F-16 Replacement

[Jobu]

Here's the first of a series of two articles (part 2 isn't out yet) by the former SECAF on this topic...

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=11959

[Fuchs]

Lt General Deptula’s depiction in that article is wildly off.

1) The F-22 and F-35 don't have the radar capability (especially not in LPI mode) to substitute for a lack of AEW support. In fact, most F-22s don't even have a proper datalink capability.
Four F-22s would need to almost constantly circle to provide sufficient radar coverage. Their main radar has at most about 110° coverage because of its primitive fixed installation.
F-22s in their preferred BVR air combat tactics would need to move back and forth quickly, not circle around. They could be surprised and engaged in deadly WVR combat without AEW support.

2) It has been acknowledged long ago that it's a myth that stealth bombers need no jammer support for penetration of well-defended regions (there's no EA in the single digit SAM defences 5th gen attack depiction).

3) It's ridiculous to claim that 4 F-35 can replace 8 F-16C in the strike component unless you assume that the F-16's use old munitions while the F-35's use new ones. F-16 has a vastly better payload capability. The assumption of different ammunitions is not legitimate for a platform copmparison.
Plus: The F-16 can employ many (heavy) munitions which a F-35 cannot transport (at least not internally - and external storage removes the low observability advantage, leading to greater support needs because of reduced survivability).

4) It's inappropriate to believe that 4 F-35 suffice for a "DEAD" (destruction of enemy air defences) mission. The mere suppression can already require more ammunition than F-35's can story internally (especially if we assume that they keep at least some air/air missiles!).
The destruction requires follow-on attack within line of sight and additional munitions.
Some background about why I don't buy the implied assumption of advanced ARM hyper-effectiveness:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....ions-hype.html
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....-emitters.html
I understand that (very) low observable aircraft need only a tiny opening in an AD network, but even they need it twice - infiltration and exfiltration. They can furthermore be channelled in their movements if they're only ment to slip through instead of fighting their way through - channelled in favour of surprise AD and interceptors.

5) Finally - F-35 and "EA" (electronic attack) is rather odd, for jamming means to give up low observability.


That graphic - and the whole article - is no honest presentation of a realistic assumption. It's political-economic marketing hype.