{"id":24632,"date":"2016-02-16T14:30:35","date_gmt":"2016-02-16T03:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=24632"},"modified":"2016-02-16T10:32:47","modified_gmt":"2016-02-15T23:32:47","slug":"after-the-f-35","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/after-the-f-35\/","title":{"rendered":"After the F-35"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n Despite<\/span> continuing challenges<\/span><\/a> with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) development, the<\/span> F-35 program<\/span><\/a> forms the core of Australia\u2019s future airpower. Australia remains<\/span> committed<\/span><\/a> to the JSF program, with the F-35A expected to reach initial operational capability sometime between financial year 2019\u201320 and 2022\u201323. The acquisition of the F-35A JSF, alongside the Super Hornets and the acquisition of 12 E\/A-18G<\/span> Growler<\/span><\/a> electronic attack aircraft, form the shape of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)\u2019s main \u2018strike\u2019 component of its future force structure through to the late 2040s or even early 2050s.<\/span><\/p>\n Yet 30 years is a long time in the development of modern airpower. The defence policy community should therefore be considering now how Australia can best <\/span>sustain<\/span><\/i> the military-technological advantage of planned future air combat capabilities, including the JSF, through their life of type. Advances in adversary C4ISR, air combat capabilities, and ground-based air defence technologies are certain to occur over the life time of those platforms in a manner that could erode their effectiveness, notably in anti-access area denial environments. Military technological advantage is always transitory and unless policy planning looks at capability development, the loss of that advantage will likely occur.<\/span><\/p>\n For example, a clear opportunity exists for Australia to forge closer involvement with the US over the development of a<\/span> sixth generation air combat capability<\/span><\/a>. US plans for the sixth generation fighter are<\/span> gathering pace<\/span><\/a>, even to the extent of promoting ideas for such aircraft during the recent<\/span> Super Bowl<\/span><\/a>! The US<\/span> Navy\u2019s F\/A-XX<\/span><\/a> could field a successor to the F\/A-18E\/F as early as 2035, while the US Air Force F-X project, known as \u2018<\/span>Next Generation Air Dominance\u2019<\/span><\/a>, may formally<\/span> begin as early as 2018<\/span><\/a> with the aim of replacing the F-22 by the 2030s. In another<\/span> perspective<\/span><\/a> on the future, unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) clearly have a role, perhaps controlled from a larger stealthy manned aircraft acting as a mothership. France and the UK continue their Dassault<\/span> Neuron<\/span><\/a> and BAE Systems<\/span> Taranis<\/span><\/a> demonstrator projects.<\/span><\/p>\n Conversely, the US Navy has opted to<\/span> convert<\/span><\/a> the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) platform into an airborne tanker and<\/span> extend<\/span><\/a> the life of the F\/A-18E\/F. Although a step back from an unmanned future,<\/span> the Carrier Based Aerial Refuelling System (CBARS)<\/span><\/a> capability could forge the path for more advanced platforms. \u00a0All those options are worth considering in any policy analysis on where to take ADF air combat capability in the 2030s and beyond.<\/span><\/p>\n The ADF\u2019s<\/span> 2012 Defence Capability Plan<\/span><\/a> refers to follow-on development for the F-35A through the life of type that could include block upgrades and technology refreshes through collaboration with the private and public sector. One<\/span> option<\/span><\/a> in that regard is that as the US moves to update the F-35A, as a key international partner in the JSF program Australia would be well placed to benefit from such efforts as part of a joint collaborative effort.<\/span><\/p>\n A more capable F-35 (an \u2018F-35E\u2019) may be an option in the future but so much investmentis going into the JSF program as it is currently configured, that any move to develop an \u2018E\u2019 is unlikely to occur soon, and updating an \u2018A\u2019 to an \u2018E\u2019 may be challenging in an engineering sense. If updating is possible, the focus of that process should be on software, sensors and weapons. The potential for powering cutting edge technologies such as directed-energy weapons and countering adversary \u2018counter-stealth\u2019 sensors; acquiring advanced standoff weapons; and enhancing the aircraft\u2019s networking and data fusion capabilities against adversary EW and cyber-attack is another likely requirement. But real advances in aerodynamic performance and manoeuvrability, speed, range and payload are likely not possible in the F-35 airframe.<\/span><\/p>\n Other potential partnerships might emerge to help Australia sustain a capability edge in its future air power requirements. Japan recently unveiled its<\/span> X-2 technology demonstrator<\/span><\/a> which will serve to test concepts and capabilities for a future Japanese<\/span> F-3<\/span><\/a> fifth generation fighter that could begin production by 2027. Although Japan\u2019s<\/span> past record of manufacture of fighter aircraft<\/span><\/a> has been spotty, there\u2019s much greater incentive now for Tokyo to get the F-3 right, given its highly challenging security environment\u2014a rising China challenging a US whose power is declining in relative terms, and the problem of an erratic North Korea\u2014as well as increased commercial competition with South Korea that\u2019s pursuing its own<\/span> \u2018KF-X\u2019<\/span><\/a> fighter project. Australia and Japan are pursuing closer defence relations, and if Japan wins the Competitive Evaluation Process for SEA 1000, that will<\/span> deepen<\/span><\/a> the strategic partnership between Tokyo and Canberra to an even greater degree. \u00a0If Tokyo can produce a viable product that meets Australia\u2019s requirements, there\u2019s no reason why Australia shouldn\u2019t also collaborate with Japan in other areas of military capability, such as air combat capabilities, which will integrate with US sensors, weapons and networks.<\/span><\/p>\n