Turkish Defense Industries: Building Tactical Armed UAV | Full HD

Subscribe For More - MilitaryTiger

                    

SHARE this video on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+

○○○ Stay Tuned and Enjoy ○○○

UMTAS Missile Launch From Bayraktar TB2 | Part 1/2 Full HD 1080p

Subscribe For More - MilitaryTiger

                    

SHARE this video on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+

○○○ Stay Tuned and Enjoy ○○○

JF-17 Thunder Vertical Lift-off at Paris Air Show, 2015

Subscribe For More - MilitaryTiger

                    

SHARE this video on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+

○○○ Stay Tuned and Enjoy ○○○

Bangladesh Air Force Aero L-39ZA Jet Trainer And Light Attack Aircraft

Subscribe For More - MilitaryTiger

                    

SHARE this video on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+

○○○ Stay Tuned and Enjoy ○○○

Third Chengdu J-20 prototype flies

The third prototype of the Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter made its maiden flight successfully on Saturday 1st March. According to the witness report on Chinese social media, the J-20 prototype “2011″ took the sky at about 12:00 local time, escorted by a Chengdu J-10S two-seater fighter. The entire flight lasted about 30 minutes before the aircraft landed safely.

The “2011″ prototype was first spotted at the test airfield of the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAIC) preparing for its maiden flight in early 2014. A low-speed taxi test took place on 16 January, followed by a high-speed taxi test on 18 January.

J-20 prototype “2011″ in take-off during its maiden flight

The maiden flight of the first J-20 prototype “2001″ in January 2011 took the Western intelligence completely by surprise. A second prototype “2002″ then made its maiden flight in May 2012.

Compared with its two predecessors, the “2011″ prototype features a number of modifications in its aerodynamic design and systems, with the most notable being a chin-mounted electro-optical targeting system (EOTS). Other modifications include new air intakes, redesigned nose section, differently shaped leading-edge extension, redesigned frame-strengthened canopy, different gear bays, and slightly different forward canard and tail fin tips. In addition, the aircraft also wears a new light-grey colour radar-absorbing coating.

(Top) J-20 prototype “2001″ that first flew in January 2011; (Bottom) The new J-20 prototype “2011″

The latest flight test suggests that rather than serving as a technology demonstrator, the J-20 may be on its way to become the world’s third operational 5th-generation fighter, after the Boeing F-22A Raptor and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II. However, before this can happen Chengdu engineers will need to overcome a number of technical obstacles, such as the lack of indigenous turbofan jet engine and credible avionics.

You Have Come a Long Way, Navy

USS-Pennswylvania

Today is Flag Day.

The American Flag we honor today has not changed very much during the last 100 years.

The only changes that have been made to our flag have been ones needed to accommodate additional stars as our Union grew to the 50 states that today make up the United States of America.

Nothing has changed, however, in the ideals and values represented by our flag.

One of those ideals is “Liberty” — preserving freedom and national security.

To be able to do so during the past one hundred years, our military capabilities had to drastically change in order to keep up with those who might be a threat to us.

It would be difficult to describe in a short piece such as this one how our defense technologies and capabilities not only have kept pace with any threat but how we hopefully have achieved superiority over those who might do us harm.

I recently came across some photographs that, I believe, depict our tremendous advancements in this area in a short 101 years — better than a thousand words could do.

It is a set of photographs depicting how, in the words of some, “US Naval aviation was invented.”

The photos show a young pilot, 24-year-old Eugene B. Ely, on January 18, 1911, making the world’s first successful aircraft landing on a ship, the cruiser USS Pennsylvania, in San Francisco Bay.

To accommodate the landing, a temporary, 133-foot wooden landing strip had been built above the Pennsylvania’s afterdeck and gun turret.

On the morning of January 18, 1911, flying a Curtiss Model D “Pusher” biplane fitted with what has come to be known as a tail hook, a device designed to hopefully catch one or two of 22 rope lines on the Pennsylvania and quickly halt the aircraft; Eugene Ely spotted his target through the gray haze.

After some maneuvers, Ely headed straight for the ship, cut his engine when he was only 75 feet from the fantail, and allowed the wind to glide the aircraft onto the landing deck. At a speed of 40 mph Ely landed on the centerline of the Pennsylvania’s deck at 11:01 a.m. The hooks on the undercarriage caught the ropes exactly as planned, which brought the plane to a complete stop.

Landing on Pennsylvania

Ely had successfully demonstrated the possibility of the aircraft carrier and naval history had been made.

After interviews, ceremonies and dinner, the plane-landing platform was cleared, Ely’s airplane was turned around and Ely made a perfect take-off — albeit a little precarious-looking.

 

Taking-off Pennsylvania

Now, 101 years later, compare Ely’s biplane to our F/A-18A (I do realize I am comparing civilian apples to military oranges).

More important, compare the USS Pennsylvania and its improvised landing deck to, for example, the Nimitz class USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77), the newest of the 10 largest aircraft carriers in the world.

USS George H.W. Bush-CVN 771

These are those ships’ “characteristics”:

Propulsion: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts.

Length: 1,092 feet (332.85 meters).

Beam: 134 feet (40.84 meters); Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters).

Displacement: Approximately 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load.

Speed: 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour).

Crew: Ship’s Company: 3,000-3,200, air wing: 1,500, other: 500.

Armament: Multiple NATO Sea Sparrow, Phalanx CIWS, and 

Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) mounts.

Aircraft: Approximately 60+.

But those 60+ aircraft still use those tail hooks!

Sadly, Ely did not live to see his dream come true when in 1922 the US Navy commissioned its first aircraft carrier, the USS Langley. Ely had died 11 years earlier when he was thrown from his aircraft during a crash at an air show — just a few months after his historic flight.

Ely in his biplane

Photographs: Courtesy U.S. Navy

Prowlers of US Marine Corps are redeploy to Qatar

A squadron of US Marine Corps (USMC) EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft have been redeployed from Afghanistan to Qatar, the US Air Force’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing (379 AEW) announced on 21 February, reports Jane’s 

 

EA-6B Prowler takes off from Eielson AFB. Note the tint of the gold embedded in the canopy. The gold provides protection from electromagnetic interference and prevents some EM emissions

Marine Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 3 (VMAQ-3) ‘Moon Dogs’ arrived at Qatar’s Al-Udeid Air Base on 17 February. While the Moon Dogs will continue to fly sorties over Afghanistan, their main mission will be to “support any contingencies or operations which may need electronic attack” in Central Command’s (CENTCOM’s) area of responsibility, which covers the Middle East, Egypt and Central Asia, the 379 AEW said.

 

'FrankenProwler' during a pre-flight inspection at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq

One of the pilots was quoted as saying: “We are excited to be back at Al-Udeid Air Base and look forward to providing electronic attack for US and coalition forces in the area.”

The USMC’s ageing Prowlers have been used to jam the signals that insurgents use to trigger improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia may buy JF-17 Thunder Light Fighters manufactured by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex

According to a report of "The Nation" newspaper of Pakistan, Royal Saudi Arabian Air force may buy PAC made JF-17 Thunder fighters. The news is here:

WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia is reportedly considering purchasing the JF-17 Thunder fighter jet that was jointly produced by China and Pakistan. According to a report in World Tribune, the Saudi Arabian Defence Ministry and Royal Saudi Air Force are reviewing the JF-17 programme and considering becoming a partner in it. The report said that Pakistan had offered the JF-17 fighter to Saudi Arabia with technology transfer and co-production.

The offer apparently occurred when Saudi Arabian Deputy Defence Minister Prince Salman Bin Sultan visited Pakistan earlier this week. Prince Bin Sultan reportedly toured the JF-17 programme while in the country. The diplomat could not confirm the report, which World Tribune said was based on interviews with “officials,” without specifying any nationalities. World Tribune is a conservative US-based online newspaper focusing on exclusive and underreported international stories involving strategic affairs. 

If the report is accurate, this would represent a potential significant strategic shift from Saudi Arabia, which has traditionally relied on US and Western defence technology for its military needs. The Royal Saudi Air Force, for example, is largely organised around its massive fleet of Boeing F-15 Eagles, with a couple European fighters also thrown into the mix. As recently as September 2010, the US announced a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which included the sale of 84 new F-15s and upgrades on 70 of Saudi Arabia’s existing ones. It was the largest arms deal in US history. Pakistan, for its part, has long been trying to find countries to buy the JF-17 in order to reduce the per-unit cost the Pakistan Air Force pays for procuring the plane.

As The Diplomat reported back in October, the Pakistani Air Force expects to begin exporting the aircraft this year. A report that ran in multiple Pakistani newspapers at the time said: “The Pakistan Air Force has been assigned [a] target of exporting 5 to 7 JF-17 Thunder planes next year and discussions in this regard are under way with Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Qatar and other friendly countries.”

Yet China and Pakistan have long struggled to find customers for the JF-17, which China calls the FC-1. This hasn’t been for lack of trying, as the two countries have aggressively marketed the plane over the last few years. For example, a Flight Global article in 2010 said that China was in negotiations with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Venezuela, while Pakistan was in talks with Turkey and Egypt. Later, there were reports that Argentina and China were in talks about a co-production deal for the FC-1, while Indonesian Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro confirmed Pakistan had offered his country the JF-17, stating it was superior to the US F-16.

Meanwhile, Pakistan and Indonesia have signed defence, trade and industry agreements with Saudi Arabia; arrangements that highlight strengthening defence partnerships between predominantly Muslim nations, Jane’s Defence Weekly said. A defence accord between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia was signed in Islamabad on January 20th, while a similar agreement between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia was signed in Jakarta two days later.

JF-17 Thunder Fighter Jets Fitted with Fixed In-Flight Refuelling (IFR) Probe

JF-17 Thunder Fighter Jets Fitted with Fixed In-Flight Refuelling (IFR) Probe which will allow it to refuel in air from IL-78MP Midas MRTT (Air-to-Air Refuelling / Transport Aircraft ) of Pakistan Air Force.

LCA Tejas: An Indian Fighter – With Foreign Help

India’s Light Combat Aircraft program is meant to boost its aviation industry, but it must also solve a pressing military problem. The IAF’s fighter strength has been declining as the MiG-21s that form the bulk of its fleet are lost in crashes, or retired due to age and wear. Most of India’s other Cold War vintage aircraft face similar problems.

In response, some MiG-21s have been modernized to MiG-21 ‘Bison’ configuration, and other current fighter types are undergoing modernization programs of their own. The IAF’s hope is that they can maintain an adequate force until the multi-billion dollar 126+ plane MMRCA competition delivers replacements, and more SU-30MKIs arrive from HAL. Which still leaves India without an affordable fighter solution. MMRCA can replace some of India’s mid-range fighters, but what about the MiG-21s? The MiG-21 Bison program adds years of life to those airframes, but even so, they’re likely to be gone by 2020.

That’s why India’s own Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project is so important to the IAF’s future prospects. It’s also why India’s rigid domestic-only policies are gradually being relaxed, in order to field an operational and competitive aircraft. Even with that help, the program’s delays are a growing problem for the IAF. Meanwhile, the west’s near-abandonment of the global lightweight fighter market opens an opportunity, if India can seize it with a compelling and timely product.

A Glimpse of LCA Tejas (Some informative Views)

3D Modeling of Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA Fifth Generation Stealth Fighter Aircraft

B-2 stealth bombers conduct “extended deterrence” round trip mission from the U.S. to S. Korea

B-2 stealth bombers of the U.S. Air Force from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri have conducted a long-duration, round trip (training) mission to the Republic of Korea on Mar. 28.

The new “extended deterrence” mission is just the last “show of force” by the United States whose aim was to show its commitment and its capability to defend South Korea and allies in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

B-2-Russell-Hill

However, unlike previous sorties that were launched by B-52 Stratofortress bombers based at Guam (strategically located 1,800 miles (about 2,900 km) to the east of China), the last mission was conducted by stealth bombers assigned to 509th Bomb Wing that took off from the Continental U.S., flew for more than 6,500 miles to drop inert bombs on the Jik Do Range and returned home in a single, continuos mission like those flown during Allied Force in Serbia or Odyssey Dawn in Libya.

By the way, the B-2 is the only platform capable to deliver the Massive Ordnance Penetrator 30,000lb bomb.

Although the mission was tasked within Ex. Foal Eagle it represents a significant answer to the recent Pyongyang threats. On Mar. 26, 2013 North Korea announced it has ordered artillery and rocket units into “combat posture” to prepare to target US bases in Hawaii, Guam and the US mainland.

Iranian Mirage F1 Air-Superiority Fighter and Attack Aircraft

 Rare shots of the Iranian Mirage F1 Air-Superiority Fighter and Attack Aircraft.

Iran has managed to overhaul  Mirage F1 Air-Superiority Fighter and Attack Aircraft and these are based at the Shahid Nasser Habibi air base in Northeastern Iran.

Chengdu Aircraft Industry Developing More Advanced J-10C Fighter

The J-10B fighter jet — the upgrade version of China's J-10A fighter — recently entered service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force(PLAAF), while its designer Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group is already working on the more advanced version J-10C.

Equipped with an active electronically scanned array radar, the J-10B has the capability to take out Japan's F-15J fighters if an aerial confrontation were to occur over the disputed Diaoyutai islands (called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China) in the East China Sea. The fighter is also built with radar absorbent material and better diverterless supersonic inlet(DSI), while its stealth capability has also been increased compared to its predecessor, the J-10A.

J-10B Fighter Jet

China is the only nation in the world which has the ability to build its own diverterless supersonic inlet(DSI) other than the United States of America, the report said. With this technology, the J-10B is believed to be the best 4.5 generation fighter in the Asia-Pacific region. Its helmet-mounted display system designed for J-10B pilots reacts very fast and it is also very similar to the US-built F-16E/F Block 60 and French-built Rafale.

U.S. Weighs Options In Possible N. Korea Conflict

by JJ Sutherland

July 27, 2010 4:05 PM

 Deck crew members stand on the flight deck of the USS George Washington for joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea in South Korea's East Sea on Monday.  

Lee Jin-man/AFP/Getty Images

About 20 ships and submarines and the aircraft carrier USS George Washington are participating in joint U.S.-South Korea naval exercises that began Sunday. 

North Korea has promised "sacred war" in response to these maneuvers, taking place in the Sea of Japan, east of the Korean peninsula.

That kind of rhetoric is not new — the North used similar language after an international investigation blamed them for the sinking of a South Korean warship this spring. Still, the U.S. military must prepare for the worst. 

The man in charge of the U.S. fleet in the Pacific is Adm. Robert Willard. When North Korea threatened war earlier this year, he acted like he'd heard it all before. 

"The rhetoric from North Korea is not unusual. We're prepared for any contingency in this region. It's my responsibility that we are," Willard said. 

Now, with the latest naval exercises, there is a new standoff.

 U.S. Navy and South Korean ships sail in a 13-ship formation led by the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Tucson on Monday in the East Sea off the Korean peninsula. North Korea has promised "sacred war" in response to the naval exercises, which began on Sunday. U.S Navy via Getty Images

The U.S. military has a number of plans on the shelf, but John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, explains the two primary scenarios.

One is based on North Korea initiating an attack — the "major theater war plan," or OPLAN 5027. The second situation would be the collapse of North Korea. This second possibility, Pike says, "is no one's initiative — that's something that just happens." It's known as OPLAN 5029.

The First Scenario: War

War might begin with North Korea launching an artillery barrage against Seoul, South Korea's capital. 

Michael Green is with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. He says the U.S. and South Korea would have to respond quickly.

"There would be enormous pressure. In fact, I think the war plans would argue for immediately suppressing the North Korean artillery capability, if they fired at all," Green says.

One risk is that North Korea could launch chemical or biological weapons with that artillery. The North has thousands of guns at the demilitarized zone (DMZ) — many of them in hardened positions such as caves. A few hundred could reach Seoul.

Pike says the Americans and South Koreans have been aware of the artillery threat to Seoul for some time.

"They have counter-battery radars that would detect these guns firing, and counter-battery fire would probably destroy those guns before the first shells that they had fired had hit Seoul," Pike says.

Even so, the first round of fire would still hit the city of 10 million people, possibly killing thousands. 

Responses To The First Scenario

Destroying North Korea's artillery would be a U.S. Air Force and Navy fight. Precision-guided munitions would fall from warplanes. Warships stationed nearby would launch guided missiles. 

Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, says responding to a North Korean attack with artillery may not be adequate.

"[Y]ou have to say, 'Well, OK, if we've got to the point where we're dropping hundreds or thousands of bombs on them, and they are shelling Seoul with hundreds or thousands of rounds — is this thing really containable?' " O'Hanlon says.

And if it's not, then OPLAN 5027 offers options for what comes next.

O'Hanlon says one possibility in this scenario is taking the fight on the ground into North Korea.

"Do we move in and secure at least a certain swath of land north of the DMZ to push back the artillery more systematically, or do we actually make a quick strike for Pyongyang and try to get the North Korean leadership?" he asks.

Should it come to that, the U.S. would still be in command. But South Korea's army would likely take the lead, driving north across the DMZ, moving into the cities and trying to secure the surrender of individual North Korean commanders.

Despite the planning, most experts agree that the war scenario is unlikely. 

The Second Scenario: Collapse

Another plan exists for the second scenario, called OPLAN 5029 — regime collapse.

Pike, with GlobalSecurity.org, says this is the plan that the South Koreans have increasingly focused on.

"Over time, South Korea has concluded that an invasion from North Korea is improbable, but a collapse of North Korea may be inevitable. And then the question becomes: What do you do when North Korea falls apart?" Pike says.

O'Hanlon adds that a collapse scenario is "very complicated."

He and others note that in addition to everything planners must anticipate in the first scenario — the barrage on Seoul, for example, or how China would react — a North Korean collapse poses other challenges. That includes securing the nuclear weapons the North is believed to possess, says O'Hanlon.

"I tend to think that one of the most important priorities is going to be to establish, essentially, a cordon sanitaire around the country's perimeter, because you can't risk the nuclear weapons getting out," he says. "And what if some North Korean commander decides that he'll do a deal with al-Qaida?" 

O'Hanlon admits that situation is unlikely, but he says reality can be unanticipated. 

"We also have to acknowledge that the scenario can surprise us all. We don't get to choose the scenario. The enemy gets a vote, so to speak," O'Hanlon says. 

Even 60 years after the Korean War began, some things still can't be planned for.

 Source: www.npr.org

 

Indian Decision On MRCA Combat Aircraft Within Fortnight

The defence ministry (MoD) indicates a decision is imminent about whether the Air Force will buy the Typhoon or Rafale.

The review terms 2011 ‘The Decisive Year for the MMRCA,’ suggesting the winner of the contest to sell India 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft could be announced this fortnight.

In April, the MoD eliminated Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Mikoyan and Saab, leaving only Dassault’s Rafale and Eurofighter’s Typhoon in the fray. On November 4, the two commercial bids were opened. The IAF has given a comparative evaluation and the ball is now in the MoD’s court.

Once the winning bid is announced, the MoD will convene a ‘Contract Negotiation Committee’ to negotiate a final price. MoD sources indicate that price quoted by both vendors is significantly higher than the Rs 42,000 crore the Union Cabinet cleared for this purchase.

United Kingdom: F-35 or F-22?

As the unit procurement costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter progressively converge with the unit costs of the F-22A Raptor, and the F-35 becomes progressively less survivable as threats evolve, it is time for the UK to cut its losses, bail out of the JSF program, and opt for the F-22A instead. A US Air Force study published in 2000 identified Britain as one of three allies who could be supplied the F-22 without any risk of technology leakage (Author).

The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is designed to defeat threats that will have been superceded well before this aircraft enters operational service. The performance of the F-35 is suffering seriously from the conflicting design requirements that it was intended to meet. As a result, the F-35 is shaping up to be a technological failure, a delivery schedule and 'affordability' failure, and a techno-strategic failure. This will place Britain in the position of having to look at replacement options, which are extremely limited in view of developing threat capabilities. The question that must inevitably arise is: 'Should Britain Ask the United States for the F-22?'

Britain remains the largest single overseas partner in the F-35 program, and as this program unravels, Britain stands to lose much more than the other partner nations in a sunk investment not producing any direct return, and in political embarrassment. From a political perspective, America needs to start thinking about what alternatives it can offer the British as credible substitutes for the uncompetitive and technically troubled F-35. The F-16E, F/A-18E/F and F-15E/SG do not qualify as credible substitutes given the proliferation of high technology Russian designed Flanker fighters and double digit SAMs on the global stage. None of these types can survive in such an environment.

Britain’s intent to procure the expensive and underperforming F-35 for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy has produced intensive domestic criticism, some well informed and technically correct, some less so. What is clear however is that Britain does need new technology fighters to replace a range of increasingly less viable legacy aircraft, as well as the Royal Navy’s now retired Sea Harriers.

About a decade ago the F-22A Raptor was proposed as an alternative to the domestically built Eurofighter Typhoon. Britain’s influential aerospace industry lobby killed that proposal, rubbishing the F-22 with some very dubious DERA JOUST simulations, which claimed the “Typhoon was 81 percent as good as an F-22”. Forensic analysis showed this was nonsense, an assessment since then borne out by the operational experience of the US Air Force flying the F-22 against a range of conventional fighters.

Current planning for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy is to procure the F-35B STOVL JSF as a replacement for the RAF Harrier GR.7/9 fleet, the Jaguar GR.3, retired in 2007, and the Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA.2, retired in 2006. Cited numbers vary between 150 and 138 aircraft, although reports emerging from the UK late last year suggested a reduction to as few as 85 aircraft. This is a far cry from the euphoric speculation of early 2002, when senior RAF staff officers privately suggested to their Canberra colleagues that the RAF should be replacing its remaining Panavia Tornado GR.4s, Tornado F.3s, and earlier built Typhoons, with the F-35A JSF. Over the next two decades Britain will need to replace most if not all of its combat aircraft with credible new technology replacements. The only new fighter in the UK inventory is the Typhoon F.2, which is technologically comparable to currently built American F-15 and F/A-18E/F fighters. While more agile than these legacy US fighters, it is equally vulnerable to advanced SA-20/21/23 Surface to Air Missile systems, and new generation Su-35BM class Flanker variants. The new ramjet MBDA Meteor Air to Air Missile may eventually provide a credible capability against older Flanker variants, but will be matched over the next decade by the Russian ramjet Vympel RVV-AE-PD missile. The Typhoon has been justifiably criticised for program procurement costs which have been similar in magnitude to the vastly better F-22 Raptor.

 

The Royal Air Force will need replacements for the Tornado IDS (above) and Tornado ADV (below), capable of penetrating advanced air defences and defeating Su-35BM class fighters. The F-22A can perform both roles better than any other design planned or in service (RAF image).

  

The Typhoon F.2 is one of the most expensive fighters ever built, but lacks the stealth to penetrate modern SAM defences, and the persistence to compete with the latest Su-35BM class Flanker variants (MBDA image).

The F-35B is intended to replace the Harrier GR.9 (below) and already retired Sea Harrier FA.2 (above). With Britain's planned new carriers to be much larger than the Invincible class, and the ubiquity of modern Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems rendering dispersed basing almost irrelevant, there is not a compelling case for a STOVL aircraft to replace the Harrier variants (Royal Navy images).

Britain’s long term strategic needs have been the focus of much of the criticism directed at re-equipment plans for the UK fighter fleet. Sadly much of this criticism has been myopic, concentrated on short term considerations relating to Counter INsurgency Operations (COIN) in the Islamic world. In this respect Britain has suffered from the same nonsensical very short term argument seen in the United States, and Australia.

There is little doubt that over the long term Britain will need to provide some credible expeditionary capabilities to support coalition operations on the global stage. While another Falklands scenario is unlikely, given the loss of Britain’s overseas colonies, the need to intervene globally is unlikely to vanish. If future UK governments intend to contribute capabilities of any real use, they will need systems which are effective and survivable against the modern Russian high technology systems proliferating globally, and also interoperable with other coalition assets. Systems which soak up US forces as protective escorts to stay alive are more of a hindrance in a coalition campaign, than a contribution of value.

What should be of more concern to Britons are the increasingly toxic relationships between Putin’s Russia and the many former Soviet Republics, and former Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe. Putin’s confrontational and coercive foreign policy and military interventions along Russia’s exposed Western and South Western borders have fuelled mistrust and resentment in nations which were already largely resentful over Soviet era misdeeds. The expansion of NATO eastward has been a by-product of this progressive breakdown – not vice versa as is often claimed. Russians feel exposed without hundreds of kilometre deep buffer territories and this perceived vulnerability with its resulting fears will not disappear any time soon.

While Putin’s Russia will never be another Soviet Union, Russia is slowly recapitalising its Cold War era military with advanced systems, and will have a genuine capability to project coercive air power against European NATO nations. If any of the myriad ongoing disputes between Russia and its now NATO aligned neighbours degrade into shooting conflicts, the Russians will be able to drop smart bombs across much of Eastern Europe, unless the US Air Force deploys most if not all of its F-22 Raptors into European NATO airfields. Moreover, as Russia builds up numbers of the SA-21, it will be able to declare and effectively enforce permanent air exclusion zones up to 200 nautical miles outside its geographical borders – a Surface-to-Air-Missile-based buffer zone that would appeal to Russian fears of being subjected to attack by cruise missiles and conventional aircraft.

European NATO nations can look forward to the prospect of Moscow not only turning off the gas supply, but also exercising military muscle in NATO’s backyard. The expectation that the Americans will permanently commit their already overcommitted future F-22 fleet to cover for European military underinvestment is clearly asking a little too much and, at best, fanciful thinking.

It is worth observing that the character of developing Russian capabilities is very different from the Cold War era Soviet model. Rather than the vast numbers of mostly unsophisticated shorter ranging dumb bomb armed tactical fighters the Soviets deployed, Russia is emulating the US model of smaller numbers of highly sophisticated high technology long range aircraft armed with precision smart weapons. Large numbers of low performance fighters, including the F-35, are virtually useless against Russia’s new generation Su-34 and Su-35BM fighters.

While the broader issues of European NATO security are bigger than Britain’s needs alone, they underscore the realities of an uncertain future in a complex multipolar world.

Technological evolution and poorly thought out specification/definition of the F-35 design has seen to it that by the time the F-35 would deploy, assuming it survives its engineering, cost and schedule problems, the F-35 will be wholly uncompetitive against the new generation of Russian designed weapons. That margin will grow as Russian and Chinese weapons evolve over the next three decades, while the overweight, underpowered, over-packed and under-stealthed F-35’s built in design limits make it increasingly outmatched.

Whether Britain wishes to conduct expeditionary warfare in coalition or unilaterally, or participate in European NATO continental defence, its Eurofighter Typhoons and planned F-35 JSFs will likely be fodder for the latest Russian weapons, unless the opposing side is an undeveloped Third World nation. The prospect of Russian contractor (i.e. mercenary) aircrew, ground-crew and missileers being deployed to Third World nations with the available cash introduces uncertainties even in the latter circumstance. It has happened before.

The wisest strategy for the United Kingdom is to negotiate access to the F-22A Raptor and bail out of the F-35 program at the earliest. An even wiser strategy is to collaborate with the Americans on the development of a navalised F/A-22N Sea Raptor, to drive down costs for the US Navy, Marine Corps and Royal Navy. The uncompetitive Typhoon can be relegated to air defence of the British Isles, and F-22A and F/A-22N used for expeditionary warfare and NATO air defence commitments on the continent.

While much has been said and written about not exporting the F-22 to US allies, what is less well known is that two studies have been done to determine exportability of the F-22.

The first of these is the public unclassified geostrategic and political assessment performed by then LtCol Matthew Molloy, USAF, who produced a 98 page study while posted to the Maxwell AFB School of Advanced Air Power Studies of the Air University, in 1999-2000. This document identifies Australia, Britain and Canada as the three US allies who can be trusted without question to operate the F-22 and protect its technology.

Less well known is a more detailed and not publicly released study performed by the US Air Force during the same period, often known as the “anti-tamper study”, which looked at risks arising from downed aircraft scenarios. The study also assessed the risks arising in exporting the aircraft to close allies, specifically Australia, which was known to have a developing strategic need for the F-22. The study concluded that it was safe to supply the very same configuration of the F-22 flown by the US Air Force to Australia, as the risks of unwanted technology disclosure were no different to those expected for the US Air Force.

Considering both the Molloy study and the “anti-tamper” study, the notion that the Americans would not export some configuration of the F-22 to the United Kingdom is difficult to accept.

The problems, which the Britons must confront at a strategic level arising from Russia’s devolving relationships with its neighbours, and the ongoing demand for global intervention forces, are problems to a greater or lesser degree shared by other leading European NATO nations. The difficulties arising from involvement in the ill considered F-35 program are also shared by a number of other European NATO nations, as well as the United Kingdom.

The unavoidable strategic reality is the European NATO nations will need a credible capability to discourage adventurous future Russian behaviour in Eastern Europe, and to make a useful difference in expeditionary warfare. None of the indigenous European fighters, or the F-35, will be particularly useful in either kind of contingency. Two to three full strength Fighter Wings comprising 50 to 70 F-22 Raptors each would provide enough deterrent capability and sustainable / survivable firepower to address Europe’s needs for decades to come.

While the NATO AWACS fleet model of a shared resource would be a politically attractive way for Europe to deploy an export configuration of the F-22, it would present practical operational problems.

The United States needs to think long and hard about how to redress Europe’s worsening strategic weakness, as it has the potential to soak up disproportionate US military resources in any serious contingency. Exporting a variant of the F-22 rather than the uncompetitive F-35 would solve much of that problem.

With the long term future of the F-22 now the subject of intensive political, public and analytical community debate in America, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now showing the symptoms of an incipient technological “death spiral”, the time is right for the Obama Administration and H.M. Government to jointly explore the export of F-22 Raptor variants for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, as an “escape strategy” from the F-35 program.

There is a good precedent: when it became clear that the Nimrod AEW.3 could not be made to work in a reasonable timescale and cost, H.M. Government cut its losses, dumped the program and promptly acquired the top tier Boeing E-3D AWACS instead.

The basic strategic challenges both America and Britain face are much the same, whether we consider European NATO contingencies, or expeditionary warfare. The Alliance relationship is as close as it has ever been. All that is needed is the political courage and strategic foresight to make a break from the past, well intentioned but fundamentally flawed, choice of the F-35.