Ares
A Defense Technology Blog
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest
Israel and the F-35
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 8/4/2010 12:46 PM CDT
Israel is going to buy a couple of squadrons worth of F-35s eventually, but the total number could be well short of what was originally planned.
With a cash-strapped defense budget, the possibility of buying more than two dozen of the stealthy strike aircraft has triggered a debate over cost and Israel’s continuing long-term reassessment of what constitutes victory and military success.
Advocates stress deterrent effect and conventional warfare. Detractors point to high cost and the likelihood that foreseeable conflicts will be fights against guerrillas, insurgents and terrorists.
Critics contend that the money, estimated at about $2.75 billion for the first 19 aircraft, could be better spent on upgrading conventional, non-stealthy aircraft with long-range, high-speed stealthy weapons and sensors with the range to support such attacks. The frugal faction believes that attack helicopters and intelligence gathering aircraft should be developed with a similar formula – existing airframes and advanced sensors.
“The [shrinking] force structure problem points us toward fewer, but more sophisticated platforms,” says Air Force Lt. Gen. Dani Halutz, former chief of the Israel Defense Force. “The F-35 fits this trend exactly. It will allow us to cope with a shrinking budget and force size. It also could permit development of an operationally useful combination of stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft. They could pave the way for conventional aircraft in extreme operational situations.
“We should be using single aircraft or two-ship formations instead of the standard four-ship,” Halutz says. “We have to think of ways to change some structural habits and traditions that will make better use of equipment because it is more costly, and we can’t afford to stay with the old concepts.”
The price tag of the F-35 is a major point of contention.
“The cost is huge and there are other needs,” says Army Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland who is a former head of the national security council of Israel and the current chairman of a committee investigating the flotilla incident off the coast of Gaza. “If we continue to use the very advanced [versions of the] F-16 and F-15 and upgrade some of the systems, we could save so much money that we could buy other important systems like ground-based missiles. And you can use more [air-launched] standoff weapons because they have extreme precision and a very long effective range. You don’t have to put all your effort into the aircraft.”
Some believe that national security trumps price.
“I think the nature of war is changing, so we have to adopt a more accurate, precision [strike] force concept and build up a more balanced force structure,” Halutz says. “I’ve seen a process in which the role of airpower changed from support of the land forces to a force with a major role in long-range operations.
“I think the F-35 is mandatory for the IAF,” Halutz says. “How many is another issue. What do advanced airplanes mean to the rest of the fleet? They pulls the rest of the fleet up by creating a new culture, doctrines and concepts of operations.”
Not everyone agrees.
Eiland points to the AH-64 as an example of old-think when compared to the product of a more flexible acquisition. The Apache is old, maintenance dependent and equipped with out dated equipment, he says and compares it to an MD-902 Explorer light utility helicopter which sells for about $5 million. The difference in long-cycle costs for the Explorer is about 10% of the aging Apache.
“You put on the most advanced EW system to protect it and the most advanced night vision systems,” the Army officer says. “The only advantage of the Apache is slightly longer range.”
Intelligence aircraft are in a similar category. About 30 years ago they cost $100 million, had crews of 30 or more and required a large four-engine transport airframe.
“Today you can buy the Beechcraft 350 or similar aircraft for about $6-7 million new or $2 million used,” Eiland says. “The platform is not important.”
The revolution in the effectiveness and size of intelligence systems – electro-optical, communications and signals intelligence and radar – allows “you to have a very sophisticated, integrated intelligence system on a very simple, small and cheap aircraft,” he says. “You can get 80% effectiveness for 10% of the cost of big, military specification aircraft.”
An attraction of the fifth-generation F-35, with its stealth and supercruise 
, is that each of them will be able to replace more than one fourth-generation aircraft. But those who have analyzed such needs, say there must not be too much force structure reduction.
“Even the most sophisticated machine can’t be two places at once, so there is still a need for critical mass,” Halutz says. “The trend is to squeeze the force size below the numbers you need to create the necessary impact on the battlefield.”
We should think about new combinations of multi-discipline units,” Halutz says. “I don’t think we're ready to combine stealthy, conventional, manned and unmanned aircraft yet because there are huge gaps in performance right now. But looking ahead 20-30 years, we can see different combinations. We have to think of new ways to integrate different element that offer operational planners more options.”
(maldade...brincadeira com os hermanos!) porque quando um novo demagogo aparecer por lá (e bem pode, já que descer de padrão é difícil e muitos se ressentem) se engraçar, vão tomar de novo... 
Porque os americanos vão fazer a mesma coisa de novo.