Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th September 2000 at 10:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: High/Low fighter concept, does it work?
The hi-lo concept works fine in theory- but in reality more often than not is forgotten. In theory, having a larger, more expensive and more specalized hi-end and a more numerous, cheaper and multi-role low end make a lot of sense. In practice, the reasons this breaks down are:
1. Resource constraints- as $$ become more scarce, everyone tries to get the most bang for buck- and the distinction between hi and lo end get blurred. For example, an AMRAAM equipped F-16 Block 50 and a R-77 equipped MiG-29SMT can hardly be considered lo-end in the air to air regime v/s a F-15 or Su-27. Conversely, though both the F-15 and Su-27 started as large, air superiority fighters, both have spawned twin seat air to ground variants- F-15E and Su-30.
2. Export requirements- especially for larger powers like the US or Russia, export requirements dictate that lo end platforms tend to end up being more and more capable. For example, a typical third world client may not be able to afford both hi and lo ends of the supplying country, and often ends up choosing a souped up variant of the lo end.
3. Adversary capabilities- in a war, the adversary will not be nice to one of your planes just because you consider it `lo-end’- so adversary capabilities often dictate a minimum floor on capabilities of your platforms.
Net, as a theoretical doctrine, it is fine. But sustained practical application has been rare.
I think a nation would be wise to keep this as a doctrine v/s just junking it because of the practical issues above:
1. State of the art advances typically will happen only when you aim for a clear hi-end. These innovations will over time diffuse to your lo-end, but a new hi-end will emerge. Case in point, the F-15 when it started was a clear hi-end v/s the F-16. Over time, the difference became blurred, but now you have the F-22 which is a clear new hi-end
2. It gives you flexibility in dealing with different threat environments
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 18th September 2000 at 08:23
For starters, the High/Low concept means a mix of larger, more expensive and more capable aircraft and smaller, cheaper and simpler ones, think F-15 and F-16 or SU-27 and MiG-29. I'll cut to the chase and say I personally think the concept is flawed as one of the aircraft programs always seems to end up "cannibalizing" the other due to politics or other causes. Look at the way the still fairly new F-14 was badly neglected once the U.S. Navy took delivery of the F/A-18, or how the F-16 almost equals and may eventually surpass it's much more costly stablemate in capability because of the much great developement attention it's recieved. I think a nation is better off choosing one platform and sticking to it rather than choosing two types with overlapping roles.