Israel pays for additional F-35s

[element1loop]

... 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

Which is conversely what the unnamed Israeli Brig-Gen Ret. is saying, " ... we can't afford an iPhone, too'.

All academic now, because they have them AND they need them.

[element1loop]

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?

Sure, though it's an assumption IAF doesn't have survivable targetting drones, that are far ahead of the old T-models we see puttering over Gaza. Advanced IADS have been on IDFs doorstep for a very long time. What would you have done about it?

[element1loop]

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.

Agree your points, but I think we're much more squemish about autonomy than they, even in EMS disrupted environments. If their missiles can do autonomy, why not the l drones too---most of the time? Lots of scope to develop that. As for lag, they can have drones up 24/7 during escalating tension. And I'm pretty sure Iran doesn't have the better western developed drone.

[quicksilver]

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

Yeah, and the debate isn’t about drones — it’s about F-15s, which are even more expensive than F-35.

[hornetfinn]

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.

I think that depends on what kind of wars and conflicts IDF is going to preapare for. For many low-end conflicts drones and other assets can probably do a good job. However if they want to have high capability in all situations, that's just not going to work well with current or near future drone technology.

Also current F-15s and F-16s are going to need replacement and some point and F-35 is definitely the best possible replacement for both, especially for Israel. Buying newer versions of F-15s and F-16s isn't going to be any cheaper and would have no other benefits either especially in the long run. Of course it's debatable how fast Israel should or could transform the IAF.

[element1loop]

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

Yeah, and the debate isn’t about drones — it’s about F-15s, which are even more expensive than F-35.

No, not really. He's interested in affiordable standoff strike "critical mass" in the next 20 year interval. He doesn't seem to care how it happens, just that cheaper means more standoff weapon strike in a high-intensity war of the future.

"... 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 ..."

Not unimportant, just surplus to requirements for the same outcome (in his view). He's certainly incorrect about cost. I'd say he's wrong about ISR/SA benefit too. So the nub of his argument is defunct.

'He', who ever he is, is discounting the need for on the spot ISR and SA. Why? Because it's redundant for practical purposes, as it is an ...

" ... aircraft that will not really change the capability of the IAF n the coming 20 years. ..."

Not necessarily now.

For practical purposes it gives them nothing in attack that they can't already do. The C4ISR needed to find and hit targets precisely, with standoff weapons, is already in place via other means. Whether it's via drones or something else is immaterial.

He's thus sayng the sensors and weapons matter much more than platforms. A truck is as good as a jet, better, as its much cheaper. For Israel's geography he's not necessarily wrong. He's more interested in affordable "critical mass", in a future major war, as he seems to think the cost of new jets will take away from hitting-power between now and 2038.

I don't think he wants more F-15s at all he just wants to lower the cost of standoff targets killed, to ensure a "critical mass" will exist in 2038.

Frankly, I'd like to hear him without a media filter and see where he's really coming from. But that's me, I always want to figure out what will work better to win faster and stick the result.

[SpudmanWP]

he just wants to lower the cost of standoff targets killed, to ensure a "critical mass" will exist in 2038.

The F-35, in multiple LFEs, has proven itself to be the "cheaper" option when prosecuting a mission since they don't need supporting assets like ISR, IFR, escorts, EW support, etc.

The Dutch showed (and the F-15Cs in Japan agree) that the F-35 can act as a force multiplier by protecting & hiding the 4th gen assets which makes the existing 4th gen for more lethal.

[element1loop]

he just wants to lower the cost of standoff targets killed, to ensure a "critical mass" will exist in 2038.

The F-35, in multiple LFEs, has proven itself to be the "cheaper" option when prosecuting a mission since they don't need supporting assets like ISR, IFR, escorts, EW support, etc.

The Dutch showed (and the F-15Cs in Japan agree) that the F-35 can act as a force multiplier by protecting & hiding the 4th gen assets which makes the existing 4th gen for more lethal.

Preaching to the converted.

[ricnunes]

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?

Sure, though it's an assumption IAF doesn't have survivable targetting drones, that are far ahead of the old T-models we see puttering over Gaza. Advanced IADS have been on IDFs doorstep for a very long time. What would you have done about it?

I don't believe that the IAF (or any other service/country) has drones with are or could be highly survivable against modern IADS. IMO, the reason is more economical than technical since in order for anyone to design a drone which could be highly survivable against modern IADS, the drone would need to have extensive stealth features (the same as a manned fighter), extensive and advanced EW suites (the same or even better than manned fighter), etc... which means that in the end you would end up with a drone which by itself would be just as expensive as a manner fighter and in the end more expensive than a manner fighter because you have to add the respective control center's cost to the drone itself.
Resuming, a highly survivable drone (again modern IADS) would be more expensive than a manned fighter which by itself defeats one of the main purposes of drones (which is being "cheap").

No, not really. He's interested in affiordable standoff strike "critical mass" in the next 20 year interval. He doesn't seem to care how it happens, just that cheaper means more standoff weapon strike in a high-intensity war of the future.

From what I get or understand here you/author are referring to other means of standoff long range attack like for example, submarine launched cruise missiles like the Tomahawk or even long range ballistic missile like IRBMs (hopefully armed with conventional warheads instead of nukes).

But the problem here is that these solutions seems to be more expensive than a cruise missile launched from a F-35. Let's look for example at the following simplistic and academic example, comparing a F-35 armed with a JSM missile and a Submarine armed with Tomahawk (or "Tomahawk-class" missiles) in terms of costs:
- While I couldn't find a unit cost for the JSM, I found a USD $350,000 per unit cost for the NSM (which the JSM is based on), so I going to assume a unit cost for the JSM to be around USD $500,000. Adding to this cost we have the cost per flight hour (CPFH) of the F-35. I going to assume a 2.5 hour mission at a CPFH of around $25,000 which gives a total in terms of CPFH for the F-35 of $62,500, add this value to the cost of the JSM and we would have have a total mission cost (for these two parameters) of a rounded value of $563,000.
- Now compare the value above ($563,000) with the cost of a single Tomahawk seems to be around USD $1.87 Million per unit. That in itself is already much higher than the combined CPFH+JSM of the F-35. But in order to have an apples-to-apples comparison for this academic and simplistic example you also need to add the operational cost of the Submarine. How much is this? To be honest I don't have a clue but I'm willing to bet that cheap it isn't

I would also bet that IRBMs would be even more expensive and also brings the added and perceived risk by the enemy of an incoming IRBM to be carrying nukes instead of conventional warhead a situation which could trigger a nuclear war!


Regarding the F-35 with cruise missiles, it theory you could do a similar mission with F-15s or F-16s also armed with cruise missiles. But like hornetfinn said, legacy fighter aircraft like the F-15/F-16 will need replacement and this rather soon than later and these legacy fighter aircraft are only becoming more expensive to manufacture and maintain (namely with their production lines dwindling as time goes by) and this not to mention that their survivability against emerging enemy fighter aircraft will be limited at best but more likely they'll be at a severe disadvantage against these new emerging enemy fighter aircraft.
Resuming it will be cheaper to purchase and maintain F-35s than to purchase and maintain new F-15s/F-16s or even cheaper than updating old F-15s/F-16s this in the long run, not to mention safer and much more effective.

[mixelflick]

What about the cost of acquiring an F-35 itself? Israel has paid north of $100 million for each so far, but let's call it an even $100 million.

**What if** they lose an F-35, to say nothing of the pilot? Doesn't the cruise missile option now become the more cost/effective solution? I thought that was the whole premise of the ALCM/GLCM/SLCM - it doesn't put a big $ platform or human at risk of being captured/killed??

[wrightwing]

What about the cost of acquiring an F-35 itself? Israel has paid north of $100 million for each so far, but let's call it an even $100 million.

**What if** they lose an F-35, to say nothing of the pilot? Doesn't the cruise missile option now become the more cost/effective solution? I thought that was the whole premise of the ALCM/GLCM/SLCM - it doesn't put a big $ platform or human at risk of being captured/killed??

That's single entry bookkeeping. What are the costs if Israel doesn't have that capability? What are the costs if one of their foes prosecutes successful attacks? What are the costs if multiple 4th generation aircraft/pilots are lost?

[michaelemouse]

What about the cost of acquiring an F-35 itself? Israel has paid north of $100 million for each so far, but let's call it an even $100 million.

**What if** they lose an F-35, to say nothing of the pilot? Doesn't the cruise missile option now become the more cost/effective solution? I thought that was the whole premise of the ALCM/GLCM/SLCM - it doesn't put a big $ platform or human at risk of being captured/killed??

Cruise missiles (CMs )can still be useful against stationary targets or mobile targets which haven't moved much and have been geolocated (for GPS guidance) and are emitting (for anti-radiation missiles). One thing CMs are ill-suited to do is finding the target, identifying it and targeting it.

CMs might do it, you could perhaps launch a 1 million dollar munition in the direction of the enemy and hope you find worthwhile targets before fuel runs out. Perhaps at some point in the future, the opening salvos of a war will be conducted like that. But for the foreseeable future, you'll need some reusable platform to find the targets if they haven't been courteous enough to highlight themselves for you.

That's where having a platform with good data gathering ability, LPI communications, stealth and the ability to dodge enemy missiles and rush out is useful. You could see the F-35 as a special forces team which can do a lot more damage by infiltrating and designating targets than it can with its own organic weapons.

[ricnunes]

What about the cost of acquiring an F-35 itself? Israel has paid north of $100 million for each so far, but let's call it an even $100 million.

Then you should also ask about the acquisition cost of the Submarine, no?
If you noticed I also didn't include the acquisition cost of the Submarine which is obviously much more expensive than the acquisition cost of a F-35.
According to some sources a batch of two Dolphin-class submarines (the Submarines used by Israel) cost €1.3 billion (650 million Euros or around $801 million USD per each submarine) while the last submarine of this same class (the 6th) cost $1 Billion USD:
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,734 ... 89,00.html

As you can also see, I included the operational cost (cost per flight hour) of the F-35 plus the F-35 weapon against a Submarine launched cruise missile without including the submarine's operational cost (which again I don't know). So my comparison was already giving a better case scenario for the sub/cruise missile compared to the F-35.

**What if** they lose an F-35, to say nothing of the pilot? Doesn't the cruise missile option now become the more cost/effective solution? I thought that was the whole premise of the ALCM/GLCM/SLCM - it doesn't put a big $ platform or human at risk of being captured/killed??

And again "what if" they lose the submarine?? A type 212 submarine (which the Dolphin-class is somehow based on) has a crew complement of 27 souls. It is not known the number of crewmen that the Dolphin-class submarine has but it is known to be higher than the Type 212 (even because the Dolphin is larger than the Type 212).
So if the submarine is lost we're probably talking about more than 30 souls, much worse than a single F-35 pilot isn't it?

[viper12]

while the last submarine of this same class (the 6th) cost $1 Million USD:
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,734 ... 89,00.html

$1 Billion USD, with a B.

[element1loop]

But the problem here is that these solutions seems to be more expensive than a cruise missile launched from a F-35. Let's look for example... // --> down the rabbit hole ...

omg

Have you not heard of a truck? And yes, IDF cruise missiles can currently be launched from trucks (or from a drone, if they wanted to).

scheeesh