Ekspert: Danmark kan godt undvære sit luftvåben
I svar til Ingeniørens læsere siger flyeksperten Richard Aboulaifa blandt andet, at Danmark godt kan vælge helt at droppe at have kampfly. Det afhænger af, hvordan man vurderer truslen fra luftrummet mod Danmarks grænser i fremtiden.
Fakta
Tema
Danmark skal snart købe nye kampfly for milliarder af kroner, men det er endnu ikke besluttet, hvilke nye fly der skal afløse F-16-flyene. Og der er mange meninger om, hvad der vil være det rigtige valg.
I svar til Ingeniørens læsere skriver den amerikanske flyekspert Richard Aboulaifa, at Danmark godt kan vælge helt at undvære kampfly, men hvis man vælger at investere i opgraderinger af flyvevåbnet, er det ikke nødvendigvis en dårlig ide for et lille land som Danmark at være "first mover" på at indkøbe helt nye flytyper. Det kan betale sig på langt sigt.
Richard Aboulaifa er en af verdens absolut førende eksperter inden for militærfly og vice president for analyse i Teal Group, der er et af de førende konsulenthuse inden for aerospace- og forsvarsindustrien.
Han har siden 1990 rådgivet adskillige globale virksomheder, og han skriver og redigerer blandt andet ’World Military and Civil Aircraft Briefing’, der dækker over 135 fly-programmer. Derudover skriver han analyser for førende tidsskrifter som Aviation Week and Space Technology, the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Military Technology og Jane's Intelligence Review.
Du kan herunder se alle Richard Aboulaifas svar på spørgsmål om fordele og ulemper ved de forskellige nye flytyper, der er i spil.
Det er ikke længere muligt at stille spørgsmål til Richard Aboulafia
thomas Ehler
Is it at all relevant for a tiny country like Denmark to buy fighterJets, as opposed to buying ie Helicopters or/and transporters for strategic Nato support and use in Afghanistan/Iraq-like conflicts?
Richard Aboulafia
I’m sure there is an argument to be made for Denmark to abandon air power and to instead contribute to coalition warfare and peacekeeping with helicopters, vehicles, and other less expensive systems. New Zealand made a similar decision to go this way about ten years ago. But it’s a very big decision—once a country loses its sovereign air power capability, it’s almost impossible to bring it back. You’re basically betting that your neighborhood stays very peaceful, and hoping your allies protect your air space in peacetime and wartime.
Henrik Fabricius
How come the Lockheed Martin F-16E/F Block 60 aquired by the UAE and India is not a contender? It is a brand new aircraft with all the new and improved features. It is at least as technologically advanced as the Super Hornet. The F-16 is already combat proven with great succes.. All pilots, technicians and ground crew in the RDAF are already educated on the F-16 and the logistic system is already matched up to handle the F-16.
Why is that?
Richard Aboulafia
The F-16E/F is a good plane but despite its AESA radar and other features it’s a fourth generation plane. It’s relatively expensive, and since Lockheed is heavily promoting the advantages of fifth generation, they would find it quite difficult to sell the F-16E/F in a head to head competition with the F/A-18E/F. And the F/A-18E/F is good value since it’s in production (slight correction—India has not ordered the F-16E/F, so production ended after the UAE buy), so if a country wanted a fourth generation plane with an AESA and a large payload it would probably go with the F/A-18E/F. Also, although it’s an F-16, the F-16E/F would offer little commonality with the older generation F-16A. Too many systems are quite different.
Tomas
Is it possible to build a fighter version of the F35? It could for example use the 50% bigger wing of the F35C? Surely that would be a lower risk design and be a better airplane overall? The Starfighter for example also had a high wing-loading and its accident rate was so high, it was called "the widow maker" here in europe.
Now that the F22 production is scaled down, why isn't America concerned that you have no "real" fighter planes anymore?
Surely other nations will build their own stealth planes, so only a fighter version of the F35 would be spared early obsolecense.
Richard Aboulafia
In some ways, that describes the F-22--it has a lot in common with the F-35. It is indeed the best fighter yet built, with many of the F-35s virtues plus unbeatable air combat capabilities. But it costs about twice what the F-35 costs ($140 million), making it a difficult sell on the export market given the relative lack of any near-term air-to-air threats. The US has decided to end production after buying just 187 planes (the original F-22 plan was 750). There is indeed much to be said for continuing F-22 production, but due to the economic situation I doubt there's much hope for more than a few more.
Villy Schjøtt
Is there a need for Denmark to make a decision for a replacement for F-16 within the next 5 years?
Richard Aboulafia
If Denmark decides to maintain an Air Force, it will need replacement aircraft. The current F-16s are certainly good planes, but by the time new aircraft are introduced the F-16s will be about 30 years old on average. They won’t have more than a few years of useful life left in them.
Henrik Andresen
Hi Richard
Considering the F35 is designed to work together with the F22, how well will a country using only F35 utilize it's full potential?
With this I'm considering things like limited stealth (a rumor you are welcome to dismiss, if it is not valid), shared communications etc.
Basically, would a country like Denmark be able to make full use of the potential in conflicts where USAF is not present?
Richard Aboulafia
Without the F-22, the F-35 would have a harder time penetrating the air space of a very capable adversary. But in practice, that means relatively little—Denmark is unlikely to fight alone against China or Russia. Against most other adversaries, the F-35 would certainly hold its own.
This gets back to the affordability question, I'm afraid. In an ideal world countries could afford an F-22/F-35 mix. But even the US Air Force can no longer find the money to make that happen.
Poul Erik Sørensen
JSF is the only stealth fighter, is stealth a must in the future and how much weight should we put is this feature?
Richard Aboulafia
The stealth debate is an important one, considering that stealth design features increase costs and limit aircraft payload. The US Air Force says it won’t fight alongside non-stealthy planes, but we don’t really know how credible that threat is—most likely, stealth planes would only represent part of a coalition force, with other planes doing different missions. If Denmark were not to participate in the opening phase of a conflict, stealth would matter less (although it would still enhance aircraft survivability in all phases). Without a premium placed on stealth, the F-35 still has many outstanding qualities, but the F/A-18E/F and Gripen look appealing too.
Tomas Kjersgaard
Are there any reasons for scandinavian countries to purchase airplanes built for carriers like the F18? The Gripen can already use improvised runways like cordoned off strips of road. And yet it isn't heavy and slow like the F18.
When you look at the F35C (carrier version) then it is several tons heavier than the F35A.
Is it possible to build a light-weight land-based version of the F18?
Richard Aboulafia
There is indeed a slight performance penalty associated with planes designed for carrier operations. Interestingly, back in the 1970s, Northrop promoted the F-18L, a land-based F/A-18. It didn’t sell, because most countries decided that the penalty for a carrier-based design was relatively light compared with the production and operations commonality associated with the basic US Navy model. And certainly, one of Gripen’s strongest selling points is its short and rough field capability.
Martin Bach Sørensen
What issues are to be taken into consideration regarding the NATO alliance and the buying of new fighters?
Richard Aboulafia
Interoperability of training, maintenance, and air power doctrine are key factors related to NATO country coordination. Since the US Air Force says it doesn’t want to be in the same air space as non stealthy planes, that further complicates the NATO compatibility question. After all, most of the other NATO countries will maintain large fleets of non-stealthy planes for decades to come. But the cost savings associated with operating the same planes as your neighbors is a strong draw.
Niels Andersen
Is it wise to buy a stealth plane? I'm worried that the built-in stealth design makes the Joint Strike Fighter obsolete when Russian anti-stealth technology matures.
Richard Aboulafia
The important thing to know about stealth is that it isn’t a magic cloaking device, like on Star Trek. It’s a way to improve an aircraft’s survivability by reducing its overall radar and observability signature. An aircraft’s stealthiness certainly can erode when new defenses are introduced, but the aircraft is then still less observable and more survivable than an aircraft that wasn’t designed with stealth in mind.
Bjarne Aakesen
what du you think about the Swedish aircraft ?
Richard Aboulafia
The Gripen is a tremendous achievement and a beautiful design. The problem is that Sweden builds and fields fighters in very small numbers--the current SAF plan is to maintain a fleet of just 100 Gripens. This means relatively high costs (it's the least expensive plane, but its also very much the lightest). It also means limited upgrade opportunities.
Peter Larsen
Hi Richard,
For a minute, leave aside the industrial kick-backs of joining a prestige project like the JSF.
Why would Denmark not buy the latest generation of F-16s? Zero-hour airframes, the can haul plenty of bombs and are capable air-to-air fighters. Heck, with the new conformal fuel tanks they may be ugly, but they have very credible range. If you throw in an AESA radar of some sort, you have a aircraft that's easily able to cover the RDAF needs.
Are the industrial issues really enough to justify the extra cost of a JSF?
Richard Aboulafia
Late model F-16s offer good value. But the F-35 would have a more comprehensive selection of upgrades ahead, which would increase effectiveness and extend the plane’s total life. The F/A-18E/F would also offer a longer lifespan and a robust upgrade roadmap, but to a lesser extent due to the much smaller user community.
As for JSF's industrial attractions, they don't mean much on their own, but assuming the current price target holds, the F-35 offers good value for money.
Lars Kalhave
The latest generation of fighter jets (JSF especially) prove to be costlier than anyone imagined. At the same time, unmanned aircraft are quickly progressing.
How long do you think it will take before the new fighter jets are made obsolete by better performing and cheaper unmanned combat aircraft?
Richard Aboulafia
Predictions of the manned fighter’s demise have been with us for decades. Certainly UAVs are getting more effective, but remember that fighters often work in non-war environments. In other words, how would a UAV or missile battery deal with a hijacked jetliner that was threatening a ground target, or an unconfirmed smuggler aircraft, or an unidentified presence in a no-fly zone? These are situations that call for a human presence, and an aircraft that can fire a warning shot.
Tomas Kjersgaard
Lockheed Martin claims that manouverability and top end speed (ie. supercruise) are not important anymore for air-air combat missions. That advanced sensors and agile missiles will do the job.
That seems to be a big risk, since missiles are not 100% effective and without supercruise you might not be able to disengage.
Is Lockheed Martin just overselling their airplane to make money?
And why did they build the F22 and then make a completely different airplane in the F35, yet claim they are equally effective in the same roles?
Best regards
Tomas
Richard Aboulafia
The F-35 does indeed place a large premium on sensors, precision munitions, and net-centric links. The debate over its fighter capabilities, and over the F-22's superiority and necessity continues, although the US Air Force's latest procurement moves seem to indicate that they think the F-35 is sufficient for most air combat missions.
This all revolves around the nature of the threat. Most planners assume that there will be relatively few very high end air-to-air threats, even in 15-20 years. That's probably true, but we don't really know. However, it is clear that high end air-to-air combat will increasingly be beyond visual range; in that case sensors and stealth are still more important than speed.
Jens Adler Nielsen
What aircraft has the best performance per cost including both capital cost and maintainance cost?
Richard Aboulafia
Right now, the F-35 and F/A-18E/F look set to have similar overall costs—the Super Hornet’s capital cost would be lower, but it would be more expensive to operate. Fifth generation planes are designed with the latest cost-savings diagnostics and maintenance programs. The Gripen is certainly the lowest overall cost in both price tag and operations, but that’s basically in line with combat effectiveness. It’s a good minimum fighter.
Morten Bulskov
Woul'nt it be better for a small country like Denmark to go with a less advanced design instead of being "first mover" on a new fighter project? Isn't it better to let the big countries buy JSF since we are not even getiing the most advanced version (if we decide to buy JSF). Then we could buy either the F-18 or Gripen which would more than fulfill our/NATO needs for the foreseable future?
Richard Aboulafia
Going with a current model plane offers a better cost guarantee, but it also means you don't get the full advantage of a long-term upgrade plan. Denmark was a first move on the F-16. That meant a very long life span, with many upgrades to keep it highly effective as the years passed. Three decades (or more) of operations with a fighter that's still in production, and still being upgraded, is a very positive outcome.
Jesper Buhl
Given that our Globe is no more global than it ever was, and the fighters' purpose realistically will be defending the nordic countries and their immediate neighbours, will the differences in demands and requirements be significant in the sense that another vendor or model would be biased than with "current" requirements of global, but limited, aggressive missions?
Richard Aboulafia
I'm not sure I agree with the first statement. Look at international involvement in the first Iraq war, or the current Afghanistan conflict. Even just looking at NATO, its area of operations has expanded.
Poul Erik Sørensen
Much has been said about the rising cost of JSF. What can you say about this, and what about the price compared to the 2 other airplanes.
Richard Aboulafia
I understand the current goal for the F-35A is around $60 million, for just the aircraft itself (no spares, training, installation costs, etc). The F/A-18E/F would likely be about $50 million and the Gripen about $35-40 million. The actual sales packages are much larger on a per unit basis due to those added costs.
But to get to your question, I think this is why 2009 is a crucial year for JSF. They need to lock in that price (or the package price) with firm contracts, because there are people with valid concerns about further cost increases.
Ben Møller Sørensen
Can you comment on the recent USG GAO Report that, in part, questioned the plan to proceed with ramping up JSF production while the flight test program is not proceeding as planned? In your opinion are there still risks and unknowns with the JSF program?
Richard Aboulafia
I think there are still risks, but the GAO's role in the USG is to highlight every possible risk. They do a good job, but if they applied their methodology to any weapons system in the world you would see a very high level of risk. This year, the last of the 19 JSF test planes will be delivered, and the flight test program will continue to accelerate. We should learn much more about the plane, but so far there don't appear to be any show-stoppers.
77
