Interesting Articles of the Week

Author's Note: I aught to have more time to work on the blog since my midterms are almost over. In the meantime, I recommend you take a look at one or two of these if you have the time.

India Concerned About Fifth-Gen Fighter Work Share With Russia - By Jay Menon

"Indian government officials are expressing concern over the country’s work share in its Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) collaboration with Russia...India’s work share in FGFA research and development and other aspects of the multi-billion dollar project at the moment is only around 15%, even though New Delhi is bearing 50% of the cost. The total program is expected to cost India about 1.5 trillion rupees ($25 billion)." 

Special Ops Uniform Will Transform Commandos Into an Iron Man Army - By Allen McDuffee

"The Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit, or TALOS, will deliver 'superhuman strength with greater ballistic protection' by providing a powered exoskeleton to haul heavier equipment, liquid armor capable of stopping bullets, built-in computers and night vision, as well as the ability to monitor vital signs and apply wound-sealing foam. Put together, the capabilities would make the already elite Special Operation Forces nearly invincible in the field, says the Army."

China’s Arms Industry Makes Global Inroads  - Edward Wong and Nicola Clark 

"In the past, Chinese companies have been known mainly as suppliers of small arms, but that is changing quickly. From drones to frigates to fighter jets, the companies are aggressively pushing foreign sales of high-tech hardware, mostly in the developing world. Russian companies are feeling the greatest pressure, but American and other Western companies are also increasingly running into the Chinese."

The Navy’s newest warship is powered by Linux - Sean Gallagher

"When the USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) puts to sea later this year, it will be different from any other ship in the Navy's fleet in many ways. The $3.5 billon ship is designed for stealth, survivability, and firepower, and it's packed with advanced technology. And at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux, and over 6 million lines of software code."

Boeing and Raytheon Score $10.8B Weapons Sales to Saudis, UAE - By Chris Pocock

"The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) last week notified Congress of another massive sale to Gulf countries by American companies. Saudi Arabia is buying air-launched weapons worth $6.8 billion for its new F-15SA Strike Eagles; the UAE is buying air-launched weapons worth $4 billion for its F-16s."

Boeing, Lockheed Team on Long Range Strike Bomber - By Aaron Mehta

"Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the two largest defense companies in the world, are teaming up on the next-generation bomber...The team would combine Boeing’s bomber experience, including maintenance and upkeep, with Lockheed’s stealth experience. Even so, Northrop may still be in the lead position, given its experience with the stealthy B-2 Spirit and an early, aggressive campaign that included a three-story tall poster at this year’s Air Force Association conference in National Harbor, Md."

Can You See Me Now? - Code One, photo by Paul Kelly

"A US Air Force F-22 Raptor serves as a Red Force aircraft during a detect-to-engage training exercise over the guided-missile destroyer USS Preble (DDG-88) on 24 September 2013. Preble is on patrol with the USS George Washington (CVN-73) Carrier Strike Group in the US 7th Fleet area of responsibility supporting security and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. The Raptor pilot is assigned to the 27th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron and is currently deployed from Langley AFB, Virginia."

Unfortunately, Code One does not elaborate on any more details and I was unable to find much else on the training exercise in terms of specifics.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=76788 

Divergent Thinking: How Best to Employ Fighter Aircraft - The American Approach Part I

Image 1: F-35 with F-22

Author's note: Because viewers have expressed a desire not to be overwhelming with content all at once, this article will be broken into two parts. 

Introduction

Part II of the Divergent Thinking: How Best to Employ Fighter Aircraft series will examine the American model of fighter employment. As explained in part I, the fighter employment doctrine of any country is typically dictated by the following factors:

1. National security objectives: regional vs. global power projection, countering anti-access (A2) threats, etc.
2. Strengths and weakness of its defense industry - specialization, experience of aerospace firms, access to intellectual capital, etc. 
3. Constraints to military budget and existing support infrastructure for assets and personnel 

The purpose of this series of articles is to account for the divergent reasoning behind the employment of aircraft within different countries, specifically the United States and Russia. In particular, this article's goal is to explain why the United States opted for the mass deployment of the fifth generation F-35 over 4th generation alternatives.  As established in part one, any comparison between the F-35 and its probable competitors must account for other factors aside from performance based specifications. While performance based specification have a critical role in any evaluation, without understanding how the aircraft was intended to be used in conjunction with understanding the training of American pilots receive, one cannot draw meaningful conclusions regarding the potential combat effectiveness of the F-35.  The mass deployment of the F-35 is a procurement strategy that is best tailored to the specific the national security objectives of the United States given the constraints of its defense industry, and budget. As with the Russian model, It is difficult to understand the American method of fighter procurement and employment without first understanding the broader strategic challenges the United States will face over the next two to three decades.

National Security Objectives

The threats posed by rogue nation states and non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, will likely persist over the next two three decades (Clapper, 2013). However, the growing economic and military development within the People's Republic of China is beginning to take priority over the aforementioned threats in terms of dictating the overarching national security strategy for the United States. Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, China's military has sought to acquire a range of anti-access of capabilities to deny a foreign power, namely the United States, from intervening in a regional conflict. The following are all examples of anti-access weapons: short range ballistic missiles, long range cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, sea mines, diesel electric attack submarines, GPS jamming systems, and surface to air missile systems.

China's efforts to develop anti-access capabilities gained momentum after the third Taiwan Strait Crisis (1995-1996) and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo (1999). During the third Taiwan Strait Crisis, the United States sent two carrier strike groups into the Taiwanese strait in support of Taiwan. In Kosovo, the Chinese embassy was an unintended target of the US bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. In both of these events, the Chinese military concluded it lacked any viable options to respond to US military actions (Erickson, 2013). The current Chinese strategy of employing anti-access weaponry is largely the result of the Chinese military establishment's aim to produce a set of viable military options to the PRC leadership in the event of hostilities with the United States.

Image 2: The three main components of ASB's design. (Image Credit: Department of Defense, 2013)

As a result of China's growing anti-access capabilities, power projection into the Western Pacific is much more difficult for the US and its allies. In response to China's growing anti-access capabilities, the United States formed the Air-Sea Battle(ASB) operational concept. ASB is not a "war plan" in the event of hostilities with china, rather the ASB concept provides a framework that enables US forces to effectively operate even in highly contested anti-access environments, such as the Western Pacific. In effect, this enables the United States to maintain a credible military deterrent against nations employing extensive anti-access strategies and equipment. Mark Gunzinger and Chris Dougherty from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments provide a good summary of the US Air-Sea Battle concept:

"Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has enjoyed an unprecedented ability to project military power with few constraints to its freedom of action in all domains—air, sea, undersea, land, space, and cyberspace. Today, the diffusion of advanced military technologies to potential adversaries, particularly the proliferation of precision-guided munitions and nuclear weapons, combined with the adoption of novel concepts of operation, has enormous implications for America’s future ability to project power abroad.

Air-Sea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, a report released by CSBA in 2010, offered a diagnosis of the problem specific to the Western Pacific and proposed a candidate operational concept for projecting military forces to the region despite China’s possession of a robust A2/AD battle network. AirSea Battle recommended that a U.S. military operational concept designed to 'set the conditions at the operational level to sustain a stable, favorable conventional military balance throughout the Western Pacific' should account for the region’s specific geographic and geostrategic features, including the strengths and weaknesses of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the capabilities of America’s allies and partners." - Mark Gunzinger and Chris Dougherty, 2011

Image 3: US air bases in the Pacific (Image Credit: Washington Post)

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2010 report, an authoritative DOD review of US strategy, recommended the deployment of 10-11 theatre strike wings to the pacific (720-792 aircraft) alongside 6 dedicated air superiority wings (432 aircraft). The F-35 will comprise a substantial portion of these deployed aircraft over the next decade. Both the USAF and USMC will give the Pacific stationed units priority in the deployment of the F-35. Gen. Herbert J. "Hawk" Carlisle, commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), announced the F-35 will be stationed from four of the most important Pacific air bases: Misawa (J), Kadena (J), Kunsan (SK), and Osan (SK). Carlisle also indicated that the USAF sought to increase its presence in Australia with the addition of a rotational force of bombers, tankers, and fighter aircraft (Defense News, 2013). The presence of F-35 aircraft at these bases would significantly increase the US military's deterrent in the region. Numerous high value PLA military facilities are within the unrefuled combat radius of the F-35 from both Osan and Kunsan including targets within the Beijing and Shenyang military regions.

Unrefueled combat radius of F-35A = 593 nautical miles (nm) or 1,093 km
Kunsan to Beijing = 527.5 nm (976 km)
Osan to Beijing = 537 nm (994 km)

Budget & Strength's of Defense Industry

The national security concerns of the United States and the framework in which it employs its military, Air-Sea Battle, dictates how its financial resources and defense industry are best utilized to fulfill its needs. Despite the doom and gloom discussions regarding sequestration, American military spending currently accounts for nearly 40% of the global total at $682 billion dollars (Time, 2013). The entirety of funding provided to the USAF alone, $140 billion dollars in 2013, is larger than the official PLA budget for its entire military or more than twice as large as the current budget of Russia's military. As far as the constraints of military funding are concerned, the United States military is afforded an unparalleled level of flexibility in terms of procurement options. This level of procurement flexibility has tangibly altered how the US aerospace industry designs military aircraft. 

Rather than opting for a specialization in low-cost fighter aircraft with high production figures, the US defense industry has been able to invest more money into the individual aircraft while also producing the aircraft in large numbers as a consequence of the US military's considerable budget. While the current $103-$98 million dollar price for the F-35 is likely to significantly decrease as production rises, even the most optimistic projections do not indicate the unit production cost of the F-35 will be as inexpensive as current Russian 4.5 generation aircraft (Defense News, 2013). However, the large military budget of the United States enables it to procure the more expensive F-35 on a large scale despite the higher unit cost. As a consequence of this fact, the USAF plans to field a largely 5th generation fighter force over the next two decades unlike the Russian air force. The financial resources and intellectual capital required to design and produce stealth aircraft in significant quantities is a trait that is largely unique to the United States. In total, the US Military plans to procure 2,243 F-35 aircraft by 2037 for a cost $396 billion dollars (Selected Acquisition Report, 2012). 

Image 4: F-35 production line 

In many methods of evaluation, the US defense industry maintains a significant advantage over its Russian, Chinese, and European counterparts in the areas of stealth technology, avionics, sensors, and software. While this statement is likely to be initially perceived as a thoughtless expression of American nationalism, this assertion is both empirical and objective in nature. The current technological edge attributable to the higher level of funding available to research and development within the United States. Defense Department research in development (R&D) composes more than half of all publicly funded R&D spending in the United States or $70 billion dollars in 2013 (Sargent, 2013). Several historical examples exist that corroborate the impact of American R&D spending in regards to its technological advantage. The development of Actively Scanned Electronic Array (AESA) radars by the United States is a relevant case study: 

"The US DoD recognized the need for a better antenna technology more than two decades ago. A new technology, using the phased array concept but with a miniature transmitter and receiver in each antenna element, was seen to be the answer to the limitations of existing technologies. Known as active phased arrays or AESAs, these antennas became the holy grail in the radar community...The enabling technology for AESAs is the Gallium Arsenide Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuit (GaAs MMIC) or microwave circuit on a single chip. GaAs MMICs would permit the low cost mass production of AESAs, with high reliability and repeatability.  Gallium Arsenide is however a finicky material to make chips from and it took almost two decades for the fabrication technology to move from expensive botique manufacture to industrial strength mass production...At this time the US are leading the pack by a large margin in AESA technology, with the EU and Israelis trailing." - Kopp, 2012

Comparison of Russian Zhuk ME to US AESAs: 

"The first observation any Western radar engineer will make is that the Zhuk ME with 652 TR channels has between 50% and 70% of the TR channels of a comparably sized US radar, which is typically in the 900 to 1200 single TR channel module count class. This is a byproduct of the packaging technology available to Russian industry, which is a generation behind the US and EU in this area. That is no accident insofar as the US invested vast sums into the development of high density packaging techniques suitable for the thermally challenging environment of the AESA antenna." - Kopp, 2012

Image 5: Advances made in US transmit receiver module designs in the late 1980s

As a result of substantial early R&D investment into AESA radars, the United States currently maintains a significant lead over its major competitors. The first mass produced fighter deployed AESA radar by the United States, the Northrup Grumman AN/APG-77, entered service in 2003. In comparison, the first European mounted AESA, the Thales RBE2, entered service with French Rafales in 2013. The Russian Zhuk-AE will be the first operational Russian AESA with the deployment of the Mig-35 in 2016 ¹ No reputable source has confirmed the deployment of a Chinese fighter mounted AESA radar as of October 2013. 

Despite the recent Russian, European, Chinese, and Israeli advances in AESA technology, the United States will likely continue its advantage in radar technology as a result of its substantial advantage in R&D. The United States is already years ahead of its competitors in the next significant development in radar technology, Gallium nitride Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuits (Defense News, 2013). 

"GaN-based MMICs is unsurpassed — revolutionizing the design of radars by creating not only higher performance but also lower system cost. With over 5 W/mm of power density, GaN RF amplifiers can provide more than 5X the power per element of GaAs in the same footprint." - Raytheon, 2010

In summary, the resources allocated to US Defense R&D over time exceeds that of most nation's military spending in their entirety let alone foreign military R&D, it would be an unexpected result if the United States was not technologically ahead in these aforementioned technology areas. As part II will examine, The modern American fighter employment model favors low observability and heightened situational awareness over supermaneuverability. This philosophy is not only evident within the F-35 design but also within the F-15 silent eagle and Super Hornet Block III. These 4.5 generation designs feature improved avionics and a heavily reduced radar cross section but neither has been upgraded with supermaneuverability traits such as thrust vectoring engines in contrast with Russian 4.5 generation designs. As a result of the proficiency of US firms in the aforementioned technological areas, it is natural that the US military's current method of fighter employment attempts to capitalize on its technological advantage in the areas of stealth, avionics, sensors, and software through low observability and heightened situational awareness.

Divergent Thinking: How Best to Employ Fighter Aircraft - The American Approach Part II

Sources

1. http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of%2029jan10%201600.PDF
2. http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2012/01/outside-in-operating-from-range-to-defeat-irans-anti-access-and-area-denial-threats/
3. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42410.pdf
4. http://www.andrewerickson.com/2013/09/chinas-carrier-killer-was-born-in-the-balkans-the-df-21d-is-chinas-answer-to-americas-carriers-with-an-unusual-origin-in-the-kosovo-war/
5. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html
6. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/130312/clapper.pdf
7. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf
8. http://defensetech.org/2012/10/04/dassault-delivers-aesa-radar-equipped-euro-fighter/
9. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/10/rafale-bags-euro-aesa-bragging/
10. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-first-aesa-equipped-rafale-heads-for-squadron-service-387296/
11. http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology_today/2010_i2/gan.html
12. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-russia-unveils-aesa-radar-for-pak-fa-fighter-331563/
13. http://www.janes.com/article/26085/russia-delays-mig-35-buy-to-order-mig-29smt-instead
14. http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_SMT_e.htm
15. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29smt.htm
16. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-15s-looking-for-the-aesa-edge-04044/
17. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130929/DEFREG01/309290017/
18. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110228/DEFFEAT01/102280305/GaN-Revolution
19. http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/07/30/us-is-encircling-china-with-fighter-jets-and-stealth-bombers/
20. http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/29/china-will-soon-face-arc-of-us-f-35s-other-fighters-bombers/
21. http://csis.org/files/publication/130319_Murdock_Preparing2014QDR_Web.pdf
22. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41250.pdf
23. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-sees-f-35a-replacing-usaf-air-superiority-f-15cds-338045/
24. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

---

1 Despite the fact that the first Russian AESA was unveiled in 2008, Russia has yet to be physically install an AESA into operational Russian fighter squadrons as of 2013. Russia plans to deploy the 5th generation PAK FA in 2016 as well, although this estimate was judged by the author to be overly optimistic^↩

So Blogger Just Deleted 1/3 of The American Fighter Doctrine Article...

I was going to publish, "Divergent Thinking: How Best to Employ Fighter Aircraft - The American Approach" on Sunday but Blogger decided to not save my most recent edits which constituted about a third of the article. It will take me a much shorter period of time to reconstruct that content than it initially took to write it but I likely won't be able to publish anything until Monday as a result. This is probably going to accelerate my efforts to build my own website, blogger can be a real pain at times. Thank you for your continued patience. 

Japan's New Flat Top

Author's Note: The How Best to Employ Fighter aircraft Part II - the American Perspective, is 90% completed and will likely be published sometime after Wednesday. In the meantime, here are some of my quick thoughts on Japan's New Flat Top.  

As China continues to assert itself territoriality and expand its military, other regional powers will come together to curb the expansion of China's influence. While US and European defense budgets decline, non-China Asian defense budgets have risen at consistent rates in response to China; India and Japan's renewed effort to expand their naval capabilities should come as no surprise to Chinese observers.

The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) recently launched the largest Japanese warship since World War II, the 820 foot long 24,000 ton Izumo "helicopter destroyer". The response from China's collective media outlets was to characterize the deployment of the Izumo as evidence of Japan's "aggressively militaristic foreign policy".

(1) Helicopter Destroyer?

The Izumo is clearly distinct in to both appearance and functionality to what is widely accepted as a conventional destroyer design. Some observers assert the Izumo is a carrier rather than a destroyer but this assertion is also incorrect. By US Navy hull qualifications, the Izumo is actually a landing helicopter assault (LHA)/landing helicopter dock (LHD) class ship which is colloquially referred to an amphibious assault ship. Amphibious assault ships are typically much smaller than an aircraft carrier and serve a distinctly different role in the fleet. LHA/LHD ships are typically in the 20,000 ton range and accommodate helicopters, hundreds marines, a dozen or more amphibious landing vehicles (e.g. landing craft air cushion) and sometimes a few fixed winged aircraft while aircraft carriers often weigh in upwards of 40,000 tons and can host an entire carrier air wing. The primary mission of LHA/LHD vessel is amphibious warfare and anti-submarine warfare operations not the projection of extensive air power over vast distances.

“Chinese A2/AD abilities that have attracted attention are China’s increasing submarine fleet, the DF-21D [anti-ship ballistic missile], anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as China’s new Type 052D destroyers with enhanced air defense capabilities...To deal with the subs, Japan already has a lot of what it needs in place. Japan’s past emphasis on ASW and other capabilities for assuring the integrity of its maritime perimeter gives it a base from which it could easily recalibrate its [Navy] to help clear the way for the [US Navy] to insert itself into any conflict relating to Taiwan or Okinawa" - Corey Wallace, 2013

If I had to guess the reasoning for the term "helicopter destroyer", I'd say it has something to do with the fact that the Japanese military is constitutionally mandated to serve only in a self defense capacity with almost no offensive abilities. Under the direction of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the JMSDF has expanded its roles to include amphibious assault as the defense of disputed islands becomes a higher national priority. The justification for new amphibious assault ships is Japan needs to be able to retake or rapidly reinforce disputed Japanese territories. Even with the aforementioned justification, assault ships have historically served as offensive platforms so the name "helicopter destroyer" might be a way to dodge the offensive capabilities issue as conventional destroyers have already served in a defensive capacity in the JMSDF for decades.

(2) F-35B?

Some media outlets have stated the Izumo is a carrier and could someday host F-35B aircraft. At the moment, Japan has only ordered 42 conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A aircraft to replace its F-4 Phantom fleet. It is likely Japan will order more F-35A's in the near future for the F-XX program (~100 aircraft) but F-35B purchases are not as likely. Corey Wallace from the New Pacific Institute thoroughly examines why the Izumo design is poorly suited to accommodate the F-35B among other practical limitations that make the acquisition of the F-35B unlikely for Japan.

"Japan has not yet purchased the F-35B, committed to a purchase, [2] and may not be able to afford to.[3] Anyone who proposed as a policy option, and/or signed off on purchasing an 'aircraft carrier' (for $1.2 billion) like the Izumo for the specific purpose of it launching jump jets that may not materialize, would deserve some kind of award for idiocy given the uncertainty about whether Japan will in the next decade even have planes it could use on such a vessel...So, the Izumo has no ski-jump, no specialized landing pads, no angled flight-deck allowing for simultaneous launch and recovery missions, the SDF has no F-35Bs, and the Izumo is too small to accommodate more than a handful of F-35Bs anyway. As an 'offensive' aircraft carrier, it is a little weak."

The V-22 Osprey is more likely to serve on board the Izumo in the immediate future. Japan has already expressed interest in acquiring the V-22 Osprey and has practiced operating the V-22 from smaller Hyuga class helicopter destroyers with the USMC in operation Dawn Blitz of the coast of California earlier this year.

Sources

1. http://world.time.com/2013/08/08/japan-unveils-ithe-izumo-ts-largest-warship-since-wwii-amid-tensions-with-china/
2. http://www.defencetalk.com/details-of-new-japanese-helicopter-destroyer-27119/
3. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/lha-newcon.htm
4. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4
5. http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=10943
6. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/aircraft-carrier-ins-vikrant-raises-hackles-in-china/articleshow/21778741.cms
7. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/world/asia/india-aircraft-carrier/index.html
8. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2013/02/mil-130201-rianovosti01.htm
9. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-02-01/news/36684517_1_nikolayev-south-sea-trials-admiral-gorshkov
10. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ins-vikramaditya-may-hit-delay-cost-increases-03283/
11. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130808/DEFREG03/308080007
12. http://theaviationist.com/2011/10/26/libya-final-report/#.Ughp8pJwqSp
13. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-06/world/41104811_1_aircraft-carrier-senkaku-japan-and-china
14. http://thediplomat.com/the-naval-diplomat/2013/08/05/why-china-is-building-more-aircraft-carriers/
15. http://theaviationist.com/2011/12/28/year-2011-debrief/#.Ughp5pJwqSp
16. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/DEFREG02/306240023/US-Marine-Corps-Japanese-Forces-Storm-Ashore
17. http://jsw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=11000
18. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/
19. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130917/DEFREG03/309170019/Japan-Quietly-Builds-Limited-Counter-A2-AD-Capabilities

Interesting Articles of the Week

I'm working on the next installment of the How Best to Employ Fighter Aircraft series, The American Perspective. In the meantime, here are a few of the more interesting articles I've read over the past week, I'd recommend you give a few of them a quick look over if you have the time.

(1) ANALYSIS: Industry concerned about US Navy UCLASS requirements - By Dave Majumdar

"Concerns are being raised within industry about the new direction mandated by the Pentagon for the US Navy’s unmanned carrier-launched surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft programme.  The reason for the concern is because the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has fundamentally altered the requirements for the UCLASS from a long-range penetrating strike platform to something akin to a modestly stealthy carrier-based Predator."

At present, UCLASS would essentially be a somewhat stealthy predator drone that would be reserved for only nighttime operations when manned aircraft activity is considerably lower. UCLASS was originally intended to play a vital role in Air-Sea Battle alongside other carrier assets such as the F-35C and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The recent changes made to the UCLASS program are in part due to funding constraints imposed by sequestration and safety concerns stemming from operating large numbers of manned and unmanned aircraft from a carrier flight deck simultaneously. Despite the recent setback, a number of influential individuals are trying to restore the UCLASS program to its original aims. Congressman Mike McIntyre and Congressman J Randy Forbes  from the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces recently wrote a letter to the secretary of the Navy outlining their concerns over the recent UCLASS developments. Furthermore, MIT researchers are exploring how better to safely coordinate manned and unmanned assets on a carrier flight deck.

(2) China Says J-31 Fighter Will Compete With F-35 for Sales - By Zachary Keck

"Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong told the People’s Daily this week that the J-31 was never built with China’s military in mind, and it was highly unlikely that the PLA would ever operate J-31s off of its aircraft carriers. Instead, the J-31 was designed for export to China’s strategic partners and allies, particularly those that couldn’t purchase the F-35...With so little known about the J-31, it’s hard to gauge how credible China’s claims are that the J-31 is a low-cost alternative to the F-35. In a report in Defense News last August, shortly after the first few images of the plane surfaced, Project 2049 Institute’s Robert Cliff dismissed the notion that the J-31 would pose a serious threat to the F-35 in terms of overseas sales. 'India won’t buy it. Russia won’t buy it,' Cliff noted, adding: 'That pretty much leaves countries like Pakistan, Brazil, some Middle East countries, none of whom [the U.S. is] likely to sell the F-35 to anytime this decade or next.'"

The claim made by the People's Daily, "Experts predict that the J-31 will make rapid inroads in the international market in the future, and will undoubtedly steal the limelight from the F-35" is categorically false in every sense possible. As Cliff's argued, its likely that the J-31 will not hinder F-35 export sales. Arms sales are often heavily dependent upon political ties, which greatly favors the United States over all other arms exporters. China has very few regional allies aside from Pakistan and possibly the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Burma) and North Korea. In comparison, the United States has strong national security ties with a multitude of Asian, European, and Middle-Eastern governments. The importance of political ties to arms exports is substantiated by the fact that Chinese aerospace firms have yet to make major gains against competing against European, Russian and American firms in the global fighter aircraft market. The only exception is the sale of JF-17 aircraft to Pakistan, an allied or at least "friendly" country to China.

(3) Gunboat Diplomacy Prevails in Syria - By Galrahn, Information Dissemination blog

Many, including myself, believed the US Navy had an Ohio class nuclear submarine armed with conventional cruise missiles to support of American destroyers near Cyprus while the Obama Administration deliberated military action against Syria. Apparently that was not the case:

"...the prevailing assumption in open source was that the submarines has been operating off the coast of Syria.  Apparently not...Having a SSGN off Syria is, in my mind, the prerequisite for the American way of war when applied to the proposed Syrian military strike. Everyone assumed the SSGN was there. I wouldn't be surprised if even the Russians assumed the SSGN was there. What the picture at the top of this post tells us is that since the crew swap, USS Georgia (SSGN 729) has stayed in 5th Fleet, and has not at any time since the August 21 chemical attack been in the Mediterranean Sea. That means only two things, the President of the United States was bluffing on military strikes all along, and the decline of the US Navy is so astute right now the 6th Fleet is an empty shell and was never prepared for the war it was being asked to conduct."

(4) Six Planes Industry Wants DoD (and Other Militaries) to Buy - By Marcus Weisgerber

T-50 trainer

Even in the midst of sequestration, the USAF has high hopes for its T-X program. The current T-38 Talon trainers have been in service for half a century. The T-38 has proved to be an immensely valuable and versatile trainer and aggressor aircraft but its age is becoming apparent. Saab and Boeing will potentially offer the Gripen for the T-X program but they will face stiff competition from KAI & Lockheed Martin's T-50 trainer as well as BAE's Hawk trainer.

"In a time of constrained budgets, new military aircraft programs are rare. But that hasn't stopped defense industry design teams from coming up with new ideas for military aircraft. Below are six aircraft models that were on display this week at the annual Air Force Association convention in National Harbor, Md.

Some of the planes are candidates for the Air Force’s T-X program, an effort to replace the Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer (It’s the plane student pilots fly before getting in the cockpit of a fighter jet.) The Air Force has been unable to find money in its budget for the T-X program, despite it being a top priority for service brass."

(5) Special Report: Hezbollah gambles all in Syria - By Samia Nakhoul

The Iranian backed paramilitary terrorist organization, Hezbollah, is largely responsible for changing the momentum of the civil war in Assad's favor. However, the cost of maintaining Hezbollah's offensive is considerable to Iran especially given the crippling international sanctions. I'd wager the recent change of tone from the Iranian leadership regarding its nuclear program is partially due to the combination of the sanctions and the strain of supporting Assad under the aforementioned sanctions.

"The war is imposing huge costs on both Hezbollah and Iran, which is already under crippling international sanctions because of its nuclear ambitions.  A regional security official with access to current intelligence assessments put Hezbollah's annual income at between $800 million and $1 billion, with 70-90 percent coming from Iran, the amount partly depending on the price of oil."

If my assessment is correct, Drezner's Syria policy seems to be paying major dividends for the United States.

(6) USAF Eyes T-X, New JStars Projects - By Amy Butler

"Is there hope for a program's future if it is not in the sacred Top Three priorities of the U.S. Air Force—the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the KC-46 aerial refueler and the long-range bomber?...Aside from his Top Three, Welsh says he would like to start projects to replace the aging E-8C ground-surveillance and T-38 fast-jet trainer fleets. Industry is already prepared for both—with primes and subs pairing off to pursue these projects. But first, Congress must provide a funding profile that will support them, Welsh notes."  

Korea Rejects the Silent Eagle

Image 1: F-15K

South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has decided to restart the F-X III competition rather than accepting Boeing's F-15SE proposal. The decision of the DAPA to restart the F-X III program is likely the result of both the heavy lobbying efforts made by the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) leadership and by the less than satisfactory outcome of the competition overall. Essentially the F-15SE would have won by default had the process not been restarted as the Lockheed bid was over the $7.4 billion dollar limit and the EADS bid was faulted by the DAPA on technical unilateral contract changes.

If I may be frank for a moment, from the onset it was clear that the ROKAF was set on acquiring the F-35. Although the ROKAF and DAPA would certainly not admit to it, the addition of the Eurofighter and the F-15SE was only intended to serve as a means of lowering the F-35's price by increasing the competitiveness of the bid. This is not an uncommon tactic employed by governments in multi-billion dollar aircraft negotiations. Even the United States Government has used this tactic to its advantage, it was clear in the KC-X tanker program that the Airbus proposal would not be able to overcome Boeing's bid, nor was its admission into the program intended to. This technique can be effective but is often prone to backfire, especially when the procurement program is poorly managed.

The decision by the DAPA to restart the F-X III is attributable to the DAPA's own incompetence rather than the fault of any of the aerospace firms involved in the competition. The failure of the DAPA to succeed on its first attempt will leave it with few desirable options. Its certainly possible that both Boeing and EADS will protest the decision of the DAPA and not enter subsequent bids now that there is little doubt that the F-35 is the preferred option. This would leave a uncompetitive environment that would greatly benefit Lockheed Martin. Given the requests of the DAPA to raise the program's budget past $7.4 billion have failed, the most plausible alternative would be to purchase fewer aircraft. The delay will allow the South Korean Government to capitalize on the steady F-35 production cost reductions but even with these reductions, it is unlikely South Korea will be able to acquire the originally proposed 60 F-35's within the $7.4 billion dollar budget in the intimidate future.

To clarify, the F-35 is certainly the superior choice over the F-15SE given South Korea's unique security needs. The F-15SE would be able to sufficiently counter North Korean threats but its utility against China is much more limited. Furthermore, the F-35 will be heavily upgraded over the next two to three decades by virtue of its role in the USAF, USN, and USMC regardless of any foreign purchases. The F-15SE airframe is not guaranteed to receive the same level of capability/system growth via upgrades as the F-35 over the same period.

Sources

1. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-backs-down-from-f-15-silent-eagle-selection-report-390879/
2. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/09/24/15/0301000000AEN20130924005500315F.html
3. http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/09/24/south-korea-rejects-boeings-f-15se-fighter-will-restart-fx-iii/
4. http://defense-update.com/20130924_boeing-f-15se-fails-seouls-final-selection-of-next-fighter-jet.html
5. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-fx-multirole-fighter-buy-phase-2-the-race-is-on-02966/

Divergent Thinking: How Best to Employ Fighter Aircraft

Image 1: F-35B, Image Credit: Lockheed Martin 

An enormous disparity exists between vocal critics and staunch supporters of the F-35, some of it is attributable to how the two parties assess the aircraft. As Bill Sweetman explains, there are several different schools of thought with regards to how best to employ fighter aircraft and which capabilities are most important to securing air superiority. A key issue that is not present in discussions that either praise or criticize the F-35 is pilot training and the air combat doctrines of the nation deploying the aircraft.

Many of the most vocal critics of the F-35 such as David Axe and Karlo Kopp do not adequately take into account pilot training and fighter deployment doctrines which effect the overall combat performance of the F-35; these critics focus solely upon performance based metrics and specifications. A typical critique of the F-35 from David Axe:

"...the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better. In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF 'is a dog … overweight and underpowered,' according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C. And future enemy planes, designed strictly with air combat in mind, could prove even deadlier to the compromised JSF."

Both praise and condemnation of the F-35 are inherently limited in scope when the discussion is limited to only certain performance based metrics vs. other performance based metrics e.g. sustained radius turn ability vs. thrust to weight ratio. A lot of research exists in the area of comparing F-35 performance specifications with those of other advanced aircraft, including my own. While these performance based metric comparisons certainly have value, without understanding how the F-35 is meant to be used as part of a broader integrated combined arms approach, one simply is not able to draw substantive conclusions as to the potential combat effectiveness of the F-35 and other models of fighter aircraft in general. The level of training and combat doctrines of the pilots operating the aircraft is largely inseparable from the performance based capabilities of the aircraft in terms of dictating actual operational effectiveness of a fighter force.

As Sweetman notes, there are multiple contradictory views as to best employ fighter aircraft among the prominent global military powers. A country's solution to how to best employ fighter aircraft varies significantly from country to country but is largely dependent upon the following three factors:

1. Strengths and weakness of its defense industry - specialization, experience of aerospace firms, access to intellectual capital, etc. 
2. Constraints to military budget and existing support infrastructure for assets and personnel
3. National security objectives: regional vs. global power projection, countering anti-access threats, etc. 

This article will examine both the Russian and American solutions to maximize the effectiveness of their respective air forces given the variables listed above. From comparing these models, it becomes clear that each approach is uniquely tailored to the host country and calls to eliminate the JSF in favor of mass producing 4.5 generation aircraft, like the Russian model advocates, will be extremely detrimental to maintaining the technological and qualitative edge the USAF currently maintains over many of its competitors. A measure to replace the F-35 with existing 4.5 generation aircraft will not meet current American national security objectives, ignores the strengths and weakness of the American defense industry, and does not account for the robust pilot training programs and initiatives of the United States. Once pilot training, combat philosophies, and the broader combined arms approach is factored in, it becomes apparent that much of the criticism regarding the F-35 is unfounded.

The Russian Approach 

Image 2: The Su-30 is a typical example of modern Russian fighter technology and is currently fielded by 13 air forces worldwide.

It is difficult to understand the Russian approach to fighter deployment without first understanding Russia's broader strategic situation. Without going into too much detail, the Russian model of fighter employment is tailored to the unique strengths and the weaknesses of the Russian defense industry and its national security objectives.

“Russian military programs are driven largely by Moscow's perception that the United States and NATO are Russia's principal strategic challenges and greatest potential threat. Russia's nuclear forces support deterrence and enhance Moscow's geopolitical clout. Its still-significant conventional military capabilities, oriented toward Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Far East, are intended to defend Russia's influence in these regions and serve as a 'safety belt' from where Russian forces can stage a defense of Russian territory...Moscow's wariness of the potential for Western involvement on its periphery, concern   about conflicts and their escalation, and military disadvantages exacerbated by a drawn out crisis or conflict place a premium on quick and decisive action." - Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 2011

Since 2008, the Russian military has undergone a massive series of reforms in an effort to produce a smaller, more mobile and better trained fighter force (Clapper, 2011). These reforms have been accelerated under Vladimir Putin who raised Russian defense spending by 60% since to 2010 to a total of $66.3 billion dollars in 2013 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2013). Despite the recent increase in defense spending, there remains many key obstacles to implementing reform.

"Threats to the success of the State Armament Program include armaments orders that are mismatched to mission requirements; mismanagement, inefficiency, and technological backwardness in the defense industrial sector that causes failures in developing and delivering weapons; corruption; inflation in procurement prices; and the uncertainty of economic growth and sufficient budgets, as mentioned above. For instance, technological backwardness has stymied efforts to modernize command and control, according to many observers." - Jim Nichol, 2011

Image 3: Sukhoi PAK FA

The new gains in Russian military spending are parceled out between the competing services of its military. Even with the billions of dollars in PAK FA developmental assistance provided by India, the Russian Air Force cannot feasibly equip a pure 5th generation fighter force without sacrificing other key capabilities from the Russian Navy, Army, and strategic nuclear forces. The Russian Air Force's ambition to acquire 5th generation aircraft is met or exceeded by the ambitious procurement plans of the other armed services. The Russian Navy plans to restore much of its former maritime power with the addition of dozens of multibillion dollar nuclear attack submarines, destroyers, helicopter landing docks, etc. Investments pertaining to upgrading and maintain Russia's nuclear deterrent consumes a large portion of the defense budget e.g. RS-24 Yars ICBMs,  Borei-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines, RSM-56 Bulava missiles, etc. As a result of other service purchases, the Russian Air Force plans to acquire only 250 fifth generation PAK FA aircraft, the vast majority of its fighter force will be comprised of much cheaper 4.5 generation aircraft such as the Su-30SM, Su-35S, and Mig-35 for the next two decades (Markov and Hull, 2010).

The decision of the Russian Air Force to opt for a largely 4.5 generation fighter force is not the result of a lack of faith in stealth technology as some have argued. Rather, it is a combination of the traditional evolutionary/incremental approach to new technology procurement, which Russia favors over the revolutionary approach of Western militaries, and the aforementioned financial restrictions (Zahainov, 2000). Budgeting priorities are often an indicator of what technologies/capabilities militaries deem to be important.   Given the $10 billion dollars pledged to developing the PAK FA in conjunction with a number of other initiatives meant to develop "counter-stealth technologies" such as very high frequency (VHF) radars, improved IRST, and wing-mounted AESA radars (such as the Tikhomirov NIIP L-band radar) clearly indicates the Russian military takes stealth technology very seriously. However, as a result of the aforementioned financial restrictions, the Russian Air Force is limited to procuring mostly 4th generation fighter aircraft that maximize the combat effectiveness of their aircraft force given the cost, moderate to high level of technological sophistication, and moderate to poor quality of the Russian pilot training infrastructure.

The Russian aerospace industry specializes in producing low cost fighter aircraft in large numbers. The bulk of Russia's future fighter force is composed of 4.5 generation aircraft that cost between $35-$65 million dollars (Defense Industry Daily, 2013). The rough equivalent to Russian aircraft like the Su-35S within the US armed forces, the F/A-18E Super Hornet, costs the US Government $79.43 million dollars per unit (Department of Defense, 2012). The Russian Air Force takes full advantage of its aerospace industry's specialization in low cost aircraft and consequently fields a disproportionately large fighter force relative to its budget. The Russian military fields a total of 1,372 combat aircraft which is impressive since their budget is roughly one tenth of the US military which has 2,851 combat aircraft (Flightglobal, 2013). However, the aforementioned reform efforts have fallen short of their intended goals with regards to improving the quality of personnel within the air force.

Image 4: Su-34 production line

The current Russian model of fighter employment places an increased emphasis on procuring large numbers of fighter aircraft with the quality of each individual Russian pilot being comparatively less skilled than many Western air forces. One of the many indicators of pilot experience is the number of flight hours each pilot is allowed to fly each year. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the quality of Russian fighter pilot training suffered immensely and most pilots in training only received 40 to 50 hours of flight time before graduation (Lindberg, 2006).

"During 1992 - 1994 of the 234 students who graduated from the VVAUL [basic training] 130 had not flown at all after having reported to their assigned air force units (27). In addition, the average flying time per cadet during training had dropped to 40 - 50 flying hours, which facilitates only the elementary pilot skills (26)...The reduction of the personnel and other resources has affected heavily the students. In 1998, 693 officers left pilot schools before they learned to fly, due to the shortage of kerosene...The stress and nature of work, bad conditions in training bases, like living accomodations in Yeisk, employment in Marinovsky and problems with food virtually everywhere, and poor chances to career advancement mean that the morale among flying instructors giving basic pilot training and respect towards them has dropped very low." - Jarmo Lindberg, 2006

Russian fighter pilot training has improved since the late 1990s as a consequence of increased funding but current Russian fighter pilots still only fly 100 hours per year (Dronov, 2012). This is compared to American fighter pilots who must log over 100 hours in jet trainers prior to graduation and fly between 250-300 hours per year once in active service (Source 15, Source 17).

Image 5: The Su-35S shown above is a typical example of the Russian approach to fighter design. The aircraft can carry a maximum of 12 high performance R-77 radar guided air to air missiles, is equipped with a high power ESA radar & IRST, and delivers excellent maneuverability performance at a relatively low cost of $65 million dollars. 

In order to most effectively leverage the strengths of the Russian aerospace industry and minimize the shortcomings of its pilot training programs, most 4.5 generation Russian fighter aircraft have significant missile stores, powerful long range radar capabilities, IRST, electronic countermeasures, and excellent maneuverability. These capabilities maximize the effectiveness of a fighter force when the pilot training and support infrastructure of the nation operating fighter aircraft is less mature or comparatively weaker than many Western countries.

For example, a Su-35S is equipped with a powerful Tikhomirov NIIP IRBIS-E radar which has a maximum range of 400 km, it can track up to 30 targets, and engage eight targets simultaneously (Defense News, 2013). When coupled with a full load of a dozen 50 nautical mile range plus R-77 missiles, the Su-35S allows each comparatively less skilled Russian pilot to be disproportionately effective at long range missile exchanges when compared to more extensively trained Western pilots equipped with 4th generation aircraft. Even a skilled pilot in an aircraft equipped with electronic countermeasures (ECM) will have immense difficulty dodging a salvo of three to four missiles.

Image 6: Su-30 launching R-77 radar guided missile

"The Russian paradigm of BVR combat has its origins in the Cold War period, when  Soviet operational analysis indicated that the low kill probability of missile seekers and airframes, especially if degraded by countermeasures, would be a major impediment to success. By the 1970s the standard Soviet technique in a BVR missile launch was to salvo two rounds...why are Sukhoi Flanker variants equipped to carry between eight and twelve BVR missiles? The answer is a simple one - so they can fire  more than one three or four round  BVR missile salvo during the opening phases of an engagement. In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles. Even if we assume a mediocre per round kill probability of 30 percent, a four round salvo still exceeds a total kill probability of 75 percent." - Kopp, 2012

Image 7: PK aircraft probability vs missile salvo size; APA Image. To give a point of reference, the standard AIM-120 has a demonstrated probability kill (pk) of 46% meaning it would be similar to the 50% green curve on the graph above (RAND, 2008).

The combination of high maneuverability, IRST, and ECM gives the Russian pilot some degree of protection in evading radar guided missile shots from afar but life expectancy for the individual pilot is low in an engagement against an adversary launching large missile salvos (as illustrated on the graph above). Russian fighters that manage to reach visual range against an enemy force would rely upon their superior maneuverability to better position themselves for an IR missile shot or gun kill.

"Russian tacticians also foresee complex long-range engagements—but as Bogdan pointed out at Paris , they also see combats decaying into low-speed knife fights where super-maneuverability may decide who gets the first shot." - Bill Sweetman, 2013

However, this theory is hampered by the limitations of Russian pilot training and experience. Overall, the Russian approach is an intelligent solution to maximize the effectiveness of the Russian Air Force given the constraints of their aerospace industry, size of  their military budget, and their national security objectives. The Russian approach invests less into the training and fielding of each individual pilot and aircraft, but more pilots and more aircraft are capable of being fielded as a result on a lower budget.  In essence, the Russian fighter doctrine is still an attrition tactic designed to inflict the maximum number of enemy casualties given a large but comparatively less well trained fighting force.

The American approach will be examined next week in Part II

Sources 

1. Russia Plans 60% Increase in Defense Budget by 2013, Center for Strategic and International Studies - Oliver Bloom, 2013. http://csis.org/blog/russia-plans-60-increase-defense-budget-2013
2. Bomber Su-34 recognized non-combat, Alexei Mikhailov, Dmitry Balburov, 2012. http://izvestia.ru/news/541006
3. U.S. Defense Cuts Lead to First Drop in Global Arms Spending in 15 Years, Time - Vivienne Walt, 2013. http://world.time.com/2013/04/14/u-s-defense-cuts-leads-to-first-drop-in-global-arms-spending-in-15-years/#ixzz2QX1FOF3l
4. How does the F-16 perform against its adversaries in dogfight, David Centoti, 2012.  http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/#.UirsB8ZwqSo
5. The Russian Philosophy  of  Beyond Visual Range Air Combat, Karlo Kopp, 2013.  http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
6. RED FLAG: HOW THE RISE OF “REALISTIC TRAINING” AFTER VIETNAM CHANGED   THE AIR FORCE’S WAY OF WAR, 1975-1999, BRIAN DANIEL LASLIE, 2006.  http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/15506/BrianLaslie2013.pdf?sequence=1
7. Beyond Blue Four  The Past and Future Transformation of Red Flag, Maj Alexander Berger, 2005. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/sum05/berger.html
8. The F-22 Raptor: Program & Events, Defense Industry Daily, 2013. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/
9. Plymouth native emulates enemy in Air Force war games, Bryan Bender, 2013. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/02/23/air-force-retrains-pilots-confront-high-tech-enemy/8ZSwUe4IPREnLgDcxQqjRJ/story.html
10. Aggressor pilots: Paid to play the villain, Michael Hoffman, 2009. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20091213/NEWS/912130301/Aggressor-pilots-Paid-play-villain
11. 422ND JOINT TACTICS SQUADRON, U.S. Air Force Expeditionary Center, 2013. http://www.expeditionarycenter.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18262
12. F-35 Enters Operational Testing at Edwards and Nellis Air Force Bases, Defense Update, 2013. http://defense-update.com/20130318_edwards-afb-airmen-begin-f-35-operational-testing.html
13. First F-35A sporting 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron lettering and "OT" tail code, spotted at NAS Forth Worth JRB, David Centoti, 2012. http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/24/first-f-35a-sporting-31st-test-and-evaluation-squadron-lettering-and-ot-tail-code-spotted-at-nas-forth-worth-jrb/#.Ui02aMZwqSp
14. Russian Military Politics and Russia's 2010 Defense Doctrine, Stephen J. Blank, 2010. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1050.pdf
15. Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training, 2012. http://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/
16. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ruaf-3-4.htm
17. F-16 Fighting Falcon Service Life, Global Security, 2012. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-life.htm
18. F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane, David Axe, 2013. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
19. PROGRAM ACQUISITION   COSTS BY   WEAPON SYSTEM, Department of Defense, 2012. http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Weapons.pdf
20. Russia’s SU-35 Super-Flanker: Mystery Fighter No More, Defense Industry Daily, 2013. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/russias-su-35-mystery-fighter-no-more-04969/
21. MiG-29 Misery Continues, James Dunnigan, 2010.             http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/MiG-29-Misery-Continues-9-18-2010.asp
22. Russian Military Reform and Defense Policy, Jim Nichol, 2011. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42006.pdf
23. Russia Delays Opening Yeisk Carrier Training Facility, 2013.         http://osimint.com/2013/05/12/russia-delays-opening-yeisk-carrier-training-facility/
24. WORLD AIR FORCES 2013 - Flightglobal
25. China's New Jet, Radar Complicate US Posture, Wendell Minnick, 2013. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130706/DEFREG03/307060004/China-s-New-Jet-Radar-Complicate-US-Posture
26. Flanker Radars in Beyond Visual Range Air Combat, Karlo Kopp, 2013. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html
27. Statement for the Record on the   Worldwide Threat Assessment of the   U.S. Intelligence Community for the   House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, James Clapper, 2010. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA536770
28. Russian Air Force - Summary, Jim Nichol, 2011.                                               http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ruaf-sum.htm
29. Russian Air Force, Chapter 3 - CURRENT STATE OF THE RUSSIAN AIR FORCE, Jim Nichol, 2011. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ruaf-3-1.htm
30. Su-30, Federation of American Scientists, 2000.                                           http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm
31. COMPARISON OF EXPERT JUDGMENT  METHODS USED FOR MODERNIZATION DECISION: THE CASE OF MIG-29, Vassyl M. Zahainov, 2000.                     http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA380847
32. India to develop 25% of fifth generation fighter, Ajai Shukla, 2010.                           http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/india-to-develop-25-of-fifth-generation-fighter-110010600047_1.html
33. Assessing the Tikhomirov NIIP L-Band Active Electronically Steered Array, Karlo Kopp, 2013. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
34. Red Flag, Walter J. Boyne, 2000. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2000/November%202000/1100flag.aspx
35. RAND, Air Power Past Present and Future, 2009.