Seeking opinions on 5th generation maintainability versus 3rd and 4th generation fighter aircraft in a long term war.
A-4, Mig-29, F-5... (as examples)all seem to be more practical aircraft that would be maintainable in a (conventional or limited) sustained war between USA, China, Russia, North Korea.
I would argue that 5th Generation aircraft like F-35/22 are mechanically even more labor intensive than prior generations. Not to mention other highly complex systems (software, surface coatings and tolerances) that require constant labor to maintain. Many of these aircraft were promised to be 50% more maintainable than prior generations, which has proven not to be the reality in operational day to day use.
Their (5th Gen) usage would be intensive in the early stages of a war. But there is combat losses and attrition (maintenance and breakdowns) that would take severe toll on the availability of these highly specialized and expensive aircraft.
God forbid if there is another (WW2) type global war that would last years, but with political and regional tensions rising among these nations, war could be a real outcome at some point. Even a 3rd world war involving conventional and non conventional weapons.
Should 100-200 older technology aircraft (only talking about Fighter aircraft) be in reserve for such a scenario? Is it too difficult or practical to have a fallback force of older aircraft and cross trained pilots? F-22 pilots are training in older T-38s.
Would a Tx or Scorpion type aircraft (or other) less expensive, and less labor/maintenance intensive aircraft be another option to boost readiness levels in a long term war crisis where 5th generation fighter aircraft are depleted or non operational?
Any overall thoughts on long and protracted wars in which more expensive and sophisticated weapons are either totally impractical or depleted and simpler older systems are reliably operating? One example is the Syrian air force use of Mig-21s and 23s out of simple necessity.
A-4, Mig-29, F-5... (as examples)all seem to be more practical aircraft that would be maintainable in a (conventional or limited) sustained war between USA, China, Russia, North Korea.
I would argue that 5th Generation aircraft like F-35/22 are mechanically even more labor intensive than prior generations. Not to mention other highly complex systems (software, surface coatings and tolerances) that require constant labor to maintain. Many of these aircraft were promised to be 50% more maintainable than prior generations, which has proven not to be the reality in operational day to day use.
Their (5th Gen) usage would be intensive in the early stages of a war. But there is combat losses and attrition (maintenance and breakdowns) that would take severe toll on the availability of these highly specialized and expensive aircraft.
God forbid if there is another (WW2) type global war that would last years, but with political and regional tensions rising among these nations, war could be a real outcome at some point. Even a 3rd world war involving conventional and non conventional weapons.
Should 100-200 older technology aircraft (only talking about Fighter aircraft) be in reserve for such a scenario? Is it too difficult or practical to have a fallback force of older aircraft and cross trained pilots? F-22 pilots are training in older T-38s.
Would a Tx or Scorpion type aircraft (or other) less expensive, and less labor/maintenance intensive aircraft be another option to boost readiness levels in a long term war crisis where 5th generation fighter aircraft are depleted or non operational?
Any overall thoughts on long and protracted wars in which more expensive and sophisticated weapons are either totally impractical or depleted and simpler older systems are reliably operating? One example is the Syrian air force use of Mig-21s and 23s out of simple necessity.
