Category Air Warfare

The Saga of the F-35: Too Big To Fail?

Lockheed Upbeat Despite F-35 Losing Dogfight To Red Baron (Image by DuffelBlog)
Lockheed Upbeat Despite F-35 Losing Dogfight To Red Baron (Image by DuffelBlog)

Dan Grazier and Mandy Smithberger provide a detailed run down of the current status of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) over at the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). The Air Force recently declared its version, the F-35A, combat ready, but Grazer and Smithberger make a detailed case that this pronouncement is “wildly premature.”

The Pentagon’s top testing office warns that the F-35 is in no way ready for combat since it is “not effective and not suitable across the required mission areas and against currently fielded threats.”

As it stands now, the F-35 would need to run away from combat and have other planes come to its rescue, since it “will need support to locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles).”

In several instances, the memo rated the F-35A less capable than the aircraft we already have.

The F-35’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, is delivering progressively upgraded versions of the aircraft in blocks, but the first fully-combat operational block will not be delivered until 2018. There are currently 175 operational F-35s with limited combat capability, with 80 more scheduled for delivery in 2017 and 100 in 2018. However, the Government Accountability Office estimates that it will cost $1.7 billion to retroactively upgrade these 335 initial F-35s to full combat ready status. Operational testing and evaluation of those rebuilt aircraft won’t be completed until 2021 and they will remain non-combat capable until 2023 at the earliest, which means that the original 355 F-35s won’t really be fully operational for at least seven more years, or 22 years after Lockheed was awarded the development and production contract in 2001. And this is only if the JSF Program and Lockheed manage to hit their current targets with a program—estimated at $1.5 trillion over its operational life, the most expensive weapon in U.S. history—characterized by delays and cost overruns.

With over $400 billion in sunk costs already, the F-35 program may have become “too big to fail,” with all the implications that phrase connotes. Countless electrons have been spun assessing and explaining this state of affairs. It is possible that the problems will be corrected and the F-35 will fulfill the promises made on its behalf. The Air Force continues to cast it as the centerpiece of its warfighting capability 20 years from now.

Moreover, the Department of Defense has doubled-down on the technology-driven Revolution in Military Affairs paradigm with its Third Offset Strategy, which is premised on the proposition that advanced weapons and capabilities will afford the U.S. continued military dominance into the 21st century. Time will tell if the long, painful saga of the F-35 will be a cautionary tale or a bellwether.

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations

Keying off Shawn’s previous post…if the DOD figures are accurate this means:

  1. In about two years, we have killed 45,000 insurgents from a force of around 25,000.
    1. This is around 100% losses a year
    2. This means the insurgents had to completely recruit an entire new force every year for the last two years
      1. Or maybe we just shot everyone twice.
    3. It is clear the claimed kills are way too high, or the claimed strength is too low, or a little bit of both
  2. We are getting three kills per sortie.
    1. Now, I have not done an analysis of kills per sorties in other insurgencies (and this would be useful to do), but I am pretty certain that this is unusually high.
  3. We are killing almost a 1,000 insurgents (not in uniform) for every civilian we are killing.
    1. Even if I use the Airwars figure of 1,568 civilians killed, this is 29 insurgents for every civilian killed.
    2. Again, I have not an analysis of insurgents killed per civilian killed in air operations (and this would be useful to do), but these rates seem unusually low.

It appears that there are some bad estimates being made here. Nothing wrong with doing an estimate, but something is very wrong if you are doing estimates that are significantly off. Some of these appear to be off.

This is, of course, a problem we encountered with Iraq and Afghanistan and is discussed to some extent in my book America’s Modern Wars. It was also a problem with the Soviet Army in World War II, and is something I discuss in some depth in my Kursk book.

It would be useful to develop a set of benchmarks from past wars looking at insurgents killed per sorties, insurgents killed per civilian killed in air operations (an other types of operations), insurgents killed compared to force strength, and so forth.

ISIL Oil Revenues

I gather it has kind of been a grind to get to this point, but this article notes that: ISIS Suffers Near Collapse in Oil Revenue

A few interesting quotes:

  1. “The Islamic State, pushed off more than half the Iraqi territory it seized in 2014…”
  2. “….with partial access to just two of the five Iraqi oil fields it once controlled.”
  3. “In May the US estimated that its revenue had been roughly halved to $250 million a year from the territory it controlled in Iraq and Syria”
  4. “The loss of oil revenues has forced the militants to cut salaries by a third….”
  5. “They have also imposed more taxes on farmers, truckers, and traders and increased fines for minor violations of religious bans….”
  6. “At least 100 drivers were killed trying to smuggle crude into Syria. Drivers are refusing to go…..”
  7. “I saw my brother get killed by an airstrike while sitting inside his truck. Other trucks were blown up like in a video game.”

 

Category — Air Power

If you scroll down the right hand side of the blog (depending on what device you are using to read this) you will see a section called categories. Click on “Air Power” and there have been 14 posts on the subject made in this blog, starting with my post “Defeating an Insurgency by Air.” These posts have resulted in two articles, one in the History News Network: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161601 and one in the Small Wars Journal: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/airpower-just-part-of-the-counterinsurgency-equation

Anyhow, these categories often lump together a series of related discussion that is otherwise scattered across the blog. It is probably worthwhile to occasionally check out the posts by category and peruse the whole collection of blogs under that particular category.

 

 

 

Dominating the Skies — and Losing the Wars

Interesting article on in the History News Network this week by a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/163165

I am not familiar with the author, but one of his statements towards the end of the articles is:

Despite the sorry results delivered by air power over the last 65 years, the U.S. military continues to invest heavily in it…..Dismissing the frustratingly mixed and often destabilizing results that come from air strikes, disregarding the jaw-dropping prices of the latest fighters and bombers, America’s leaders continue to clamor for yet more warplanes and yet more bombing.

 

Sortie Counts

-1x-1 (2)

OK…..so U.S. has flown more than 55,000 sorties since August 2014 (actually we started our first air missions on 8 August…so almost 19 months).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/u-s-bombing-of-islamic-state-fell-to-8-month-low-in-february?cmpid=yhoo.headline

Russian flew 9,000 sorties in 5 1/2 months (see two posts below).

55,000/19 = 2,895 sorties a month

9,000/5.5 = 1,636 sorties a month

 

 

Left Behind

20160319_MAP008_0

Nice article in the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21694996-putin-appears-turn-hard-power-diplomacy-russians-show-their-hand

The interesting point is that they give stats as to what they are leaving behind (have no idea how they know this):

The first is that Russia is not pulling out its forces completely. It will retain its naval presence in Tartus; at least a dozen fast jets will continue to fly from its air base near Latakia; about 1,000 military advisers and special forces will stay; and the recently-installed S-400 air defence system covering the north-west of the country will also be kept in place. Should the fragile “cessation of hostilities” that Russia and America brokered last month fall apart, it can re-escalate very quickly. But for now, Russia can cut the $3m a day cost of its military operation, while preserving much of the leverage it has bought.

Not sure how they got the price tag either. Very cheap compared to U.S. deployments (which usually are in the billions). Maybe we can contract them.

Short and Sweet

_88778322_syria_control_map_624_v7

 It would be nice to have short, quick, sharp interventions. Basically, go into a troubled country, kick tail, and then leave shortly thereafter with everything resolved. Sort of like we did in Libya in 2011; or that peacekeeping mission in Lebanon in 1982-1984 that was effectively ended by the barracks bombing that killed 241 Marines; or the brief humanitarian mission to Somalia 1992-1994 that generated the book and movie Black Hawk Down; or the 1991 Gulf War; or one-year deployment to Bosnia in 1995; or any number of short and sweet interventions that were not always so sweet and short.

Obviously the real “short and sweet” list is pretty short. Panama 1989, Grenada 1984 and….and….and…… Most commitments either take much longer that that (like Bosnia), or the conflict continues rattling on long after we left (pretty much the rest of the cases mentioned in the first paragraph), and sometimes they require us to re-engage or they mutate in ways we did not expect (for example: Libya and Somalia). Getting in, kicking tail, taking names, and getting out sounds like a great idea. Just doesn’t work out that way very often.

Russia is now wrapping up its 5 ½ month commitment in Syria. It was not that big, maybe 3,000 to 6,000 uniformed personnel, plus aircraft. Still, this mission was unique in many ways. It was really the first case of Russia doing an intervention away from its immediate borders (and pretty much one of the few cases of the Soviet Union doing one also). Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union had ever played far from home, if you ignore the communist international, world wide revolutionary movements and a few dozen missiles sent to Cuba. Still, Russia/Soviet Union had rarely actually committed conventional forces into combat in a country that is not connected to it by border. Even their failed war in Afghanistan (1979-1989) was connected by a border. They were part of the Kosovo peacekeeping forces. But besides that, Syria is the only case I can think of in the last 100 years of a Russian or Soviet ground invention in a country not connected by a border.

They are now withdrawing (so they claim). Syria is the location of the only Russian military bases outside their country, so obviously some forces are remaining.

But, Syria remains Syria. It is a country of 18 million people that is only around 13% Shia (primarily Alawite). Up until the civil war started five years ago, the Alawite minority ruled the country under Bashar Assad. It is around 10% Christian (which were sometimes allied with their fellow minority, the Alawites), 3% Druze, 9% Kurds (Sunni) and 60% Sunni Arab (and no…these numbers don’t add up to 100%). Of course, having an Alawite minority over the top of the Sunni majority pretty much guaranteed that there would eventually be a conflict. Now the Russia intervention has bolstered the Alawites. Hard to imagine if Russia actually pulls out, how the bolstered Alawites maintain their current position.

Still, perhaps Russia has given Assad and the Alawites enough breathing space for them to now stand on their own. This has not been the case in a number of past interventions (U.S. in Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan, U.S. in Iraq).

Of course, we are not the only people talking about this

See General David Petraeus’s article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-unleash-americas-air-power-in-afghanistan/2016/01/14/a9c3bd42-b979-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

And for a response: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/19/a-pilot-responds-no-general-petraeus-airpower-isnt-the-answer-in-afghanistan/

By the way, it appears that the responder is tapping some of the same statistics used in the Micah Zenko blog that we previously posted: http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2016/01/07/how-many-bombs-did-the-united-states-drop-in-2015/

Bombing Kosovo in 1999 versus the Islamic State in 2015

I just wanted to do a little ‘back of the envelope” comparison between these two air campaigns. In the case of Kosovo, if you believe the casualty figures provided virtue of Wikipedia (which are not always incorrect), they flew 38,004 sorties and killed 956 supposed hostiles (that is 956 killed, 5,173 wounded and 52 missing for a total of 6,181 casualties). Or, maybe that should be 10,484 “strike sorties.” Regardless, this was either 38 sorties per person killed or 10 “strike sorties” per person killed (missing are counted among the killed for this calculation). Or if based on total casualties, 6 sorties per casualty or 1.7 “strike sorties” per casualty. Now, only 35% of the bombs and missiles used were precision guided.

If you look at the link in my post “Bleeding an Insurgency to Death” you could surmise that in 2015 in Iraq and Syria, the U.S. and its allies dropped 28,714 “munitions.” They claim 25,500 killed. This is 1.13 “munitions dropped” per person claimed killed. So, one bomb kills one person.

Kosovo was 23,614 “air munitions” for 1,008 deaths or 6,181 casualties. This is 23 “air munitions” per person killed or 3.8 “air munitions” per casualty. So, Kosovo in 1999 is 23.42 ‘air munitions” per person killed while Syria and Iraq in 2015 is 1.13 “munitions dropped” per person claimed killed. This is an effectiveness improvement of over 20 times! Of course, these campaigns were conducted against different terrain and somewhat different circumstances that may favor one over the other. We have not evaluated those factors (after all, this is just “back-of-the-envelope” calculations).

Now, in Kosovo, only 35% of the bombs and missiles used were precision guided. Don’t know what the figure is now, but if it was 100%, and if we assumed that only the precision guided munitions in Kosovo hit anything (a questionable assumption), then we still end up with an effectiveness improvement of over seven times.

But maybe the 25,500 killed really means 25,500 killed and wounded (of which the majority would be wounded). In that case using the Kosovo figures for total casualties you end up with 3.82 “air munitions” per casualty versus 1.13 “munitions dropped” per casualty for Syria and Iraq. Again, if we completely discount the effectiveness of non-precision guided munitions in Kosovo, and assume that in Syria and Iraq 100% of the munitions are precision guided, then we end up with similar levels of effectiveness per casualty (1.34 “air munitions” versus 1.13 “munitions dropped” per casualty). There are a lot of “ifs” to get to this point.

Now, one should not put to much stock in the “back of the envelope” calculations, but something doesn’t quite line up here.