Shrinking numbers of warplanes - effects on warfare

[Onkel]

Hello everybody,

Reading the F35 in Netherlands-Thread I came to think about future air forces. Twenty years from now numers of warbirds will have shrunk dramatically worldwide. Some countries will have only one quarter of warbirds compared to 1990. This is for Nato countries. The same with russia.
The shrinking is, to my mind, owed to the sinking risk of big symetric conflicts in Europe, Asia and Northern Amerika on one hand, on the other hand to the enormous costs of modern warplanes. The most sophisticated warbirds, F22, F35, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su 30, 33, 35, as well as the upgraded F 15, 16, 18, Su 27, Mig 29 (I know that Su 3x are derived from Su 27,) are much more expensive than their predessors. With shrinking budgets this leads to shrinkings numbers. While european an american and some more states choose cutting edge technology, a lot of asian and arabian countries choose the sophisticated upgrades of american and russian 80s-warbirds. Poorer states seem to have no choice but to keep their old 70s and 80s fighter flying.
In Africa, old Mig 21s, Mirage III and Su 1x may be used for bomb raids untill they fall to pieces.


I have not doubt that modern planes would clearly dominate the skies against those old planes. We all know about Desert Storm and the balkan conflict. But may it be an asymetric or a symetric conflicts, opponents may have to cope with only small numbers of planes or nearly worthless planes. Even the most sophisticated planes will have to get maintainance. The skies may be "clear" most of the time.

That leads to my question: What kind of tactics are to be developed? will AA-Forces be more important? Can it be Is there a chance for a force with big numbers of older warbirds to beat a cutting edge fleet by outnumbering it with several attack waves?

Fire at will!

How will

 

[Bonza]

Looking at air combat in the Gulf War would probably give a decent idea as to what happens when a cutting-edge force is faced with a technologically outpaced opponent (though that's not the only reason it went the way it did, of course). It's not just a matter of outnumbering the enemy's air force and fighting an airborne war of attrition - you have to look at the advantages within the battlespace as a whole conferred by technological superiority.

For example, what if your opponent:

a) has overwhelming intelligence superiority due to advanced information gathering systems (satellite imagery, airborne surveillance, etc)
b) has, through technological superiority, a strike option to which you do not have a response (cruise missiles, LO aircraft, etc)
c) the warfighting capacity to integrate the above into an overall offensive capability (such that they are not stand alone battlefield toys but part of a larger, coordinated system)

In the above scenario, your air force regardless of numbers could lose their part of the war without ever taking off, because your runways, aircraft shelters, munitions dumps, control radars etc are all vulnerable to being targeted and destroyed without any air to air combat whatsoever.

Consider that a modern-day offensive is going to be approached from a systems rather than a platforms level - so you can't just look at how the air forces will shape up. The technological superiority will make itself apparent across multiple layers of the battlefield, and action occurring across a combination of these layers will pose the biggest threat to your air force, not just the opposing air force itself.

I might be off the mark with this so my apologies if that is the case - more knowledgeable posters, please correct me. My understanding of the topic is limited at best - hopefully the above serves as a basic example.

 

[Onkel]

In the above scenario, your air force regardless of numbers could lose their part of the war without ever taking off, because your runways, aircraft shelters, munitions dumps, control radars etc are all vulnerable to being targeted and destroyed without any air to air combat whatsoever.

Consider that a modern-day offensive is going to be approached from a systems rather than a platforms level - so you can't just look at how the air forces will shape up. The technological superiority will make itself apparent across multiple layers of the battlefield, and action occurring across a combination of these layers will pose the biggest threat to your air force, not just the opposing air force itself.

Agreed. But, to lead you to my point of interest I give you an example. State A and State B are neighbours. A has nice modern, but small forces, B, the evil dictatorship, has a big, but outdated force. If B attacs A in waves, how long will the modern force be able to get some of its shiny birds in the air? Think about Georgia. The end had to be like that, but the modern forces of the small country were simply overrolled by russian forces consisting mainly of outdated material. There is a point at which it is simply not possible to keep units combat ready 24/7. After returning from a succesfull mission, F 35 and Co needs to be maintained.

The same for üpeacekeeping operations. How much can the material be stressed for patrols and show of force by shrinking numbers?

 

[Feanor]

I think that the question is what to do about shrinking airforces. However I don't see that trend as permanent. In fact Russia is halting the shrinkage, or attempting to. The US is actually going to increase it's aircraft numbers if you work in UAVs. China's economy is getting stronger, and I can see them expanding their military. India is busy purchasing huge numbers abroad to counter the shrinkage trend. So really the main shrinkage comes in Europe, and has more to do with local geo-political realities then with some overarching trend. Just my opinion though.

EDIT: Georgia is a bad example. They lost not because they were overwhelmed (they had the number advantage for most of the fight) but because of poor unit cohesion, and doctrinal as well as coordination problems between the various units.

 

[Onkel]

I think that the question is what to do about shrinking airforces. However I don't see that trend as permanent. In fact Russia is halting the shrinkage, or attempting to. The US is actually going to increase it's aircraft numbers if you work in UAVs. China's economy is getting stronger, and I can see them expanding their military. India is busy purchasing huge numbers abroad to counter the shrinkage trend. So really the main shrinkage comes in Europe, and has more to do with local geo-political realities then with some overarching trend. Just my opinion though.

EDIT: Georgia is a bad example. They lost not because they were overwhelmed (they had the number advantage for most of the fight) but because of poor unit cohesion, and doctrinal as well as coordination problems between the various units.

All right, UAVs are an answer for longterm engagements like Afghanistan or Iraq. No AA-Systems on the ground, no enemy warplanes in the air. The UAVs deployed now (an in ten years) are still no opponents for those.

As you said, Russia is ATEMPTING to hold the shrinking, but it is far from really doing so. The US are giving real fighters away for their drones (which might be clever). I don´t no much about China, but still nobody knows of what they are capable. And India has still an aging fleet with a handfull of newer Su 30. Maybe the bisons are comparable to modernised F 16, I doubt it.

 

[Palnatoke]

I think that if we look into a not too distant future, Air war as we know it (pilots going up gainst other pilots in complicated machines) will be obsolete.

The reason why I think so is, that there is a huge potential in robotics and automatisation. The day is not far away where "artificial intelligence" will be able to autonomiously perform complex operations.
While I think that we are far, if ever, from just beginning to copy the flexibility, ceativiity and power of anticipation that the human brain has, the machine has the advantage that it can operate extreamly fast, leaving little room for the human to act.

The future of air war belongs to the automated machine.

 

[B3LA]

Drones and UAVs are still creating too much collateral damage, but sure, it's the not
too far future. No G restriction, no fatigue, with tankers in the air they can go on forever...

Small nations, as the Nordics, will have to integrate more than we do today.
Together, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark can scramble some 250 fighters.
That's a pretty good deterrent.

Rogue states could get cheap vintage jets, do a few critical upgrades, load them up with
maximum missiles and fly suicide missions with a plastic key around their neck.
At ten or twenty to one, even a top-of-the-line F-22 might go down...
Maybe that will be the modern version of the old attrition war.

 

[Bonza]

There is a point at which it is simply not possible to keep units combat ready 24/7. After returning from a succesfull mission, F 35 and Co needs to be maintained.

This applies to older airforces as well. In fact across a fleet that's uniformly older, would it be fair to say maintenance hours would go up on average? Anyone have any information on that?

From what I understand they're trying to move towards minimising maintenance hours with new designs (I know that's a goal with the F-35, remains to be seen how well it's achieved) so the newer airforce would have the advantage here I would think?

Also keep in mind the defending units don't have to wipe out the opposing air force, they only have to cause enough casualties as to make the attrition rate unacceptable. How large a percentage of their fighting force is considered expendable?

On that note, the more capable your air defence system is, and the less capable your opponent's planes are (things like PGM/standoff capability, LO capability, etc etc), the more sorties they must generate in order to be effective. I would think the attrition would go up with the sortie rate.

Depending on the level of their technological advantage, the defenders could potentially make the attacker reach their maximum acceptable casualties quite quickly. Longer range detection/combat systems, better information management, integrated air defences, these things will add up pretty fast - just a matter of how many sorties they can manage before being overwhelmed, as you said. The Battle of Britain might offer some interesting lessons in this respect (at least with regards to the scale of air combat you're talking about, and the British "Chain Home" system is a good example of a technological advantage to the defenders)?

For a more "proactive" defence, strikes on an enemy's ability to wage war would be vital - the sort of thing I mentioned in my first post. Having a huge air force is no use if you don't have runways or fuel depots...

 

[Feanor]

All right, UAVs are an answer for longterm engagements like Afghanistan or Iraq. No AA-Systems on the ground, no enemy warplanes in the air. The UAVs deployed now (an in ten years) are still no opponents for those.

UCAVs that are competitve in a contested airspace are not that far away. A few years in my opinion. The US is also still looking at ~2400 F-35s, and 180 F-22s.

As you said, Russia is ATEMPTING to hold the shrinking, but it is far from really doing so. The US are giving real fighters away for their drones (which might be clever). I don´t no much about China, but still nobody knows of what they are capable. And India has still an aging fleet with a handfull of newer Su 30. Maybe the bisons are comparable to modernised F 16, I doubt it.

Russia is currently on a program that should allow the numbers to stabilize by 2015. In the case of the India the Su-30s are not a handful. The end number is 230, with another 50 currently being discussed in the Indian government. Add in the MMRCA, the ~45 MiG-29K purchase, and the ~60 modernized MiG-29s, and they're quite set for the near future in terms of preventing further shrinkage.

 

[Onkel]

All right. Seems as if was wrong thinking of a worldwide phenomen! Thank you.

 

[StevoJH]

Depending on the level of their technological advantage, the defenders could potentially make the attacker reach their maximum acceptable casualties quite quickly. Longer range detection/combat systems, better information management, integrated air defences, these things will add up pretty fast - just a matter of how many sorties they can manage before being overwhelmed, as you said. The Battle of Britain might offer some interesting lessons in this respect (at least with regards to the scale of air combat you're talking about, and the British "Chain Home" system is a good example of a technological advantage to the defenders)?

The Battle of Britain where they were producing aircraft just about as fast as they lost them and when the limiting factor for reinforcing squadrons was the amount of time needed to train new pilots?

 

[Bonza]

The Battle of Britain where they were producing aircraft just about as fast as they lost them and when the limiting factor for reinforcing squadrons was the amount of time needed to train new pilots?

You're right of course - what I meant was the Battle of Britain could serve as an example of the defender holding a technological advantage (in this case, the use of radar) and its impacts on the battle. Should have been clearer.

 

[Feanor]

All right. Seems as if was wrong thinking of a worldwide phenomen! Thank you.

Well again this is my opinion. If you look at a bigger time period. WWII- present, then the trend does exist (obviously we're not flying tens of thousands of fighters, and thousands of bombers any more).

But the question you posed I think still deserves an answer. What will happen to European states air power in the face of shrinking numbers offset by increasing technological sophistication.

 

[Onkel]

Well again this is my opinion. If you look at a bigger time period. WWII- present, then the trend does exist (obviously we're not flying tens of thousands of fighters, and thousands of bombers any more).

But the question you posed I think still deserves an answer. What will happen to European states air power in the face of shrinking numbers offset by increasing technological sophistication.

Well the trend is holding on, that´s right. That´s why i considered it to be a worldwide trend to decrease aircraft numbers with the newcoming generations.

But to follow your path and to have a look a Europe. How will european air forces provide air power in the next decades? Looking on Germany, my country, we will have 170 instead of 700 Warbirds compared to 1990. UAVs will be in use for ground surveillance. Combat drones? May be a few in 15 Years. Is this Airforce able for real big conflicts or just for somme expeditionary war? Same for several other europan states.

 

[Feanor]

And are they really separate militaries now, or just different national branches of a NATO warmachine?

 

[centurion13]

Attrition

The Battle of Britain where they were producing aircraft just about as fast as they lost them and when the limiting factor for reinforcing squadrons was the amount of time needed to train new pilots?

A very important point. You can always increase war production, at the cost of other government expenditure, but it still takes the same time to produce equally competent pilots. The future is with unmanned systems when it comes to wearing down the other guy.

 

[OPSSG]

Well the trend is holding on, that´s right. That´s why i considered it to be a worldwide trend to decrease aircraft numbers with the newcoming generations.

But to follow your path and to have a look a Europe. How will european air forces provide air power in the next decades? Looking on Germany, my country, we will have 170 instead of 700 Warbirds compared to 1990. UAVs will be in use for ground surveillance. Combat drones? May be a few in 15 Years. Is this Airforce able for real big conflicts or just for some expeditionary war? Same for several other europan states.

Isn't your perspective a little Euro-centric?

IMO, the planned decrease in combat aircraft numbers is dependent on the regional security situation. India, Pakistan, Vietnam and China are looking to increase their aircraft numbers. Japan, Israel, S. Korea, Saudi Arabia (and many of the GCC states), Australia, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore have no plans to reduce their air combat wing numbers. The peace dividend (which arrived for the Europeans at end of the Cold War) has not arrived in many parts of the world.

I've not listed Brazil (as I'm not sure about their plans) and Indonesia (as their plans to increase numbers do not tally with their resource allocation).

 

[B3LA]

Guys, the Next War has been a come-as-you-are-war for a very long time now.
There will be no time to develop new weapons or build more of what you
already have.


Na, just kidding : here's a nice video showing how fast you actually can build your
own SHornet ( It takes only 3 minutes and 39 seconds )

LiveLeak.com - Constructing A Super Hornet: "A time lapse of the construction of a Super Hornet"

 

[Onkel]

Isn't your perspective a little Euro-centric?

It was. That´s what Feanor told me and you are both right. If you take a look at the last post I changed my question a bit.

Feanor: Your Question may might be the answer. All together the european (Nato-) airforces still have a big punch. Allthough I ask myself, which birds will perform CAS in this future force. Italian AMX, the last surviving big tornados?

 

[Feanor]

The F-35 will do CAS.