Shrinking numbers of warplanes - effects on warfare

[kato]

Looking on Germany, my country, we will have 170 instead of 700 Warbirds compared to 1990.

In 1990?

1989 Bundeswehr holdings: 154 F-4F, 74 RF-4E, 309 Tornado, 169 Alpha Jet, ~45 F-104G
1989 NVA holdings: 24 MiG-29, 65 MiG-23(BN), 251 MiG-21, 54 Su-22, 52 L-39

That's a total of 1.197 aircraft. 751 Bundeswehr, 446 NVA. With about 750-800 of those still in service by 1993 btw.

 

[jimspolice]

Shrinking War Planes

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

I believe we have arrived to a new age of military tactics and ordinance. Drones have been affective in non-crew surveillance, and weaponry payload delivery by high-tech means, but we cannot reduce some war birds for their vital support to war needs, their massive bomb [ordinance] saturations , and capabilities, supply actions and major troop deployments yet.
In time, more research and using major high-tech means available, we can create pilotless aircraft that will reduce pilot and crew deaths by anti-aircraft fire [missile], yet deliver the necessary payloads for a successful mission.

 

[The Swordman]

future and budget

For what I can understand there will be two different scenarios; the first in the near future (5-10 years from now) where the air force will became a mix of drones and conventional birds with many update kits and transformation (think about the US AC-130 fleet as an example), the second some year later (10 to 15) with more drones with increased IA, used both for recon and air strikes.
Air-to-air fight is quite a task for a machine, that wil require more years of development.

Key factor for everything will remain budget as always. EU and US will cut it down in the next years, other countries will increase it to reach geopolitical balancement.

 

[Feanor]

The US is continuing budget increases every year, I don't know that the trend will be reversed.

 

[The Swordman]

Budget

The US is continuing budget increases every year, I don't know that the trend will be reversed.

That's true in absolute numbers, what I mean is the budget quota allocated for air force equipment. A number of programs have been axed recently by the Congress.
US debt is quite impressive right now and the current economical situation don't help.

 

[Feanor]

That's a question of distribution of funds. Do you have a source on the shift in funding away from the airforce?

 

[Todjaeger]

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).

I personally do not entire agree that regional/area security (or a lack thereof) correlates to changes in aircraft numbers, positive or negative. This viewpoint IMO overlooks changes in doctrine, technology and equipment which can have an impact on the effectiveness of an air force (i.e. force multipliers)

What might be something better to look at is the change in air power trends, instead of the numbers trends for combat aircraft. The US would be a good example to look at, as just in terms of straight numbers, AFAIK there are less combat aircraft available now (or in 1999) than in 1989 when the Cold War essentially ended. From a numbers perspective then, the US Air Force is weaker now, or was weaker in 1999, than it was in 1989. From an air power perspective though, the USAF is likely at one of the strongest points it has ever been, both in terms of raw capability as well as in over-matching potential opponents. These capabilities were demonstrated fairly clearly in the Balkans/Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia in 1999.

I would expect that in areas which are unstable, the nations are increasing their airpower by some combination of introducing force multipliers, additional combat aircraft, or both into their respective air forces. Subject to availability of funding of course...

-Cheers

 

[OPSSG]

I think we have some points of agreement and that both our posts are talking at cross purposes. I suspect that we have more in common in our analysis than is apparent.

Taken globally there is not denying that the US power is in elegant decline. And different countries will adopt different strategies to accommodate this change. However in air power terms, the USAF has no peer. In fact, the air power of the USN has no peer either.

I would expect that in areas which are unstable, the nations are increasing their airpower by some combination of introducing force multipliers, additional combat aircraft, or both into their respective air forces. Subject to availability of funding of course...

In some cases, for some countries, even as the total aircraft numbers (and number of squadrons) stay the same the introduction of new platforms and more capable force multipliers result in a significant gain in net usable air combat power. And that the obstacle to further growth in capabilities is not money alone.

I'll just give two illustrative examples. For small nations like Singapore, with a limited pilot talent pool, the greatest constraint is strangely not money (though it is a consideration). For a rogue state like Iran, their greatest constraint is access to technology - as very few countries are willing to be their supplier.

I personally do not entire agree that regional/area security (or a lack thereof) correlates to changes in aircraft numbers, positive or negative.

The India air force is an example where they are trying to increase both numbers and quality (in terms of force multipliers). They are in an action/reaction cycle with the developments in Pakistan and China.

The Indian approach is fundamentally different from that available to Japan and S. Korea. S. Korea is an example of a country that is significantly in force multipliers and in better platforms (and not by increasing numbers). I would comfortably group Australia and Singapore in this analytic category too.

What do you think?

This viewpoint IMO overlooks changes in doctrine, technology and equipment which can have an impact on the effectiveness of an air force (i.e. force multipliers)

The problem with our discussion thus far is that, we, as participants fail to identify the different strategies available to different air forces at different stages of development, which can lead to confusion in any analysis. Only when we overlay geo-politics with a discussion on air force capability maturity (and their access to technology) can we come to a meaningful understanding of current developments.

What might be something better to look at is the change in air power trends, instead of the numbers trends for combat aircraft.

For the purposes of analysis, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. However, please note that in my prior post, I was purely talking about numbers and that not all air forces were seeking to reduce their total numbers.

From a numbers perspective then, the US Air Force is weaker now, or was weaker in 1999, than it was in 1989.

Yes, numbers don't tell the whole story.

On occasion I may quibble with you over details. However, even as I do so, I still very much value your thoughts and appreciate the feedback.

 

[The Swordman]

funds divertion

That's a question of distribution of funds. Do you have a source on the shift in funding away from the airforce?

Try this link: Gates Proposes Big Shift in Pentagon Spending - TIME It's just one from the bunch, Mr. Gates have to do something about future budgets.

 

[Todjaeger]

Try this link: Gates Proposes Big Shift in Pentagon Spending - TIME It's just one from the bunch, Mr. Gates have to do something about future budgets.

Having taken a quick read through the article, it just seems to be discussing plans to axe a number of the big ticket US defence programmes that are over budget, behind schedule and/or irrelevant in current, near- and mid-term conflicts.

The cuts listed are to the F-22, FCS, CSAR, BMD and VXX. The only one which really has an impact upon air power is the cuts to the F-22. The real effect of this cut on US air power is questionable, since cuts to further numbers of the F-22 is in favour of the F-35 instead. Now the F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter, the F-35 is designed to perform essentially every other fighter/attack aircraft mission better than the F-22. Hence the actual decrease in US air power becomes questionable.

Additionally, the cuts listed (aside from the F-22) are all for future systems that are either behind schedule, not ready due to tech isues requiring further development, over budget, or some combination of the three. When these facts are coupled with some of their relevance to current and likely future combat situations, at some point a decision has to be made whether or not some of these programmes are worthwhile.

I personally have been arguing against much of the BMD R&D that has been done by the prior administration, which I felt was largely done for political grandstanding. IMO the real threat a ballistic missile represents is the ability to fire a WMD. This, coupled with the handful of nations capable of both firing a long-range ballistic missile and possessing WMDs mean that any BMD programme would be quickly overwhelmed unless there was massive number of properly functioning interceptor/kill systems availble (prohibitively expensive) and TMD would still hold true. If a rogue state, and/or a non-state actor wished to employ a WMD against the US, it would likely be far better, easier and less expensive to smuggle one in by land, air or sea, all of which a BMD system is ineffective against. This then calls into question whether much of the funding BMD has received is worthwhile or not.

A final thought with respect to the planned programme cuts. These programmes being cut are all 'problem' programmes, their being cut does not actually impact US military power since their cancellation does not reduce US power from its current level. The situation would be different if the proposal was something drastic like immediately retiring all F-15 variants in US service without a replacement. Rather, the funding which could or would be directed to these programmes will be directed into other areas (subject to Congressional approval) which might have more tangible benefits and/or function better.

-Cheers

 

[F-15 Eagle]

A final thought with respect to the planned programme cuts. These programmes being cut are all 'problem' programmes, their being cut does not actually impact US military power since their cancellation does not reduce US power from its current level. The situation would be different if the proposal was something drastic like immediately retiring all F-15 variants in US service without a replacement. Rather, the funding which could or would be directed to these programmes will be directed into other areas (subject to Congressional approval) which might have more tangible benefits and/or function better.

-Cheers

This is a good way of looking at it.

 

[zeven]

I belive the political climate is the primary factor for this.
But mulitirole platforms and datalinks acts like force muliplyers so the need for huge amounts are a thing for the past! you are now able to get the same result thanks to technology. (and thats what technology is all about), you have seen this in all areas, bombs for example now with laser/gps guided bombs one bomb can do the same jobb as 10 under the ww2

its great news! and i hope this trend continues!