be identified, said that he was against the acquisition of the F-35 from the outset: “This is a very expensive aircraft that will not really change the capability of the IAF in the coming 20 years.” With the current Israeli defense budget there is no way to create a critical mass buying F-35s. “This is a niche system that cannot serve as a game changer. The combat now is based on standoff weapon systems, which makes the presence of an aircraft like the F-35 in the fighting area less important,” the retired general said.

The contrasting views of the two former high ranking IAF officers symbolize the debate within the IAF. The crucial factor may be the senior leadership of the Israeli Defense Forces and Israel’s intelligence community. ..."

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/wil ... p-balance/
----

Depends how deep, how far, and who you want to strike without losing jets or battles. And not to be seen to be ineffective. Obviously not all war is standoff precision air attack. It could be argued the F-35A A2A and ISR is a niche requirement, when IDF can win the air battles already, and has advanced ISR drones and SATS.

Do ya need it?

Wouldn't a stealthy platform with C4ISTAR capabilities like the F-35 combine with stand-off weapons like peanut butter and chocolate? Send F-35s deep into enemy territory and at high altitude to detect important targets and guide munitions onto them while 4th gen jets/drones/"missile trucks" stay further back at low altitude until they get a request to launch their stand-off munition toward the enemy. That could mess up a country's IADS and airfields very quickly.

[element1loop]

Interesting little clash of views re merits and real effects of F-35A.

" ... He added that even the Americans have not yet learned the full operational capabilities of the F-35 “and what they do know they not always share with us. So we have to learn by ourselves and this is being done everyday”

He said that it will be a mistake to invest in another platform based on its capability to carry heavy loads of weapons systems: “The Israeli defense forces have enough ways to use massive fire power against faraway targets”.

Modified Israeli F-15Ds known as F-15 Baz

Another retired IAF brigadier general, who asked not to be identified, said that he was against the acquisition of the F-35 from the outset: “This is a very expensive aircraft that will not really change the capability of the IAF in the coming 20 years.” With the current Israeli defense budget there is no way to create a critical mass buying F-35s. “This is a niche system that cannot serve as a game changer. The combat now is based on standoff weapon systems, which makes the presence of an aircraft like the F-35 in the fighting area less important,” the retired general said.

The contrasting views of the two former high ranking IAF officers symbolize the debate within the IAF. The crucial factor may be the senior leadership of the Israeli Defense Forces and Israel’s intelligence community. ..."

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/wil ... p-balance/
----

Depends how deep, how far, and who you want to strike without losing jets or battles. And not to be seen to be ineffective. Obviously not all war is standoff precision air attack. It could be argued the F-35A A2A and ISR is a niche requirement, when IDF can win the air battles already, and has advanced ISR drones and SATS.

Do ya need it?

Wouldn't a stealthy platform with C4ISTAR capabilities like the F-35 combine with stand-off weapons like peanut butter and chocolate? Send F-35s deep into enemy territory and at high altitude to detect important targets and guide munitions onto them while 4th gen jets/drones/"missile trucks" stay further back at low altitude until they get a request to launch their stand-off munition toward the enemy. That could mess up a country's IADS and airfields very quickly.

Of course, the point being made by the former IDF officer is, do you need an F-35Ai to do that? Or can existing IDF ISR drone's precision targetting already achieve that outcome cheaper, and drone attrition not matter so much as a trade-off for the effects and forces degradation achieved.

" ... like peanut butter and chocolate? ..."

... you're talking to vegemite on toast, mate.

Decadent girlie-man.

[marauder2048]

Interesting little clash of views re merits and real effects of F-35A.

[quote

Wouldn't a stealthy platform with C4ISTAR capabilities like the F-35 combine with stand-off weapons like peanut butter and chocolate? Send F-35s deep into enemy territory and at high altitude to detect important targets and guide munitions onto them while 4th gen jets/drones/"missile trucks" stay further back at low altitude until they get a request to launch their stand-off munition toward the enemy. That could mess up a country's IADS and airfields very quickly.

Of course, the point being made by the former IDF officer is, do you need an F-35Ai to do that? Or can existing IDF ISR drone's precision targetting already achieve that outcome cheaper, and drone attrition not matter so much as a trade-off for the effects and forces degradation achieved.

" ... like peanut butter and chocolate? ..."

... you're talking to vegemite on toast, mate.

Decadent girlie-man.

Are the drones with sufficient ISR capability, fast enough transit and long enough endurance (in an advanced IADS environment/C-UAS environment) really that attritable and runway independent?

[blindpilot]

..

Wouldn't a stealthy platform with C4ISTAR capabilities like the F-35 combine with stand-off weapons like peanut butter and chocolate? Send F-35s deep into enemy territory and at high altitude to detect important targets and guide munitions onto them while 4th gen jets/drones/"missile trucks" stay further back at low altitude until they get a request to launch their stand-off munition toward the enemy. That could mess up a country's IADS and airfields very quickly.

...
Are the drones with sufficient ISR capability, fast enough transit and long enough endurance (in an advanced IADS environment/C-UAS environment) really that attritable and runway independent?

And I can make a phone call on my flip phone, check GPS with my Garmin, and get internet on my old 7 inch Samsung Galaxy SII, while listening to my iPod(if I can find them) .... all cheaper for the bunch than the new iPhone.

If we keep on that path we will continue to miss the point of what is happening ...

FWIW, MHO
BP

[kimjongnumbaun]

The issue being drones have lag time and can be jammed. A manned platform like the F-35 can prosecute a dynamic mission as long the pilot is aware of the commander's intent. While drones are useful and cheap, they aren't an end all to every solution.