F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag I cannot think of anyone who has complained about the F-35 subsonic acceleration - but the transonic acceleration is a totally different matter, and one which lead lead to a key performance specification change (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-sig-381683/) (for the worst naturally). Since this was due to aerodynamic issues the above statement has to lead to everything else in the press release being taken with a pinch of salt.

The need to preemptively deny being a LM shill is also suspiciously defensive.

[a1bill]

glad rag: Ad hominem.

I hope you don't mind if I don't react in kind. I thought my reply was relevant, to agree and continue on from what was posted "Obviously, whoever was interviewing the pilot or editing the piece assumed correctly that said switcheroo would be trumpeted by halfwits as the final answer to the BFM story."

[ORAC]

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/1cJF01gmN3VemDpGgv36Jg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MTg3O3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3 PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt151121.gif

[Radix]

.............

[LowObservable]

Radix - the cockpit is so quiet and the system is so automated that a small amount of buffet is required to keep the pilot awake.

[Just This Once...]

Comfy and quiet is all relative to what you have flown before and the F-16 with an American helmet is pretty noisy, at least compared to the FJ I was used to.

Then again, if you want real comfort for long sorties you really have to have it as a design goal. To my knowledge there is only one 9G capable & agile FJ out there that you can actually get up out of your seat and go and stretch your legs.

:ok:

[FODPlod]

Obviously, whoever was interviewing the pilot or editing the piece assumed correctly that said switcheroo would be trumpeted by halfwits as the final answer to the BFM story.
Ad hominem
Spot on. There is no need to be so deprecatory in a civilised discussion.

[Two's in]

Well clearly George Osborne doesn't read PPRune...

"We are going to step up the aircraft carrier punch of the United Kingdom. We are going to make sure that when these aircraft carriers are available they are going to have planes that can fly from them in force," Osborne told BBC television.


UK to buy more F-35 jets, boost anti-terror budget - Osborne | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/22/uk-britain-defence-idUKKBN0TB0AF20151122)

[a1bill]

http://alert5.com/2015/11/23/britain-to-buy-138-f-35bs/
Britain has committed itself to buying 138 F-35Bs and 24 of these will be operating from the two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers by 2023.

[Not_a_boffin]

Let's wait and see the detail. All that says is that 617/809 should both be available for QE/PoW ops in eight years time, with a nominal 12 cabs apiece.

What is of higher importance is the ultimate planned size of the F35 force and Typhoon force combined. Extending typhoon T1 gets some way towards retaining FJ mass - it's what happens with the GR4 to F35 transition and the size of that force that matters.

Good news on MPA though!

[LowObservable]

My thoughts exactly, Mr Boffin.

Six more F-35 squadrons (beyond 809/607/OCU) plus a brace of Typhoon T1 squadrons, multi-role Aesa-equipped T2/T3s and Protectors, with the Anglo-French UCAV on the way, would be a formidable force, but I don't see it happening.

Of the final 90 F-35s, maybe some will replace the life-extended T1s in the late 2020s. But the real cash-down decision date on those is a decade away.

[KenV]

What was the last navy aircraft the USAF successfully campaigned again :confused:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3293/3305440387_47bc307292_m.jpg

Not trying to be punctilious, but USAF acquired and flew USN's A-7 well after they acquired and flew the F-4.

[MSOCS]

Today's announcement on SDSR 15 is, IMHO, the UK's firmest commitment to the F-35 since it joined SDD. 24 aircraft by 2023 is at the thinner end of the UK procurement wedge for this jet. It will be interesting to see how the buy profile is managed/tweaked following today's news.

[a1bill]

First it was the norgs on the last page singing the praise of the F-35 and now it's the dutch

Air International Vol.88 No.1 January 2015
“Being this well prepared, I experienced no surprises whatsoever during my first flight. I found it relatively easy to convert from the F-16 to the F-35. Because both are Lockheed Martin products, there are many similarities between the two types.

When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16. The power of the aircraft is really impressive.

The Generation II helmet is also phenomenal. It is very stable when moving your head and much more comfortable than the JHMCS [Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System] helmet we use in the F-16.”

Some will say it's a :mad: consiracy

[MSOCS]

a1bill, shhh! It doesn't fit the narrative mate so don't rock the boat and derail the intent of the thread.

[LowObservable]

Thin end of the wedge, MSOCS? What's your hypothesis as to when the remaining 90 of the UK JSFs get delivered, now that there is a solid commitment to keeping Typhoon to 2040? I'm guessing here that the first 48 come in by 2025 to form two carrier squadrons and an OCU. But does the RAF get six more FJ squadrons or do the remaining 90 slip well into the 2030s?

[Royalistflyer]

2017 HMS QE presumably in service but only with helicopters. 2025 first F-35s on board. There are still Harriers operating in some countries - why isn't the gap filled by buying some. It would get the ship up to speed on fixed wing operations surely. One would imagine at least some Harriers might be acquired quite fast.

[WhiteOvies]

RoyalistFlyer,

Please let it go, we are not going to spend any money on buying Harriers. There is absolutely no interest or requirement to do so. Rotary wing flying trials on QE will take place in 2017 with fixed wing trials in 2018. The deck crews are working up on USN CVNs and LHDs today and for the last few years; the engineers are already in the US working on the F-35 (the first UK engineers to get their hands on F-35 have been in the US since 2007); RN and RAF engineers and aircrew have been intimately involved with all of the F-35 sea trials that have taken place so far (even the F-35C ones).

There is a plan, it's working well and it doesn't involve Harriers, apart from the ones at the Royal Navy School of Flight Deck Operations taxiing around.

[alfred_the_great]

RoyalistFlyer,

Please let it go, we are not going to spend any money on buying Harriers. There is absolutely no interest or requirement to do so. Rotary wing flying trials on QE will take place in 2017 with fixed wing trials in 2018. The deck crews are working up on USN CVNs and LHDs today and for the last few years; the engineers are already in the US working on the F-35 (the first UK engineers to get their hands on F-35 have been in the US since 2007); RN and RAF engineers and aircrew have been intimately involved with all of the F-35 sea trials that have taken place so far (even the F-35C ones).

There is a plan, it's working well and it doesn't involve Harriers, apart from the ones at the Royal Navy School of Flight Deck Operations taxiing around.

You and your facts - stop it.

[MSOCS]

LO, who knows!

I could guess a squadron or two extra before 2030 and a few more before 2040. 138 across the life of the jet is quite a few squadrons (i.e. around 6 or 7)

It'll all come down to how the economy fairs, per usual.

[a1bill]

LO: But does the RAF get six more FJ squadrons or do the remaining 90 slip well into the 2030s?
My bet is the plan is aready in place. There will be a buy in 2023 for a 2026 delivery and every year after that. This will be announced in 2020. So there is 5-8 more years for the naysayers to keep this thread going.

Oh the joy :D

will the UK keep the Tornado's going?
when will the first Typhoon retire?
will there be a 3B Typhoon buy?
Will it be an all f-35b or there be a split F-35B and A fleet. OR will UK design and build a 6th gen fighter?

will UK sell off the 48 F-35b fleet and 2 ski jumps to Australia and build 3 real cat and trap carriers, to fly the UK gen 6 plane off of? Circle around guys, we are about to raise our glasses and sing a rousing rendition of Rule Britannia :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

What a strange set of questions. Before getting to that, not everyone here that takes an interest in F-35 and questions various aspects of it or its programme is a "naysayer" thank you very much.

As for future UK buy, you seem to know more than the UK Government does about it at the moment. Well done. The rest of us will have to wait a few years to see what the plan will be.

Tornado - no reason to change the current OSD. Why would you imagine there would be?

Typhoon - when F-35 is ready to replace OR at lifex OR when further spending cuts are announced. Future buy as planned already, excepting future pilotics.

F-35A - why would that change again?

Gen 6 - you might as well be asking about Gen 7.

Australia - can buy their own F-35s. Apart from anything else, why would they want to buy second hand, early frames with limited capability when all the procurement plans were based on LM glossy brochures and the capabilities proffered theriein?

Perhaps you need to take the sketchy SDSR outline plan for what it is. The detail will slowly fill in over the next few years on the equipment front. One of the main drivers to the future is not the hardware, but the manning - some things will have to go in order to man the new stuff - RAF and RN numbers are only going up by 700 and that's got to man a couple of big boats too!

[Torquelink]

2017 HMS QE presumably in service but only with helicopters. 2025 first F-35s on board. There are still Harriers operating in some countries - why isn't the gap filled by buying some. It would get the ship up to speed on fixed wing operations surely. One would imagine at least some Harriers might be acquired quite fast.

USMC F35B deployment on QE before 2020 inc exchange air/ground crew.

[Thelma Viaduct]

LO, who knows!

I could guess a squadron or two extra before 2030 and a few more before 2040. 138 across the life of the jet is quite a few squadrons (i.e. around 6 or 7)

It'll all come down to how the economy fairs, per usual.

Having £1.6 trillion in national debt (It doubled over the past 5 years) suggests to me that how the economy is doing is an irrelevance.

[pr00ne]

Pious Pilot,

Seeing as whom the majority of that debt is owed to I doubt it...

[glad rag]

OR will UK design and build a 6th gen fighter?
Ah the old generation "dodgeball" question again...

GQqkQKde_kU



btw is that you there A1??

[Thelma Viaduct]

Pious Pilot,

Seeing as whom the majority of that debt is owed to I doubt it...

The country can't afford the interest, let alone reduce the debt. They'll just borrow more of something that doesn't actually exist and buy with it things that do actually exist, rinse and repeat. The country is bankrupt, but can't fail as it owes too much.

[pr00ne]

Pious Pilot,

Yes it can, especially as a substantial amount is owed to itself...
UK is an extremely long way from being anywhere near bankrupt.

[Royalistflyer]

USMC aircraft aboard our carrier ...... and able to veto any order we try to give because they can simply say "our President doesn't want that" We have no control, we have no say, what's the point in our having the carrier? Can the Americans just tell us they want the ship in the Pacific and we have to meekly send it there? Who did our taxpayers build the ship for?

[pr00ne]

Royalistflyer,

What a juvenile almost hysterical post! Ever heard of NATO?

[Royalistflyer]

Yes I've heard of NATO - and I also know that some of our top politicians are privately asking whether NATO now serves any purpose. They are asking whether NATO will still exist by 2020. So what does NATO have to do with it? Supposedly the RN is to protect this country. If the UK exits the EU, then NATO will certainly be called into question. You might have noticed that since the USSR collapsed, NATO has not served in its original function - its operations have not been to protect its members - they have been far from its geographical area of interest. We in this country should be free to pick and choose whether we will be party to any overseas action. Such involvement should be in pursuit of our national interests and nothing else.

[pr00ne]

Royalist,

On the contrary, since Crimea and Ukraine I don't think that NATO has EVER been on more solid ground. If any politician is asking whether NATO serves any purpose then they have had their heads firmly buried in the sand for about a decade and a half.
A lot of NATO is not in the EU, I don't see what on earth difference it would make to our continuing NATO membership if there is a UK exit from the EU?

Oh, and "Such involvement should be in pursuit of our national interests and nothing else." Sounds SO like the 1930's appeasement rhetoric over Czechoslovakia.

[Lonewolf_50]

USMC aircraft aboard our carrier ...... and able to veto any order we try to give because they can simply say "our President doesn't want that" Nope. Such a deployment would come with a lengthy MOU that would cover a whole host of operational limits and RoE considerations. We had a similar issue to address when a few strike aircraft were based on UK soil, an MOU with which I am familiar but it's been a few years. There were some targets and places our US aircraft could not strike, and it was all spelled out in the MOU, as were PROCEDURES for sorting out gray area and edge cases. You see, we have a special relationship with our British friends and we have found out how to work together over the years.
We have no control, we have no say,
Wrong. See above.
Can the Americans just tell us they want the ship in the Pacific and we have to meekly send it there?
Nope
Who did our taxpayers build the ship for?
The UK. Hopefully, our two navies will work together as well or better in the future as we have done in the past.

This answer was provided in lieu of "YGBSM!"

[glad rag]

Indeed lonewolf. :D

[WhiteOvies]

The USMC Harriers always enjoyed their time embarked on the Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal. The fact they could drink on board helped :E

An MOU was always in place, even for exercises, so no drama, no fuss, all very normal.

The USMC fit very well alongside the RN and working closely with each other on F-35 as well as having RN pilots flying on USMC Harrier and USN Hornet squadrons only strengthens the ties.

I'll stop with the facts now....:cool:

[Royalistflyer]

I served during the 1960s at the height of the Cold War. I also know my history. The Americans - after British scientists during the War had handed over all their nuclear research and worked on the Manhattan Project - subsequently refused to share their atomic technology with us. British politicians of both parties agreed that we must develop our own atomic weapons and subsequently thermonuclear weapons. By this time the Americans agreed to supply us with some weapons the B2b, which we accepted, only to find that the design was defective and had to be replaced. This drove us to a policy of not relying on their technology.
Over the years, largely unknown now or forgotten there have been a number of such instances of unreliability in the Americans.
I'm sorry, but I am writing for our own people - not Americans - I don't care in the slightest what Americans here attempt to tell us - I have worked at sufficiently high a level in the past to know that I simply do not trust their word. We may indeed have a marvellous MOU agreement, but I'm afraid that I and some politicians I know doubt that its worth the paper. We have, in my view fallen yet again for something which we were taught the hard way decades ago not to fall for.
Ultimately we are the only people responsible for these islands. Way back at the beginning of the Cold War there was a paper issued by the Chiefs of Staff which pointed out that America's interests and ours were not always the same and that we must maintain absolute control. Does no one here remember the established procedures for supply of NATO allies from US nuclear weapons stocks held in US custody in Europe? Our British Army on the Rhine was supposed to have access to them. Well I knew the former British Commander of BAOR - Sir John Winthrop-Hackett and frankly that "access" was a joke from his point of view.
I am sure Americans here will loudly proclaim that I'm an old fogey harking back to the past. Well the past holds some very painful lessons about trusting the USA.

[Courtney Mil]

Royalist,

I feel your pain, but I think you might be getting this terribly out of proportion. Think of the thousands of UK/US MOUs are, and have been, in place and have served us both extremely well. Perhaps you've just been unlucky in your experiences, your words certainly don't reflect mine.

LoneWolf's words ring true to me.

Edit to add: To be more specific, either signatory to this agreement would be able to veto an unwelcome deployment. The ship won't go anywhere the UK doesn't wish it to, the jets won't operate anywhere the US doesn't what them to. Plus the obvious support issues.

[a1bill]

Norgs, Dutch and now UK again.

United Kingdom F-35B Testing | Code One Magazine (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=182)
The system is clearly impressing Beck, who is a former Tornado pilot. “I simply cannot explain to you how good this sensor suite is,” he said. “It is mind-blowing. We don't actually even need to carry a weapon, albeit we can. I can track targets, identify them all, after having turned [nose] cold [away from the targets], then datalink that information to my Typhoons. The Typhoon pilots can then carry their ordnance to bear against the targets.

“So, I’ve identified everything at distances that no one thought previously possible,” Beck continued. “I’ve shared that data with other assets. I can lead them all into the fight. We are very focused on getting value for money and we can do a lot more by blending our assets.

“This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR.4 can't just stroll into a double digit SAM MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone]. In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen,” added Beck.

Waterfall added: “The F-35 is providing the pilot with all the needed information; it is largely irrelevant where that information has come from because the aircraft is manipulating all of the sensors available and taking the best of those sensors, correlating the information and presenting it to the pilot.”

Beck noted: “We can never be explicit about the true capabilities of this jet, we've got to hold our cards close because otherwise people will try to reverse engineer it. This aircraft is so sophisticated that no pilot who has actually flown it says a bad thing about it. That tells you a lot about what this can do.”

[ORAC]

then datalink that information to my Typhoons. ] How? We've been through many times.

Repeating PR puff goes nowhere. Those chosen to fly a new aircraft have multiple reasons to be verbally supportive of it; including those obvious ones of supporting their countries choice and ensuring their continued participation and career. Equally, however, if they had any other view they wouldn't be put in front of the press for interview and comment by the PR team.

In fact can you produce any aircraft type where any member of the test team has been interviewed and been derogatory of their product?

[Tourist]

In fact can you produce any aircraft type where any member of the test team has been interviewed and been derogatory of their product?

No, but privately, people are less diplomatic. I've yet to find anybody closely associated who has anything but exceptional things to say about it, and that is very not the case normally with projects.

[Rhino power]

In addition to, ORAC's comment about the datalink, what about this quote?
The Tornado GR.4 can't just stroll into a double digit SAM MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone]. In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it.
So, the GR.4 (and I assume other similar era jets) can't (safely) fly in a 'double digit SAM MEZ', yet the if they're with the F-35, suddenly they become as invulnerable as the F-35, how? How does the F-35 create this 'wormhole'? Or am I misunderstanding the quote?

-RP

[Rhino power]

And if folks think some of the comments on the many preceding pages of this thread are eyebrow raising, have a look at this one, lifted from another forum where the 'discussion' had turned to the possibility of a split F-35A/B buy for the RAF/RN...
Maybe they can run B's without the tilt fan, clutch, and whatnot to considerably extend the range when not operated from a carrier. One common version, but when unnecessary don't carry the extra load.

-RP

[Bigpants]

How Russia?s S-400 makes the F-35 obsolete | Russia & India Report (http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/03/11/how_russias_s-400_makes_the_f-35_obsolete_41895)

Since the title is F35 cancelled then what, how about we buy a bunch of S400 missiles and finally make Duncan Sandys Paper come true?

Apparently Mr Putin has ordered these to be deployed in Syria, can't imagine what he would want to shoot down....

[Tourist]

Well, I for one am convinced. That was a well written and unbiased article.

[Kitbag]

Well, I for one am convinced. That was a well written and unbiased article.


This thread needs a sarcasm button ;)

[Bigpants]

Perhaps an Irony button as well?

[ORAC]

-fNvi6xG-5Y

[John Farley]

Some posters seem to forget that flying any Harriers ASAP from our QE class carriers will help shake down the ship and crew while they wait for their own jets.

[alfred_the_great]

Some posters seem to forget that flying any Harriers ASAP from our QE class carriers will help shake down the ship and crew while they wait for their own jets.


Sweet - sail for the first time and immediately embark jets. No problems whatsoever.

[Lonewolf_50]

I served during the 1960s at the height of the Cold War. I also know my history. The Americans - after British scientists during the War had handed over all their nuclear research and worked on the Manhattan Project - subsequently refused to share their atomic technology with us. British politicians of both parties agreed that we must develop our own atomic weapons and subsequently thermonuclear weapons. By this time the Americans agreed to supply us with some weapons the B2b, which we accepted, only to find that the design was defective and had to be replaced. This drove us to a policy of not relying on their technology. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and OBTW is fifty years ago. First of all, clue, is nuclear issues versus conventional issues.

If I had your crap for brains attitude, Royalistflyer, I'd have been shooting at Japanese when I was deployed there in the late 80s early 90's, because fifty years prior we were at war. I'd also have been shooting at Italians and Germans when I worked in NATO, because fifty years prior we were at war with them.

Fortunately for allied relations with those nations, I am not an idiot, and neither are the defense staffs of our two nations. As to putting up with fools on the British Defense staff, I'll let Admiral Ernest King have the last word on that. By the way, he's dead, and has nothing more to say about it.

Year is 2015. Catch up to the now.

[glad rag]

Just as a matter of interest, can the airframe clean the wings once the underwing stores are expended?

[LowObservable]

GR - The F-22 can drop its pylons with its tanks. I don't know whether the F-35 can release its weapon pylons, but there would be less reason to do so since underwing fuel is relatively unimportant. There's only so much value in "cleaning up" after carrying out an attack in non-VLO mode.

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/F-22-fuel-tanks-jettison.jpg

[John Farley]

Alfred

I don’t think I mentioned doing it when sailing for the first time and please be assured I quite realise the crew will have plenty of non-aviation matters to sort out for quite a few trips to put it mildly. However if (big if) PR needs arise then flying a USMC/Italian Navy/Spanish or Indian Navy Harrier to and from the deck would not be a problem. All that would be needed for safe operation would be a common r/t frequency and a bit of fire cover.

Indeed the first ship I ever flew from (the USN La Salle in May 1968) was at the time anchored in the bay at USN Norfolk. She had some sailors on board accepting the ship before it entered service and they were able to offer r/t and fire cover. The sortie started from a road in the base and was for the benefit of a bunch of Admirals watching from the flight deck of a nearby carrier so that they could see how easy it was to operate a jet from a ship’s helo platform – especially a jet designed to not need any yellow gear. Indeed I even shut it down for a while on the deck to emphasise that point plus it allowed a couple of my chaps to attach some external stores so that I could carry something during the subsequent post VTO smash about for the Admirals to watch.

Subsequently I flew from over a dozen different ships and learned something new each time – just as I imagine Harrier visitors to the QE would from such training sorties.

JF

[Royalistflyer]

Perhaps the question that we should be asking isn't if the F35 was cancelled - but rather have we at long last reached the Duncan Sandys point? Have we reached a point where the F35 (assuming it performs as the Americans claim it eventually will) cannot survive in a S400 dominated environment? If we have, then what? It might be useful against a few terrorists with manpads, but does it protect our home against attack?
Along that line of thinking have we just built two very large expensive targets for the latest supersonic anti-ship missiles? All that I see is that intercepting these two-speed missiles is questionable at this point. Anent that last point does anyone know if the two-speed missiles can vary the point at which they increase speed?

[Courtney Mil]

Absolutely. I am stunned at the lack of understanding that some display on here! Modern MRAAMs gain quantum leaps in performance with increased launch altitude, irrespective of the altitude of the target.


I've been trying to explain that for years here.

[Lonewolf_50]

Perhaps the question that we should be asking isn't if the F35 was cancelled - but rather have we at long last reached the Duncan Sandys point? Have we reached a point where the F35 (assuming it performs as the Americans claim it eventually will) cannot survive in a S400 dominated environment? If we have, then what? It might be useful against a few terrorists with manpads, but does it protect our home against attack?
Along that line of thinking have we just built two very large expensive targets for the latest supersonic anti-ship missiles? All that I see is that intercepting these two-speed missiles is questionable at this point. Anent that last point does anyone know if the two-speed missiles can vary the point at which they increase speed? This problem has been raised for as long as I've had an interest in military hardware: for all the money that you spend on these expensive munitions and systems, what does it do? (Back in the 60's and 70's a prime example was M-16 versus AK-47). See also the very expensive mounted knights versus Pike squares or the occasional collection of English Longbow. At some point, there is a counter to your best weapon. (Rock, paper, scissors, round and round we go).

The "carrier as floating target fir missiles" fear has been with us since the 70's. Funny old thing, Aegis and Phoenix were developed with that in mind, in part, and the carriers are still with us. (Should it be? Good question, depends on what you want your navy to do for you, and who will let you base your Air Force where ...)

I don't care who is buying the F-35, that thing's expensive as all get out, per copy, so like the Abrams Tank, the Carrier, or a knight in full plate armor, does its capability give you value for you money or are you just trying to look good with newer kit that has new features?

With the F-35, we don't know yet.

The program's late, and that alone has anyone interested in the program on edge. Like the B-2, it may arrive a generation too late for the fight that it was bought for.

[alfred_the_great]

Alfred

I don’t think I mentioned doing it when sailing for the first time and please be assured I quite realise the crew will have plenty of non-aviation matters to sort out for quite a few trips to put it mildly. However if (big if) PR needs arise then flying a USMC/Italian Navy/Spanish or Indian Navy Harrier to and from the deck would not be a problem. All that would be needed for safe operation would be a common r/t frequency and a bit of fire cover.

Indeed the first ship I ever flew from (the USN La Salle in May 1968) was at the time anchored in the bay at USN Norfolk. She had some sailors on board accepting the ship before it entered service and they were able to offer r/t and fire cover. The sortie started from a road in the base and was for the benefit of a bunch of Admirals watching from the flight deck of a nearby carrier so that they could see how easy it was to operate a jet from a ship’s helo platform – especially a jet designed to not need any yellow gear. Indeed I even shut it down for a while on the deck to emphasise that point plus it allowed a couple of my chaps to attach some external stores so that I could carry something during the subsequent post VTO smash about for the Admirals to watch.

Subsequently I flew from over a dozen different ships and learned something new each time – just as I imagine Harrier visitors to the QE would from such training sorties.

JF

Well, for a start, the Flight Safety regime that was in force in the 60s is very different to the one we have today. I'm not sure why we'd waste time and effort on establishing SHOLs for any version of Harrier before we established them for the F-35. Neither can you simply land on an aircraft without a fully worked up Ship, and Flight Deck crew - why would you start that process with a VSTOL aircraft that won't be the main user of the deck when you could use RW and then F-35? Might it be, and give me some latitude here, that the trials and testing programme that has been established might be a relatively efficient way of getting F-35 onto the deck in a reasonable time, and dicking around with that timeline would have disproportionate effect?

[glad rag]

Well, for a start, the Flight Safety regime that was in force in the 60s is very different to the one we have today. I'm not sure why we'd waste time and effort on establishing SHOLs for any version of Harrier before we established them for the F-35. Neither can you simply land on an aircraft without a fully worked up Ship, and Flight Deck crew - why would you start that process with a VSTOL aircraft that won't be the main user of the deck when you could use RW and then F-35? Might it be, and give me some latitude here, that the trials and testing programme that has been established might be a relatively efficient way of getting F-35 onto the deck in a reasonable time, and dicking around with that timeline would have disproportionate effect?

Just read what actually transpired during the USMC IOC and wonder!!

[Bevo]

No low signature ground attack fighter is going to penetrate a modern IADS without ECM support. This was the case during the Gulf war and the Bosnian conflict. Hence the need for airborne jamming assets.

[a1bill]

Yet as per O’Bryan's article, a requirement CONOP for the F-35 is to penetrate a modern IADS without offboard ECM support.

[Lonewolf_50]

Yet as per O’Bryan's article, a requirement CONOP for the F-35 is to penetrate a modern IADS without offboard ECM support.
Modern for what year?
2000?
2003?
2015?
What generation of IADS was that requirement written against?
How will someone running that test define "modern" to meet the requirement? :confused:

[LowObservable]

If that's the O'Bryan I think it is, then the Mandy Rice-Davies Principle applies.

As for what is written into the requirements: Did the intel assessments of the late 1990s, as reflected in the final Joint Operational Requirements Document, correctly anticipate the capabilities of the S-400 and Russian/Chinese multi-band radar systems, including VHF Aesas?

The answer to that question is classified but I would cheerfully bet anyone a bottle of Woodford Reserve that they didn't.

[a1bill]

Here is a bit of it. I guess you make up your own opinion of it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121125160518/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
Much speculation has swirled around the question of the F-35’s electronic warfare and electronic attack capabilities. The Air Force has resolutely refused to discuss any specifics. Yet experts have pointed out that, in its most recent EW/EA roadmap, USAF has failed to mention any plans for a dedicated jamming aircraft. It is a conspicuous omission.

O’Bryan certainly couldn’t go into the subject of the fighter’s EW/EA suite in any detail, or the way it might coordinate with specialized aircraft such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-8 JSTARS, or EA-18G Growler jammer aircraft.

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with "no support whatever" from these systems.

"I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get," O’Bryan acknowledged. "But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in. In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves."

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps "is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B" with no additional pods or internal systems.

Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: "Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?" Then he said, "There’s a capability here."

O’Bryan went on to say that the electronic warfare capability on the F-35A "is as good as, or better than, [that of the] fourth generation airplanes specifically built for that purpose." The F-35’s "sensitivity" and processing power—a great deal of it automated—coupled with the sensor fusion of internal and offboard systems, give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness as well as the ability to detect, locate, and target specific systems that need to be disrupted.

When it comes to electronic combat, the F-35A will make possible a new operational concept, O’Bryan said. The goal is not to simply suppress enemy air defenses. The goal will be to destroy them.

"I don’t want to destroy a double-digit SAM for a few hours," he said. "What we’d like to do is put a 2,000-pound bomb on the whole complex and never have to deal with that ... SAM for the rest of the conflict."

At present, that is difficult to do. Adversaries, O’Bryan pointed out, recognize that the basic American AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile has a light warhead able to do little more than damage an air defense array. Thus, they have adapted to the threat by deploying spare arrays with their mobile systems.

The hope is that the introduction of the new F-35 will put a stop to that practice.

The effect of the F-35’s stealth, EW/EA capabilities, and powers of automatic target recognition and location in all weather will offer conventional "deterrence" on an unprecedented scale, O’Bryan said.

The fighter’s version 3.0 automatic target recognition software won’t be able to distinguish one kind of battle tank from another. However it will be able to pluck out the mobile surface-to-air missile system from a forest of other kinds of vehicles.

Multiple fighters detecting and characterizing a site’s electronic emissions, coupled with a detailed synthetic aperture radar image, will lead a strike group to specific aimpoints. It goes without saying that all of this can be achieved while the fighters themselves remain undetected.

The F-35’s electronic attack capabilities, said O’Bryan, allow the fighter to penetrate into "places that other airplanes can’t go" and therefore "hold strategic targets at risk." These capabilities are unique to the F-35, he asserted.

[ORAC]

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps "is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B" with no additional pods or internal systems.

Maybe someone should tell the USMC....

UMC Concepts & Programs - Legacy Aircraft (https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/programs/aviation/legacy-aircraft)

EA-6B Prowler

EA-6B Prowlers remain an essential, combat-proven element of the MAGTF and joint force. The Prowlers’ primary mission is EW, which includes electronic attack (EA), electronic support (ES), and electronic protection (EP). Marine Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadrons (VMAQs) have completed the transition to the Improved Capabilities III (ICAP-III) weapon system............

We will execute a phased decommissioning of our four VMAQs between FY16 and FY19. VMAQ-1, which formally re-designated as VMAQT-1 in June 2013, has assumed EA-6B Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) responsibilities. VMAQT-1 will function as the EA-6B FRS until it decommissions at the end of FY16. The remaining squadrons will decommission at a rate of one per year until the Marine The EA-6B fleet is fully retired by the end of FY19: VMAQ-4 at the end of FY17, VMAQ-3 at the end of FY18, and VMAQ-2 at the end of FY19. No single platform will replace the EA-6B. Rather, EW capabilities for the MAGTF will be provided from numerous airborne and ground-based systems. The vision of MAGTF EW is a composite of manned and unmanned surface, air, and space-based assets, which are fully networking and collaborating to provide the MAGTF with the ability to control the EM spectrum.............

Marine Aviation Plan 2015 (https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/sites/default/files/files/2015%20Marine%20Aviation%20Plan.pdf)

See section 2.1.

............MAGTF EW– The Marine Corps’ comprehensive plan to address post-EA- 6B Prowler Electronic Warfare (EW) requirements is Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) EW. MAGTF EW leverages emerging technologies and integrates multiple aviation platforms (unmanned, fixed wing, and rotary wing assets); payloads; ground-based EW nodes; and cyber effects to provide commanders with an organic and persistent EW capability. MAGTF EW transitions the Marine Corps from a focus on low- density/high-demand (LD/HD) EW capability, to a distributed, platform- agnostic approach.

Any available digitally interoperable sensor can be connected with another to build a scalable, responsive, and cost-effective integrated system, delivering capabilities such as EW, cyber, and signals intelligence (SIGINT) on demand. This approach will also allow the Marine Corps, as a middleweight expeditionary force, to retain direct access to its capability investment throughout the operations as organic and inseparable features of the MAGTF. MAGTF EW will complement joint EW assets in support of ground forces and fifth-generation aircraft flying against sophisticated integrated air defense systems (IADS).

Cyberspace and Electronic Warfare Coordination Cell (CEWCC)– The CEWCC coordinates the integrated planning, execution, and assessment of cyberspace and EMS actions across the MAGTF’s operational environment in order to increase operational tempo and achieve military advantage. To perform this primary function, the CEWCC is placed within the MAGTF at the commander’s discretion, but should be established within the command element S-3/G-3 in order to ensure it can support all phases of the commander’s scheme of maneuver with Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations (EMSO) and Cyberspace Operations (CO), which can be complex, technical, highly classified, and potentially global in consequence. Wherever the CEWCC exists, it is responsible for coordinating across principal staff sections , major subordinate commands (MSCs)/major subordinate elements (MSEs); working groups, boards, and bureaus; and with higher headquarters to enhance the integration of cyberspace and EMS-dependent capabilities applicable to all warfighting functions and MAGTF objectives.

EW Services Architecture (EWSA)- An extensible data exchange and hardware protocol intended to connect EW/SIGINT airborne nodes to ground Operators, Cyberspace and EW Coordination Cells (CEWCCs), and other air EW nodes. EWSA will provide “on-demand EW fires” in operational conditions under C/EWCC control, and will unite Air EW, Ground EW and SIGINT via an adaptive network with multiple waveforms. Additionally, EWSA will also provide basic digital interoperability between air platforms.

ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger II (ITII)– IT-II is a platform agnostic, modular open system architecture payload that provides advanced AEA and ES capability to existing and dependable multirole platforms. Just as IT-II can be rapidly reprogrammed to counter evolving and emerging threats, the Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA) design allows for rapid integration on multiple platforms. IT-II (V) 1 currently deploys with AV-8Bs and F/A-18s. This year the IT-II (V) 3 will EOC with USMC light attack helicopters with follow –on IT-II (V) 2 for unmanned aircraft systems in development.

ITII details include: • EOC of Block ‘0’ pod to OEF conducted in 2012
• 116 pods for counter-communications and irregular warfare RF target sets
• Technology and capacity to field radar variant of Intrepid Tiger II
• MEU focus (AV-8B, F/A18, AH/UH series aircraft)
• Currently deployed V(1) on Fixed-Wing
• V(3) AH/UH series QRA of Block ‘1’ set for FY15
• UAS (future)

Nobody Asked Me.......Bur We Still Need the Prowler (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-01/nobody-asked-me-we-still-need-prowler)

[Just This Once...]

O’Bryan said F-35B can do what??

Did NGJ magic itself into the aircraft without anyone noticing or adding any weight?

Meanwhile in the real world the podded NGJ just got through PDR and should be on track for 2021, with IOC for low-band in 2022 and high-band in 2024. These dates are for the podded system for the Growler. Moving the technology on to F-35 will take a little longer.

None of this prevents F-35 doing clever things with its sense capability or using its radar in the frequencies & aspects it can cover, but this does not make it an EA-6B or a Growler.

[Lonewolf_50]

Maybe someone should tell the USMC....

Nobody Asked Me.......Bur We Still Need the Prowler (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-01/nobody-asked-me-we-still-need-prowler)
The U.S. Marine Corps has begun in earnest to divest itself of the EA-6B Prowler and the unique electronic warfare (EW) capabilities of the ICAP III aircraft. As currently planned, Fiscal Year 2016 will start
the dismantlement of the Marine Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron (VMAQ) community and phase-out of the EA6B aircraft that has since the mid-1970s served this nation and Marine Corps airborne EW requirements. Through 2019, one VMAQ squadron per year will be phased out. The Marines have to let it go because NAVAIR is replacing EA-6B with F-18G and does not want to have to support the legacy airframe, no matter how great a machine it was. I have been reading "Nobody Asked Me, But ... " columns in USNI Proceedings for about 35 years, on and off. Note that the author is ret LTC. The Prowler was great, and has in many cases been ridden hard and put away wet.

[Just This Once...]

Some of the dates have moved a little, but you get the idea:

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/DATA_NGJ_Timeline.gif

[GlobalNav]

Although we are not completely at peace, we are not in a full-fledged air battle right now - so the Pentagon bean counters and the powerpoint experts have the upper hand. Once things heat up in an environment where there are real anti-air threats to our fighters, strike and bomber aircraft, the light bulb will belatedly come on, once again, with the idea that an effective EW platform is a true force multiplier and necessary. True warriors and peacetime leadership have different DNA.

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

We covered the RCS and counters to F-35's LO around page 120 -quite a lot of interesting detail there. Might be worth a read before we do it all again.

[a1bill]

Page 120? The air power australia's kopp and goon.

I think their opinions were well covered by the RAAF back in 2012
House of Representatives Committees ? jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm)

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2db e833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0000%22)
Air Vice Marshal Osley : Mr Chairman and committee members, I am tabling a submission which I think broadly addresses the issues raised by Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd representatives when they spoke to you on 7 February this year. At that hearing the Air Power Australia and RepSim principals were critical of the air combat capabilities of the JSF as well as being critical of the cost estimates and delays in schedule of the program. In my opinion, as Program Manager New Air Combat Capability, I consider the representatives of both Air Power Australia and RepSim made some errors of fact about F35 capability and the status of the New Air Combat Capability program. Similar to the opportunity that was afforded to Air Power Australia, I would like to make this opening statement and then provide a brief Defence response to some of the specific Air Power Australia and RepSim claims, and then of course I am more than happy to take any questions. I am also aware that Lockheed-Martin's Mr Tom Burbadge, will be making an independent presentation to your committee next week.

On the JSF program in general, the restructure that has occurred in the program over 2010-2011, and the past 18 months in particular, known as the 'Technical Baseline Review', has resulted in some delay of milestones and in increased cost estimates. But it has also resulted in a step-change improvement in the project management of the JSF program. In particular, the system development and demonstration phase of the program remains fully funded. It was funded to $43 billion and the US has since added a further $7.4 billion from their own funds, so it is fully funded and will not be affected by the planned US delay of 179 aircraft over the next six years.

On 2 March 2012 this year at the international partners meeting in Washington DC, Vice Admiral David Venlet who is the Principal Executive Officer of the JSF Program Office, reiterated the US government's commitment to ensuring the F35 success and confirmed that the test program and remaining development program were fully resourced. He also reiterated strongly that the current technical issues are normal in a fighter development program and are known by the program, and all are in work and being mitigated. In recent weeks the US Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, has also reiterated the US commitment to continue to aim to buy 2,443 F35s for the US Military Services. All nine international partners remain committed—that is, the US, the UK, Canada, Turkey, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy and Australia. I will not go through the individual countries, but they have all as recently as yesterday at the JSF Executive Steering Board reconfirmed their commitment to the program and indicated how and when they are going to buy their aeroplanes. In addition Israel and Japan have committed to buy F35A through the Foreign Military Sales program with the US, a total of about 60 aircraft at this point in time.

I think some of you would have read about under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall's quick look report from November last year. It was an internal Department of Defense document that made an overall assessment of the suitability of the F35 to continue in low-rate initial production. The report identified 13 key risk areas, but it concluded there was no fundamental design risk sufficient to preclude further production. The report listed the risks, but it did not outline the steps that the JSF program office is going through to mitigate those risks. All of those risks are known by the program and are being worked on.

While the annual 2011 US Department of Defense operational test and evaluation report that was released in January this year said that the most difficult testing is still to come, the report did acknowledge that there had been good progress in flight testing to date, there was pleasing progress on the mission system testing, arguably the most challenging part of the F35 program, and they currently expect to have block 3 software through development testing by mid-2017. That potentially would support an Australian IOC as early as late 2018, should the government agree to that IOC when stage 2 is considered by government.

In response to Airpower Australia and RepSim's claims, I would like to hit on a few points. The first one is Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the AIR 6000 is a failed project. As explained in my submission, AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B (Stage 1), the first 14 aircraft, has not triggered any DMO criteria as a failed program. Its cost is currently within the cost envelope for stage 1 that was approved by government at the end of 2009. As far as capability goes, it still plans to meet the RAAF's planned initial operating capability requirements as advised to government at the end of 2009. The scheduled delivery of our first two aircraft in 2014 is still on track. Our first aircraft will start to be put together in the next few weeks.

Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.

The JSF program accomplishments to date, towards entering operational service, include that the F35 continues to be assessed to be able to penetrate a modern, integrated air defence system. When the classified capabilities are taken into account, we have had Australian pilots flying high-fidelity simulators and they have been very impressed with the combat capabilities of the aircraft. These pilots include fighter combat instructors from RAAF Base Williamtown and ex-commanding officers of fighter squadrons within Australia. The range of the F35A is about 30 per cent greater than the F18 legacy aircraft. The stealth is meeting planned requirements. The F35 coating technology is being retrofitted to the F22 because the coating is more effective and easier to maintain. The F35 has reached its maximum design speed of Mach 1.6 during testing in 2011 and it has been tested to 9G—in fact, a little bit more than 9G due to a slight overstress by the test pilot. On radar and sensors, the APG81 radar exceeded expectations in real-world exercises in Northern Edge in 2009 and 2011 where it was presented with a modern, hostile, electronic environment. The F35 has very good electronic attack and electronic defence capabilities. Weight has not been an issue in the program since 2005; for the F35A it is well within specification. Eighty per cent of full software capability is flying today. As far as flight tests go, in calendar year 2011 the F35 achieved 6,664 test points against 6,256 planned, so it exceeded it by about 400 points. The F35 does include a follow-on development program each two years of software and every four years a hardware update that is funded by the partner nations in accordance with the number of aeroplanes that they have.

RepSim Pty Ltd reps believe that they have an understanding of the F35 capability that is as good as or better than most, and that is the basis for them making some of their comments about their simulations and about the F35. I would like to say that the RepSim principals have never had access to the classified F35 air combat capability data that Defence has used to assess the capability of the aircraft in various scenarios. Without this access they cannot have a complete understanding of the F35 capability.

Air Power Australia and RepSim principals offer a summary of the Pacific Vision exercise conducted in 2008 where they assert that it proves the vulnerability of the F35. The war game in question was not focused on air combat capability analysis at the required classification and level of detail necessary to draw valid conclusions on the relative merits of the F35 in force-on-force applications. The Pacific Vision 2008 exercise was not intended to test air-to-air capabilities and the analysis done by Air Power Australia and RepSim at the time was not accepted as valid by either Rand, the USAF or the RAAF.

As I concluded in my submission, Defence maintains that the F35 is the right aircraft for Australia. The JSF program continues, however, to be closely monitored by Defence. It is a development program that does have considerable risk and we are aware of that. The Minister for Defence has clearly stated our commitment to acquiring 14 F35A aircraft and that the schedule for delivery of the next 12 is under consideration. The minister has explained that Defence will conduct an exhaustive review of the risks of the capability gap and will recommend options for government consideration later in 2012. The minister has further stated that any decision on the next tranche of F35 aircraft is unlikely to be a high priority for 2012. Thank you.

[glad rag]

Yes, but what is your opinion?

[a1bill]

My opinion is, I'm as clueless on the classified performance as most of the posters here.

However, just two pages ago, UK Beck said.
“This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR.4 can't just stroll into a double digit SAM MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone]. In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen,” added Beck. “We can never be explicit about the true capabilities of this jet, we've got to hold our cards close because otherwise people will try to reverse engineer it. This aircraft is so sophisticated that no pilot who has actually flown it says a bad thing about it. That tells you a lot about what this can do.”

[Courtney Mil]

No, a1bill, I'm talking about the numerous posts around 120 contributed by other members here. You might remember the discussion.

[a1bill]

I thought you were referring to your posts quoting air power australia as a source. Re other posters, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[glad rag]

In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it.

http://img09.deviantart.net/f1ff/i/2012/180/a/7/stargate_sgc_wallpaper_2_by_yautja_steve-d55awmb.png

[ORAC]

Wormholes seem logical. The programme is a blackhole financially, and they are where wormholes come from..... :E:E

[glad rag]

Wormholes seem logical. The programme is a blackhole financially, and there where wormholes come from..... :E:E

http://static.thefrisky.com/uploads/2013/04/03/spock-dating5-600x450.jpg


:E

[LowObservable]

That reminds me of Team F-35's testimony to the Australian parliament in 2012.

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001%22)

Gary Liberson, Technical Lead Operations Analysis, Strategic Studies Group, Lockheed Martin, said:

"Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six-to-one relative loss exchange ratio... in four-versus-eight engagement scenarios—four blue F-35s versus eight advanced Red threats in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe.

"And it is very important to note that our constructive simulations that Mr Burbage talks about, without the pilot in the loop, are the lowest number that we talk about—the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better."

All righty then.

Now, can someone explain why - if the F-35 gets better than 6:1 CLER over advanced Red threats, when outnumbered two-to-one - the boss of ACC is bemoaning the truncation of F-22 production.

[Courtney Mil]

Hi, LO.

LER takes us back to early 2013; didn't we shoot that down around about page 37? The first man-in-the-loop trial was 1999, maybe 2000. If Gary Liberson would care to list the modelling assumptions used to get 6:1, I would be more likely to start taking him seriously.

[LowObservable]

True. But it seems that ACC has finally woken up to the fact that the early TAC BRAWLER simulations cited by Liberman (and others) may not be definitive. Which may have been the reason that the F-35-vs-F-16 report was leaked.

[a1bill]

from LO's link
ACTING CHAIR: Yes, and you can take that on notice. In terms of simulations and so on there was a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology called 'Raptor's edge', written by David Fulghum. It said the operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su27 and MiG29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30:1 for the F22, 3:1 for the F35 and 1:1 or less for the F15, FA18 and F16. Is that Lockheed Martin's view? It says here that that was both analysis by Lockheed Martin analysts and the USAF.

Mr Burbage : Time has moved on since 2008 and we know a lot more about this airplane now than we knew then.

Mr Burbage : We actually have a fifth-gen airplane flying today. The F22 has been in many exercises. We have one of the pilots here who flew it and they can tell you that in any real-world event it is much better than the simulations forecast. We have F35 flying today; it has not been put into that scenario yet, but we have very high quality information on the capability of the sensors and the capability of the airplane, and we have represented the airplane fairly and appropriately in these large-scale campaign models that we are using. But it is not just us—it is our air force; it is your air force; it is all the other participating nations that do this; it is our navy and our marine corps that do these exercises. It is not Lockheed in a closet genning up some sort of result.

[LowObservable]

I'm sure Burbage sincerely believed that to be the truth.

[ORAC]

AW&ST:

Opinion: U.K. Defense Planners Deliver More ‘Hurry Up and Wait’ Decisions (http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-uk-defense-planners-deliver-more-hurry-and-wait-decisions)

Christmas came early for the British armed forces. The gentlemen (and ladies) of David Cameron’s Tory government responsible for the Strategic Defense & Security Review (SDSR) are resting merry. They hold an unexpected absolute majority in Parliament. The far-Left-led opposition, barring catastrophe, will be outside the door calling for figgy pudding for many years. Cameron’s team can afford to plan for the long term.

Scrooge’s change to his Christmas plans was influenced by ghosts, as was the U.K.’s decision to rebuild its fixed-wing antisubmarine warfare (ASW) force with nine Boeing P-8A Poseidons. The ghosts were the Nimrod AEW3 and MRA4 (based on a Ghost-powered airplane named Comet), two disastrous attempts by U.K. industry to build large reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. They appear, rattling their chains, whenever a British defense planner contemplates doing that again.

British ASW technology is world-class. European companies have delivered complex maritime and other sensor systems (such as Airbus’s P-3 upgrade for Brazil). But the known-quantity P-8A has been on the surviving ASW community’s letter to Santa every year since the 2010 SDSR chopped the MRA4. Officials say that they thoroughly analyzed alternatives to the P-8A, but at least one executive explains how his company was involved in the process: “By realizing early on that the RAF wasn’t interested in any answer other than the P-8.”

The P-8A seems to work, but the U.S. Navy has loaded it with lots of toys and goodies—provision for a large ground-surveillance radar and a beefed-up wing to carry heavy weapons—making it heavy and expensive, with a smaller range and persistence advantage over older or smaller platforms than you might expect.

Speaking of yonder Istar (intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance, to use the British term), the SDSR makes an offhand reference to keeping the E-3D Sentry airborne early-warning aircraft in service to 2035. That’s not a new plan, but it gets pricier by the year: The RAF aircraft still have their original, 1970s-technology control and display suites and have fallen behind the rest of the worldwide fleet. Given the E-3’s high cost per flight hour, a smaller replacement could make economic sense.

The British made a big deal about speeding up Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter deliveries and committing to their long-planned 138-aircraft buy, but Fort Worth might be singing “Blue Christmas” when the implications of the SDSR hit home. The acceleration of the first 48 jets is relative to a very slow schedule that was never published; the remaining 90 aircraft, once set for delivery in the 2020s, are now, a senior U.K. official says in Washington, “a long way away” (beyond field and fountain, moor and mountain, in all likelihood). “We have not made any decision about future tranches and we don’t need to make them yet.”

As for the Eurofighter Typhoon: In the Mummer’s plays that my ancestors would perform for pennies and beer, and the hell with figgy pudding, the M.C.—Father Christmas—was a morally ambiguous character. (The joint global brand with St. Nicholas came later.) Once St. George had killed the dragon or the Turkish Knight, Father Christmas would summon the Doctor, who would produce a vial and say to the victim:Here, Jack, take a little of my flip-flop
Pour it down thy tip-top
Rise and fight again! Which is what SDSR has done for the Typhoon. Rivals have made hay for years with the U.K.’s squishy commitment to the Typhoon. The decision to retrofit the active, electronically scanned array radar, keep the type in service to 2040 and add two more squadrons will invigorate a rearguard action in Denmark (where one major party wants fighters that are good at air defense) and points to interesting times in Belgium and Canada. It makes the unfunded commitment to 138 JSFs look like window-dressing, complete with elves and plastic snow.

The Royal Navy, meanwhile, can at least see more than three ships come sailing in, although there will be eight Type 26 ASW frigates rather than the previously planned 13. The money for the other five will pay for a larger number of smaller, less costly, export-friendly frigates.

You may think that you remember that the Type 26 used to be the export-friendly Global Combat Ship. From hints about the threat environment, it sounds as if the Type 26 is now regarded as a very quiet high-end ASW ship. The risk is that the Type 26 could end up as a costly bespoke product like the Daring-class destroyer, and that the export market will be even harder to crack a decade hence.

Six days after Christmas is the season for resolving not to keep repeating one’s mistakes. British planners will have done well to avoid the need to do that, this time around.

[airborne_artist]

F-35 to pricey, Boeing likely to reap the benefit?

More Bad News for Lockheed Martin: The U.S. Air Force Just Isn't Into the F-35 -- The Motley Fool (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/03/more-bad-news-for-lockheed-martin-us-air-force-f35.aspx)

[a1bill]

Poor blogger, No one should use sweetman as a source if they don't want to be embarrassed.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-denies-seeking-more-f-16-or-f-15-combat-jets-419473/
USAF denies seeking more F-16 or F-15 combat jets

[ORAC]

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/T5Bl_psA5MKp8fTdZ_rUCg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MjkzO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2Zm PTA7cT03NTt3PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt151206.jpg

[LowObservable]

You should compare that with Flight's report from the event where a senior ACC commander said exactly what AW&ST reported in the first place.

The fact that there isn't one should be your first clue. It's news, I'm sure, to someone living in Mom's basement in Perth, but Pentagon politics can be hard to fathom sometimes. Remember a few years ago, when the Navy issued an RFI for 36 new Super Hornets and then said it was a clerical oops?

[a1bill]

I note that sweetman used his usual unnamed source again. "according to senior service and industry officials at the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference here."

and as you pointed out, he was the 'only' person to say the supposed buy of f16 and f15

Is this the same as Gripen being the new USAF trainer, or how the reprogramming labs work?

PS, I guess it's lucky I don't live in Perth then, hey. You need to face it LO, sweetman's a joke.


However what is f35 news and may add to the cost per unit in 2017 is

Budget '17: Pentagon Planning Cuts in Production, R&D (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/12/06/budget-2017-pentagon-cuts-production-rd-europe/76775756/)
Then on Dec. 2, Kendall warned that "the disproportionate hits on '17 are going to be on modernization. I think that will probably be more on production than R&D."

"The F-35 is not — it is impossible in this budget to entirely protect it, just put it that way," Kendall responded. "Dollar for dollar, it probably gives us more combat capability than any other investment we're making, but we have a lot of other things that we have to do as well. So it's not entirely fenced. I can't say it's entirely fenced [off from cuts]."

However, he did say programs that make up the nuclear triad — the Ohio-class submarine, Long Range Strike-Bomber and new ICBM designs — would be a "priority" in the budget.

or
http://air.dfns.net/2015/12/07/israel-to-inactivate-one-f-16-squadron-in-early-2017/

Israel to inactivate one F-16 squadron in early 2017

The Israeli Air Force will inactivate one squadron of F-16 fighters in early 2017 once its F-35s arrived from the United States.

[LowObservable]

Apposite comments.

So whatever may be happening, the talk of F-35 cuts in the US is reaching high levels.

The trouble is that the plans assumed ever increasing budgets that are not happening, while operating costs are staying stubbornly high.

The acquisition community may say "we're doing what we said on flyaway cost, please don't mess with our program or say anything to worry the partners", but ACC and the CV Navy have squadrons to fill.

[a1bill]

Funny they aren't shifting f35 tails to f15/16. Let me know when this changes. BS speculation is just that.

when a f15 cost over $100m in 2006 and a CPH similar to the f35. It has as said, less. "Dollar for dollar, it [f35] probably gives us more combat capability than any other investment we're making"
I think it's sweetman's fantasy that they will buy serious numbers of 4th gen

PS, wild speculation, what could happen are some fa18 /growlers, post Aussie 12, to keep the line open

[glad rag]

Dollar for dollar, it [f35] probably gives us more combat capability than any other investment we're making"

Go on then A1 explain ^^^that,^^^ go on, we're all waiting.

[Rhino power]

"Dollar for dollar, it [f35] probably gives us more combat capability than any other investment we're making"

'Probably'?

-RP

[a1bill]

What part of "sweetman wrote a rubbish article" don't you understand?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-denies-seeking-more-f-16-or-f-15-combat-jets-419473/
LaPlante : “That story was news to me,” he quipped. “We’re always struggling to get the production rate as high as we can get it on F-35. That’s as true as saying it’s cold outside. It’s always true.”

[Snafu351]

@A1bill, why so strident re Sweetman and AW yet no mention of the other data source in the Fool article, BGA-Aeroweb?
You are exposing yourself as the Sweetman baiting, obsessed troll that you clearly are a1bill. (Or jackjack of JSFan?)

[LowObservable]

Yes, I think he's ridden his hobby-horse long enough. At this point he needs either to STFU or write to AW&ST and let us know what he hears back.

[a1bill]

I comment on articles posted here, perhaps it's the sweetman articles appeal to some naysayers. Even if they are rubbish, as challenged by numerous named officials about this one.

[glad rag]

What part of "sweetman wrote a rubbish article" don't you understand?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-denies-seeking-more-f-16-or-f-15-combat-jets-419473/
LaPlante : “That story was news to me,” he quipped. “We’re always struggling to get the production rate as high as we can get it on F-35. That’s as true as saying it’s cold outside. It’s always true.”

This is the second time you have replied to a request for your own opinion by retorting with yet more cut'n paste.

We are, increasingly, left to presume that you actually don't have anything worthwhile of your own to actually post then?

[Lonewolf_50]

@KenV
3 comments:
Gentlemen

At 406 pages, this thread is in some ways already answered, and in some ways it isn't.

It hasn't been cancelled. But, it's a multi national project/program.

In some countries, the purchase decision has changed, and in others options are being explored due to the program being extended/delayed, and the cost per unit apparently going up again. The F-35 remains a work in progress whose first involvement in ops remains to be seen.

I was able to summarize this thread without rancor nor insult to anyone. I encourage my fellow participants to do likewise.

Five years ago, V-22 Osprey was still being attacked as too expensive and controversial. As of today, its operational record has shown it works pretty well, it's still expensive, and now foreign customers are showing up.

Will F-35, once it gets into operating, fare likewise?

I'd guess "yes" but my crystal ball is hazy.

[Turbine D]

a1bill,
LaPlante quote: Asked to categorically confirm or deny any new fighter purchase, a spokesman for the service’s acquisition office says: “At this time the air force has no plans to acquire 72 new F-15s or F-16s, although the air force is always looking at options to be prepared for a dynamic global security environment.”
In the political world, LaPlante's statement is known as "Never Say Never". To receivers of the statement it is interpreted as hedging one's bet. Did you notice Laplante is on his way out of his DoD procurement position? Furthermore, situations within the Pentagon run much deeper than just the singular F-35 program. Can you name one significant program emerging from DoD in recent times that has been successful, on time, on budget? Here are some recent significant programs:

Actual cost of the new Gerald Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier has risen 23% since the 2008 budget submitted to Congress and now stands at $12.89 Billion, $370 million over the Congressional cost cap. The Navy says there is a greater than 50% chance the cost will rise. Two more carriers (CVN-79 & CVN-80) are planned. Congress is threatening to not provide funding for CVN-79 or CVN-80 starts unless the Navy comes to grips with continued cost overruns on CVN-78.

US Navy Zumwalt class destroyer program (DDG1000). Originally, 32 destroyers were planned, then reduced to 24 , then to 7 and now to 2, effectively cancelling the program. 11 years and $10 billion expended on the program, the US Nave said they really didn’t need the Zumwalt class and are buying more current Arleigh Burke-class destroyers at significant reduced costs. The only reason the 2 are being built is to maintain ship building capacity.

The US Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program that has two variants, the Independence class and the Freedom class. It was determined in 2010 that neither class could survive in a close into shore combat situation, the situation they were designed for. The cost for the Freedom rose to $637 million and the cost for the Independence rose to $704 million. At the moment a combination of 24 LCS Freedom & Independence ships will be built with “enhanced” survival capability.

The story of the F-35 program has been well discussed relative to both performance and cost. The US Navy is close to deciding additional purchases of F-18 Super Hornets in lieu of F-35s because of various reasons including timing & cost of F-35s.

There is a bigger picture to be examined and all is not well within the Pentagon.

TD

[LowObservable]

Tourist...

Sadly, the US Air Force itself has sawn the credibility of a public statement by any F-35 pilot in a U.S. command (that is to say, pretty much all of them) off at the knees:

http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf

You may be honest as the day is long about your love for the F-35, but when it's public knowledge that you can't say anything else that's a bit of a problem.

While I have dished out the abuse and sarcasm on occasion here, I submit that except on occasional bad days the targets have earned it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiBsa9zFesc

... whether by backstabbing this forum on fankiddy sites, making :mad: up (eg "Gen 4 helmet" - you know who you are), or by obsessive repetition of the same themes, which is what a1bill has been doing.

[Turbine D]

Speeches Last Week By the Military-Industrial Complex Participants

Defense Contractors Cite “Benefits” of Escalating Conflicts in the Middle East

Major defense contractors Raytheon, Oshkosh, and Lockheed Martin assured investors at a Credit Suisse conference in West Palm Beach this week that they stand to gain from the escalating conflicts in the Middle East.

Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Bruce Tanner told the conference his company will see “indirect benefits” from the war in Syria, citing the Turkish military’s recent decision to shoot down a Russian warplane.

The incident, Tanner said, heightens the risk for U.S. military operations in the region, providing “an intangible lift because of the dynamics of that environment and our products in theater.” He also stressed that the Russian intervention would highlight the need for Lockheed Martin-made F-22s and the new F-35 jets.

And for “expendable” products, such as a rockets, Tanner added that there is increased demand, including from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia because of the war in Yemen.

Wilson Jones, the president of the defense manufacturer Oshkosh, told the conference that “with the ISIS threat growing,” there are more countries interested in buying Oshkosh-made M-ATV armored vehicles. Speaking about a recent business trip to the Middle East, Jones said countries there “want to mechanize their infantry corps.”

Raytheon Chief Executive Tom Kennedy made similar remarks, telling the conference that he is seeing “a significant uptick” for “defense solutions across the board in multiple countries in the Middle East.” Noting that he had met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Kennedy said, “It’s all the turmoil they have going on, whether the turmoil’s occurring in Yemen, whether it’s with the Houthis, whether it’s occurring in Syria or Iraq, with ISIS.”

The last bit of good news for the contractors is the latest budget deal in Congress. After years of cuts following the budget sequester, the deal authorizes $607 billion in defense spending, just $5 billion down from the Pentagon’s request, which DefenseNews called a “treat” for the industry.

“Our programs are well supported [in the budget],” said Lockheed’s Tanner at the conference. “We think we did fare very well.”

TD

[glad rag]

TD, erudite posting, but probably lost on those that you would hope might begin to see reason ....

:ok:

[LowObservable]

Mon cher Touriste, old bean...

You really can't go on about the so-called naysayers (that always sounds like a horse to me) "dishing out abuse" and then talk about internet kiddies posting from their bedrooms.

When I was a kid, we most certainly didn't have an Internet. We had to make do with the adventures of Ms Fiona Richmond in the pages of Men Onl[That's quite enough of that. - Ed.].

I have talked to those who conceived, argued for and designed the JSF. I talk to people who love it. I talk to people who know what they are talking about and who think it's a strategic mis-step.

On balance, I believe that the F-35A can be a competent stealthy light bomber in the face of today's fielded and deployed (see: Syria) air defense threat. It will be in more trouble as multi-band fused radars come on line, and some way will have to be found to deal with these. The F-35B has troublingly short legs and the F-35C is slow, and both are very expensive.

I think those who praise the F-35's fused avionics and sensors are sincere, but most of those are USAF or Marine guys coming off 1980s-technology aircraft. Some are from Typhoons, and the Typhoon hasn't got its fusion together yet.

Nothing I've seen convinces me that the F-35 will do well in A2A except by staying out of the threat's way. By the way, the senior ACC guy at the Fighter Conference, the one who talked about a new F-15/16 buy, said flat-out that it can't stay with an F-16 in BFM...

[Lonewolf_50]

Mon cher Touriste, old bean...

You really can't go on about the so-called naysayers (that always sounds like a horse to me) "dishing out abuse" and then talk about internet kiddies posting from their bedrooms.

When I was a kid, we most certainly didn't have an Internet. We had to make do with the adventures of Ms Fiona Richmond in the pages of Men Onl[That's quite enough of that. - Ed.].

I have talked to those who conceived, argued for and designed the JSF. I talk to people who love it. I talk to people who know what they are talking about and who think it's a strategic mis-step. If you are familiar with how the Post Goldwater Nichols acquisition process was set up, and the Roles and Missions debates after Desert Storm, then you understand how the "one size fits all" requirement came into being. if it's a strategic mis-step (which it may be) it's a SYMPTOM of a much larger disease.

It will be a multi role fast jet.

I believe that bumping up Grosler numbers isn't a bad idea -- and I agree, the electronic threat only gets tougher with each passing year -- and the USAF may even get in on that, as they finally got with us in EA-6B when EF-111 was retired.

[Lonewolf_50]

Meanwhile, back on the test range ... Senator McCains point on the projected buy and the buy rate is one worth taking some thought on. 'Twould take twenty years from now to get them all bought. (I suspect a few upgrades and AFC's in progress as the program matures ...)

What is the production line's "surge" capacity to up the annual production if the Pentagon want to increase numbers a few years from now? That may be a classified or FOUO number, but it points toward the "in for a pinch in for a pound" approach to this acquisition decision.

[Turbine D]

Burning The Candle From Both Ends At The Same Time

Take a look at this marketing material from L-M:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/f16/f16_brochure_a11-34324h001.pdf

Now, take a look at this:
Gen. Mark Welsh sounds alarm on undermanned Air Force (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/12/01/welsh-sounds-alarm-on-undermanned-air-force/76617202/)

It seems to me, General Welsh is a day late and a pound short in sounding the alarm for the USAF manpower situation. Besides that, there is no real solution offered. It also seems to me that bringing on the F-35As in the quantities being promoted will only add to the manpower problem. Unquestionably, the F-35As are going to require more manpower to service and maintain than F-16C/Ds. Since we seem to be stuck in the Middle-East for the foreseeable future, why is there the need to rush to buy more and more F-35As at high procurement costs and then pay to fix all the deficient items that crop up as the testing programs drag on? Why isn't the USAF procuring new F-16s at reduced procurement, manpower requirements, operating and maintenance costs?

The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. The F-16 has now undergone 6 major block changes since its inception in the late 1970s, incorporating 4 generations of core avionics, 5 engine versions divided between 2 basic models (P&W F100 and GE F110), 5 radar versions, 5 electronic warfare suites, and 2 generations of most other subsystems. Moore’s Law applies as well, albeit more slowly: the latest F-16’s core computer suite has over 2,000 times the memory, and over 260 times the throughput, of the original production F-16.

For the Syrian, Libyan, Iraq missions the only real thing missing between the F-35As and the F-16C/Ds or EFs is the F-16s don't have a stealth capability. We aren't fighting an enemy with an air force, why is stealth that important and is it worth the added costs? Maybe we do need the F-35A or a fast jet like it (an improved iteration) in the future to maintain the future technological advantage, but I think at the moment we have enough demos to play around with.

Also, it is curious the manpower comparison years chosen by General Welsh. Does anyone remember the year of Desert Storm? It was 1990.

Some technical & cost comparison stuff F-35As to F-16C/Ds:

Lockheed-Martin Data October 2015

USAF F-35 Planned Quantities: 1763

LRIP Aircraft Costs (not including engine):

o 23 F-35As CTOL - $103 million/jet LRIP 6

o 24 F-35As CTOL - $98 million/jet LRIP 7

o 19 F-35As CTOL-$94.8 million/jet LRIP 8

Standard Internal Weapon Load
• 25 mm GAU-22/A cannon
• Two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles
• Two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs

USAF Data, Sept. 23, 2015

F-16C/D Total USAF Inventory: 1017

Unit Cost in 1998 (Fiscal ’98 constant dollars): $18.8 million ($27.4 million in 2015 dollars, 45.9% cumulative inflation) Add another ~$10 million to get E/Fs

Payload: two 2,000-pound bombs, two AIM-9, two AIM-120 and two 2400-pound external fuel tanks

Speed: 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)

Range: more than 2,002 miles ferry range (1,740 nautical miles)

TD

[LowObservable]

There is an element of "how do we get from here to there?" in the AF/Navy force planning dilemmas.

Even if the F-35 eventually lives up to its promises in terms of acquisition cost, availability and op cost/manpower demands, it is now so late, and the airplanes it was supposed to replace are so old, that you face the Valley of Death.

For example: every new F-35 that gets delivered takes the support manpower of >1 F-16 or A-10. But today it delivers no capability at all. Even at IOC, given the current availability levels, you need >1 F-35 to generate as many sorties as one F-16.

As Bogdan has noted, F-35s being delivered now need a lot of work to get to 3F. Those updates hog more maintenance time.

The F-35 acquisition overruns have already eaten the budget for F-16 upgrades. Without them, sometime in the mid-20s, the F-16s become useless for anything except a permissive environment - but the USAF can't afford to replace them all by then.

But as I add F-35 squadrons, I have to shut F-16/A-10 squadrons at a higher rate. And then where are my experienced people to man the next F-35 squadrons after 2025, when the new jets arrive?

The Navy has the same issue with the F/A-18C (remember, that's what the F-35C is supposed to replace, not the Super). It has to fill its bucket with Slep'd SHs. But to Slep jets I have to pull them out of the line for a year or more, exacerbating by shortfall.

[Rhino power]

http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/04/first-italian-f-34-accepted-by-itaf/

-RP

[Tourist]

Tourist, you seem to have arbitrarily taken on the role of thread moralist.

One hopes that your efforts do not become deleterious; remember those who live in glass houses my friend...

Fair point.

The reason I have taken on this role is because I think it matters.

The Military Forum is nowadays anything but.
There is barely a thread that has any relevance to current military events or matters, and even fewer actual serving members who post.

There are many reasons for this, some of them very good i.e. we have been in conflicts for 15 yrs and people correctly don't want to discuss anything that can help the enemy.

This thread however is sometimes everything that is good about Pprune. It contains posts from the knowledgeable articulately explaining points of interest (both positive and negative) about the F35 project.

I don't tend to post here, because I essentially know nothing first hand for myself about it apart from some general aviation knowledge and knowledge of carrier ops.

I do however read it because I have a not unreasonable wish to know what the future holds for aviation in the RN.

Posts from the naysayers without reasonable explanation are equally as annoying as the fanboy fantasies, but the simple "you are an idiot" posts are worse yet.

If somebody is telling lies/living in a dream world, then post articulately explaining where they have gone wrong with references.

If there are no references, then it is just your opinion and no more valid than the fanboys opinion.

If you think your opinion has validity based solely on your background, then justify that. Say who you are, or at least what you do.

If you are a journo, say who you are before defending yourself. To do otherwise is disingenuous.

This thread contains jewels of interesting info from some great posters who know what they are talking about. Either their posts establish their credibility from their well explained points or references (Engines etc) or their name carries the same weight (Farley etc)

For those of us who have no name, the post should contain more than just simple abuse.

I get banned reasonably regularly from a variety of threads. Usually I know and understand why. I do have a combative debating style.

It is odd on here however that people call for the banning of the people who get the abuse by the abusers.

That makes no sense.

[Just This Once...]

Dare we move back to the F-35?

In the next few years we are adopting an aircraft that will form the backbone of western airpower. Even without the cost and fleet size debate the aircraft remains controversial as the core aircraft has a lower performance than any contemporary aircraft. It does not accelerate particularly well, shoots its missiles from a much shorter range, has relatively poor agility, bleeds energy rather quickly and (when utilising its USP) does not carry much.

The USP of stealth remains the prime selling feature (avionics and sensor fusion can be developed on any aircraft). Optimised (or limited by physics and size) to reduce its radar signature in a limited cluster of frequencies, only time will tell how long this will provide an advantage. Radars operating outside of the optimised band will already have the ability to track the aircraft, perhaps at a reduced range, leaving only the targeting puzzle to be solved by modified RF techniques, data links, EO and IR.

Everyone appears to accept that without effective low-observable characteristics the core aircraft would not be a particularly capable platform. So just how long do we have left on the low-observable clock and its relentless ticking?

[KenV]

Everyone appears to accept that without effective low-observable characteristics the core aircraft would not be a particularly capable platform.

Everyone? I've read quite a few accounts about the F-35's wonder electronics providing an entirely new capability and synergistically providing increased capability/lethality to legacy platforms. And many of those accounts are from USN, which is MUCH less committed to the F-35 than USAF. It will be interesting to see if the F-35's electronic capabilities can be successfully transferred to legacy platforms. I would think yes, but I don't know enough about the details of those capabilities nor how they were achieved to be sure. In other words, there appears to be more to a 5th gen aircraft structure than just stealth, with many sensors and systems apparently needing to be integrated into the airframe and not just scabbed on.

And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it.

It [F-35] does not accelerate particularly well, shoots its missiles from a much shorter range, has relatively poor agility, bleeds energy rather quickly and (when utilising its USP) does not carry much.These are interesting performance claims. Based on what and compared to what?

[Rhino power]

Everyone appears to accept that without effective low-observable characteristics the core aircraft would not be a particularly capable platform.

But surely the need for three different models from one common airframe, combined with the requirement for LO, is what dictated the design of the core aircraft? I mean, if LM had been asked to design a strike fighter that exceeded the performance of all current generation aircraft plus a few on the drawing board, but without the need for a common airframe with LO characteristics, I doubt it would look even remotely like the F-35 does, and would be more of a 'hot ship'? And, as you allude to, with radar and detection techniques constantly evolving and improving in the detection of LO aircraft, maybe the LO clock is actually on it's final countdown? Maybe the future of manned or unmanned aircraft will be relaxed LO, but with far greater emphasis placed on ECM?

-RP

[Turbine D]

KenV,
And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it.

Hopefully, the reason you allude to is this: The original F-16E/Fs sold to UAE came about because it was a low cost alternative to the F-35A. But LM, under pressure with losing sales internationally for the F-35As, conveniently upped the price of the F-16E/Fs to near the goal for the F-35As.

So if GM decided to up the price of a Chevy close to that of a Cadillac, which would you buy if you had those two choices? It's as simple as that.

TD

[KenV]

So if GM decided to up the price of a Chevy close to that of a Cadillac, which would you buy if you had those two choices? It's as simple as that.Interesting theory. Except that the latest F-16V is quite a bit cheaper than the F-35, both to procure and to operate/sustain. Looks like the choice is not quite "as simple as that."

The idea of a new version of the F-16 “has come and gone over the past decade,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal Group (http://www.tealgroup.com/) in a telephone interview. “The F-35 is no one’s idea of a mass market fighter given its current price point. Even in the elite market of a maximum of a dozen countries, you’re seeing a lot of pushback against the F-35 because of price. The company [Lockheed Martin] is good at hedging its bets against F-35 and marketing major upgrades.” The F-16V will be attractive, Aboulafia said, because “it’s less than half the price” of a JSF.

[LowObservable]

Oh my.

I've read quite a few accounts about the F-35's wonder electronics providing an entirely new capability and synergistically providing increased capability/lethality to legacy platforms.

As have we all. It's called "marketing".

In other words, there appears to be more to a 5th gen aircraft structure than just stealth, with many sensors and systems apparently needing to be integrated into the airframe and not just scabbed on.

This is true to a point, but misleading. At a certain target level of RCS it is necessary to make all apertures conformal or semi-conformal and ensure that their "windows" or radomes are stealth-compliant. There is no other benefit from such things being "not just scabbed on" - it's expensive, heavy and makes it difficult to add or upgrade capabilities.

And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it.

The reason (as stated on this thread a few times), in the case of the partner nations, is that they signed on (in 2001-02) for an airplane that was much cheaper to buy and to operate, several years earlier and 2700 pounds lighter, when there appeared to be no organized alternative at all, and that (except for Denmark) none has formally evaluated any alternatives since.

It can therefore be stated as fact that they don't know what the alternatives can do, in full detail, because no competitor will provide a classified-level brief if they have no chance of a sale.

However, there's also a well documented history of statements by LockMart, JSFPO bosses and paid consultants that can be kindly described as optimistic.

[a1bill]

Turbine D
With the USAF struggling to get funds for the 300 odd f16 and f15 upgrades With the USAF going F35 IOC next year and a f-15 costing over $100m in 2006. With the sequester, I really can't see new orders for the USAF. best case is they get funding for their 300 upgrades
U.S. Air Force Faces Capability Decision On Urgent F-16 AESA Upgrade | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-air-force-faces-capability-decision-urgent-f-16-aesa-upgrade)
"The Air Force planned an AESA-centered upgrade for 300 Block 40-52 F-16s under the Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (Capes) program. But this, along with a service life extension to increase structural life to 10,000 hr. from 8,000 hr., was canceled under sequestration budget caps."

The USN is a different horse and are 2019 IOC. There is a political motive to keep the fa18 line open. It is more conceivable that the possibility exists for some more tails, as I said on the last page.

[a1bill]

KenV
It would be interesting to see what the F-16v, 50% less price of the f-35 is based on. I wonder if they have given a flyaway price?

I googled that quote to see if there was more on the price, It would be suitable for the second tier air forces next couple of decades. The USA didn't sound too keen on it
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/f-16v-is-latest-viper-variant-for-fighter-market/
The air staff and the Air National Guard have consistently opposed acquisition of “new build” F-15 Eagles, F-16s or F/A-18E/Fs for U.S. forces, insisting that only the capabilities offered by the F-35 will work for the long-term future.

[KenV]

Exchanges with you are clearly pointless, so this will be my last reply in this exchange.

As have we all. It's called "marketing".You completely ignored my very next sentence. "And many of those accounts are from USN, which is MUCH less committed to the F-35 than USAF." USN a shill for LM? Yah shur.


There is no other benefit from such things being "not just scabbed on"Your statement, even though you make it sound certain, is pure assumption/speculation on your part. Of course you have access to hard data no on else on this thread has. Yah shur.

The reason (as stated on this thread a few times), in the case of the partner nations, is that they signed on (in 2001-02) for an airplane that was much cheaper to buy and to operate....Yet more assumptions, and in this case false ones. I was not referencing "partner nations" and I was not referencing 2001-02 decisions but 2014-15 decisions. And along those lines, we all know that Israel, Japan, and S. Korea all have long and storied histories of making scandalously naive fighter procurement decisions. Yah shur.

[KenV]

KenV. It would be interesting to see what the F-16v, 50% less price of the f-35 is based on. I wonder if they have given a flyaway price?I'm curious also. But at least I quoted a source, unlike the nabobs who draw sweeping conclusions based on nothing but assumptions and personal opinion.

The air staff and the Air National Guard have consistently opposed acquisition of “new build” F-15 Eagles, F-16s or F/A-18E/Fs for U.S. forces, insisting that only the capabilities offered by the F-35 will work for the long-term future. Agreed. But according to the nabobs, all those USAF, USN, USMC, and Air Guard procurement officials are all naive simpletons won over by lying LM marketeers, so they don't count.

[KenV]

The USN is a different horse and are 2019 IOC. There is a political motive to keep the fa18 line open. It is more conceivable that the possibility exists for some more tails, as I said on the last page.

USN seems to be arguing for more E/F Super Hornets and Growlers. The Growlers seem to make the most sense to me. As multi band air defense radars come on line and proliferate, it will make sense to have a multiband jammer capability. The F-35 reportedly has an exceptional on board X-band jamming capability, but as far as I am aware, there is no ready path to make F-35 multiband capable. And I personally don't see a path to an L band radar that fits into a fighter, so fighters will likely stick to X band. Thus while the F-35 will hold onto its Air to Air stealth advantage into the foreseeable future, it may just need an escort jammer to penetrate future ground based air defenses. In which case Growler will likely be the only option.

[a1bill]

Ken : "Agreed. But according to the nabobs, all those USAF, USN, USMC, and Air Guard procurement officials are all naive simpletons won over by lying LM marketeers, so they don't count."

that's like the pilots that fly them. LM have paid off the lot of them. Unless they can skew a comment to a negative. Then even the previously condemned lying scum pilots are risen to the status of gods.

re the growler, They may need more, if more are ordered for USN/tasked to USAF support, it is another subject as I see it. It's not the USAF will get 72 more f15/16/18's, which is being propagated.

[Turbine D]

a1bill,
"Agreed. But according to the nabobs, all those USAF, USN, USMC, and Air Guard procurement officials are all naive simpletons won over by lying LM marketeers, so they don't count."

that's like the pilots that fly them. LM have paid off the lot of them. Unless they can skew a comment to a negative. Then even the previously condemned lying scum pilots are risen to the status of gods.

I am not quite sure of your age, but I suspect you were not around to know much about Dwight Eisenhower. Do you remember him? He became President of the United States after Harry Truman. General Eisenhower was a five star United States Army General and Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe as the plan and strategy developed for the invasion of France, D-Day, as it is known.

Now I have a tendency to believe him rather than your analysis from afar. Being a nabob, as you refer naysayers as, I challenge you to read a section of President Dwight Eisenhower's final speech to the Nation at the end of his second term as President, provided to you, below. You will note that part of alert and knowledgeable citizens (nabobs) and the compelling task he outlined for them. Today, the citizens (nabobs) of the United States lay out on the table nearly $700 billion for the Defense Department to spend in one year, I believe it to be important to be critical of military spending programs that are off the track in terms of promises, performance, on time delivery and costs. The F-35 program is the most expensive military program ever and because it fails to meet any of what is or was expected while using citizen's (nabob's) money, it is open for examination and criticism. It is too bad we are missing the DoD leadership Eisenhower represented or those that were in the West Point class the "Stars Fell Upon".

TD


Military-Industrial Speech by Dwight Eisenhower 1961

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[Lonewolf_50]

In response to LO's point of "Strategic mis-step" I mentioned that what has been going on with F-35 may be symptom of a larger acquisition issue. What follows is triggered in part by my recollection of what sank the A-12 (A-6 replacement): how much risk was built into the program and how successful the gov't/contractor combination was in overcoming or mitigating each element of risk. (As with Comanche, the program was unable to succeed). This theme repeats itself across platforms, or so it seems to me. Let's look at high tech, or "new generation" naval vessels to illustrate the larger acquisition and strategic point.
The Zumwalt starts sea trials. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-navys-largest-destroyer-ever-heads-out-sea-first-n475901)
Eric Wertheim, author and editor of the U.S. Naval Institute's "Guide to Combat Fleets of the World," said there's no question the integration of so many new systems from the electric drive to the tumblehome hull carries some level of risk.

Operational concerns, growing costs and fleet makeup led the Navy to truncate the 32-ship program to three ships, he said. With only three ships, the class of destroyers could become something of a technology demonstration project, he said. At a price tag of about 4.5 billion a piece, can the Navy actually afford a "technology demonstrator?"
At a price tag of 100 million a piece, can the USAF and USN and USMC afford a strike aircraft that will likely become less "stealthy" as the tech on the sensor side also improves? (Yeah, it's a form of an arms race, isn't it?)

In both the F-35 and Zumwalt a low observable (electronic at least) core design is a hard requirement. Each was approached in its own way within the context of the program. (I suspect that the electric drive may reduce the Zumwalt's acoustic signature, but that's getting away from the point of raising this program). **

In both cases, the cutting edge or bleeding edge capability is being pursued, and each design will be optimized for (fill in the quality or feature that you think here) ________. That brings with it both a program risk, a tech risk, and a price tag that is eye watering.

It seems that twenty years later that what we've arrived at is what happened with the Seawolf Submarine: what started as a program for 29 ended up as three, and they were the most expensive submarines built to date. That program started in the early 80's and didn't get underway until about 1997.

Does this sound familiar?

So what is it that these cutting edge, bleeding edge "5th gen" platforms are being optimized for? It appears that in the case of the F-35, the close in fight isn't it from some of the early publicly available feedback on BFM. Beyond the "we are stuck with this, press on" imperative, I seem to hear an echo from some other programs.

The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.
The USN could not build the full run of Seawolf, but did not cancel the program.
They USN could not build the full run of Zumwalt, but did not cancel the program
F-22's fate was similar to C-17: original run truncated.
The Departments of Air Force and Navy may not be able to buy or build all 2000+ F-35's (I had thought the original number was nearer 3000, but memory does not serve) but there is no sign of cancelling the program.

On the strategic level, that might make more sense than on a single program's merit. It might not be a mistake at all. What I see as being optimized has little to do with the detail of war fighting and all to do with the capability to do so. What looks to me as the underlying theme is the need to support the industrial base to build ships and aircraft, and within that larger aim improving the state of the art in X sub systems of these platforms.

To answer post number 1: No, the F-35 won't be cancelled. The only question is how many will ultimately show up on flight lines in various nations. Keeping the capacity and ability to build advanced aircraft of this sort is apparently a strategic imperative.
-------------------------------------------

** = They are calling this a destroyer and it is 600 feet long. When I was on Ticonderoga class cruisers (which was derived from the Spruance Light Cruiser Hull that became a Spruance Destroyer Hull with a pencil whip back in the 1970's) was 560-570 long. I am not sure just what this ship is.

[KenV]

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. -Dwight EisenhowerNo doubt about it. Eisenhower had the F-35 in mind when he stated the above more than half a century ago. And there's no doubt that the F-35 is a clear and present danger to the "economic, political, even spiritual" well being of the nation and the "very structure of our society" and even "our liberties or democratic processes." Not.

And yes, I'm quite familiar with Eisenhower's military industrial complex speech. I was alive when he uttered it and it was required reading where I went to school. I just happen to interpret its application VERY differently than you, and don't see Eisenhower's speech as even remotely applying to the F-35 program. You are welcome to disagree.

[melmothtw]

The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.

- The USAF received 223 C-17s.

[KenV]

The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.
F-22's fate was similar to C-17: original run truncated.

Ummmm, the original plan was for 210 C-17s. 279 were built, with 224 being delivered to USAF. So I'm not sure what "truncated" means in this context.

But the acquisition plans for B-1, B-2, F-22, and A-12 were certainly truncated. So was LRAACA. If memory serves, so was the F-111 (with the B model being especially truncated.) We'll have to wait and see what happens with the LRSB. So I'm not sure what the relevancy is of an acquisition program that gets "truncated."

But I agree totally with your statement regarding the F-35 preserving a national capability. The UK lost their capability decades/a few generations ago. I think it wise that the US not follow that lead. And it would appear that the UK partnering on the JSF program has helped them not only preserve what capability they have retained, but has improved/expanded on that capability.

[Courtney Mil]

Some very sound answers there, Ken. I'm particularly interested in your Growler point. I have been expressing concern here for some time (or was it just some time ago?) about F-35 stealth in the multiband era and, without knowing enough about F-35 ECM, Growler would seem a sensible means of support. Of course, if that were the answer, it would also open up other options concerning what might be supportable.

[Willard Whyte]

For a short while, in May 1994, there was a proposal to curtail C-17 production at 32 aircraft. It was quickly rescinded.

[glad rag]

The discussion has taken an interesting turn for the better...

I do wonder how "they" are going to sell the latest stealth wonder jet requiring jamming support to survive though :}

[LowObservable]

KenV - Are you trying out for a Coen brothers' movie?

This is what you actually posted: "And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it."

Then you get all smug and offended because you really meant Israel. Korea and Japan, even though that was not what you said and none of them had been offered the F-16. I'm sure Tourist will spring to your defense, but this is just one of many examples of why you don't get respect: when your arguments are challenged, you retrospectively change them (Oh my, I didn't really mean to say there was a Gen4 helmet that would solve all the problems).

In any event, Israel is by all appearances buying the F-35 as a stealthy light bomber, its star role, and isn't using its own money. Korea's acquisition professionals selected the F-15 over the F-35 and were overruled by politicians. Japan's history included a fake Jaguar and an incredibly expensive Super F-16. Yah shur that.

I don't quite see F-35 sinking to the depths of DDG-1000 fail. The concern is that it will be so costly to buy and operate that it will force reductions in numbers without delivering capability, and that by the time it is fixed its key advantage will have been partially or completely negated by radar improvements.

[Lonewolf_50]

The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.

- The USAF received 223 C-17s.
Whoops, my data was wrong, thank you and Ken for correcting me. I'll let the error stand, and am not sure who was being addressed in the response about the Mil Indus complex ... since that isn't what I was talking about.

The maintenance of the industrial base is a strategic imperative, and was still one while I was serving. (what that is, and at what level is a long running issue of policy and strategy both).

That wasn't what Eisenhower was on about in infamous his speech to Congress ... who are the third (and critical) leg of that particular triad.

[LowObservable]

Of course Eisenhower's MIC speech was not tied to any specific program, and to comment that "Eisenhower had the F-35 in mind when he stated the above more than half a century ago" would be unbelievably stupid if you weren't overused to pro-JSF trollicles, in which case it's all too believable.

Eisenhower's concern, I believe, was that industrial interests (sustaining production rates, keeping the "base" healthy) and military interests (once you lose force structure, whether it's bombers, fighters, carriers or submarines, it's hard to get it back) could converge to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need.

According to his aide, Andrew Goodpaster, he wanted to add "Congressional" to the MIC to indicate the power of local votes.

[KenV]

For a short while, in May 1994, there was a proposal to curtail C-17 production at 32 aircraft. It was quickly rescinded.
C-17 production was capped at "forty and no more" unless Douglas got its act together. Not only did Douglas get its act together, but they turned the program into a "model acquisition program", and won two fairly rare back to back multi-year purchase orders.

[LowObservable]

Norway has solved the problem of producing F-35s at high rate, but nobody seems happy...

Norway Apologises For Making Gingerbread Jets (http://news.sky.com/story/1602699/norway-apologises-for-making-gingerbread-jets)

PS - Williams-Sonoma sells the F-35 cookie cutter. It's $249.95 if you order it today, and only an extra $99.95 to get it delivered by Christmas 2017.

[KenV]

Eisenhower's concern, I believe, was that industrial interests (sustaining production rates, keeping the "base" healthy) and military interests (once you lose force structure, whether it's bombers, fighters, carriers or submarines, it's hard to get it back) could converge to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need.

Eisenhower was quite clear what his concern was: "the economic, political, even spiritual" well being of the nation and the "very structure of our society" and "our liberties or democratic processes." He did not address those interests converging "to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need."

[Turbine D]

I can't think of a better example of an evolved military-industrial program Eisenhower feared than that of the F-35. It fits all the criteria Eisenhower worried and fretted over:
- Developed and promoted by the DoD and L-M and sold to Congress as a win/win taking the citizenship out of the equation.
- Advertised and influenced like no other military program has ever been by L-M.
- Politically engineered so as to not be capable of being cancelled no matter its shortcomings or eventual cost.

No US Senator or Representative would dare think of challenging the scope of the F-35 program today. L-M would step into the fray by asserting it would be un-American and anti-job creation/preservation to do anything short of the F-35 master plan. The L-M Washington lobby would swing into gear and throw money into the campaign to defeat any political fool that swims against the F-35 military-industrial tide.

TD

[Turbine D]

KenV,
Eisenhower was quite clear what his concern was: "the economic, political, even spiritual" well being of the nation and the "very structure of our society" and "our liberties or democratic processes." He did not address those interests converging "to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need."

I think you glossed over Eisenhower's overarching concern:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

This is the concern the F-35 program evokes in its current structure that's being ignored by the councils of government.

[KenV]

"I'm particularly interested in your Growler point. I have been expressing concern here for some time (or was it just some time ago?) about F-35 stealth in the multiband era and, without knowing enough about F-35 ECM, Growler would seem a sensible means of support"

I don't have a lot of insight into the F-35s jamming capabilities, but my understanding is that it is all in the X-band. L-band radars do not have the resolution to provide targeting data, and require very large apertures (i.e. very large antennas) to get even moderate angular resolution. But they can be used to cue other higher resolution (X-band) radars where to look for a target so they can put a lot of energy into a small volume of space (and perhaps from multiple different directions at once) to pry out the low RCS objects in that space. But aircraft can passively detect L-band way before the radar can detect the aircraft, so there are effective countermeasures. One would be to jam the L-band radar and prevent it from cuing the other radars. That's where the Growler comes in. Another would be to use a modified HARM type missile to take out the L-band radar or force it to shut down to prevent it being taken out. However, the missile would have far worse low angular resolution problems than the radar because of its much smaller aperture, so designing and building an L-band HARM missile would be problematic. The better solution might be to jam it and use cooperative passive detection to locate it and then put a big warhead weapon on those coordinates. With a big warhead, "close" is probably good enough.

Russia's PAK-FA (as well as some later Su-35s) reportedly carries an L-band radar. But with such a small aperture the already low angular resolution of L-band will result in very poor angular resolution on an airborne L-band. And as soon as the pilot fires up that L-band, every aircraft in the area will know there's a PAK-FA in the air and using cooperative passive detection, will know pretty precisely where it is. On the other hand, the Russians aren't stupid and maybe they've made a breakthrough that alters the basic radar equation for low frequency radars, or maybe they have tactics in mind that use multiple airborne L-band radars linked together. I've even heard rumors of modulating individual radar pulses and embedding data in each pulse so bi/multi static radars can generate a fairly precise 3-D picture. Who knows?

But the bottom line is that even in the age of multi-band radars, stealth platforms have a significant advantage. The question is, is stealth needed all the time? For middle east style wars against unsophisticated enemies, stealth provides nothing. If we get into a fight with a peer or near peer, how long will stealth be needed? The first day? The second? Once the ground based air defenses have been neutralized, is stealth really all that useful anymore? Maybe that's why USN is not putting all its eggs into the stealth basket like USAF appears to be trying to do.

[KenV]

I think you glossed over Eisenhower's overarching concern:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

I have a completely different take on it. In my view, his concern was not simply the "acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex." They've had such influence since the late 19th and early 20th century for military acquisition programs. In my opinion his concern was that such influence would extend beyond military acquisition programs and into "the economic, political, even spiritual" well being of the nation and the "very structure of our society" and "our liberties or democratic processes." I'm satisfied that the military industrial complex has not made such inroads nor is in danger of doing so in the foreseeable future. And regarding the F-35 specifically, the F-35 in my opinion has essentially zero impact on the "economic, political, even spiritual" well being of the nation, nor the "very structure of our society" nor "our liberties or democratic processes."

[LowObservable]

When warship programs are justified because they sustain the shipbuilding base; when people shrug their shoulders and say "whatevs" about the value of the V-22 or F-35B, because they believe that Marine influence is such that they will be bought anyway; when you can't touch bases or depots that eat a disproportionate amount of the budget; these are all cases where the MICC is manifest.

Eisenhower's concern at the time was more with the growth of nuclear arsenals, which at the time threatened to go geometric. He knew, but most people did not, that the "bomber gap" of the mid-1950s was hooey, a combination of bad intel and deliberate marketing promoted by the General Turgidsons of SAC and the industry. (The U-2 had demolished it, but that was secret.) His administration was being beaten up on the "missile gap", which was little better founded.

[glad rag]

So are we seeing a paradigm shift here from a totally stealth aircraft to a more run of the mill attack aircraft that can jam considering [by definition] how can it remain as a stealth aircraft if it has to "emit" to survive hostile intent??

Then again they already shine like beacons in IR/UV so perhaps we're half way there anyway...

[Lonewolf_50]

LowObservable, one does not "shrug" when one discusses maintaining the industrial base. That is a national security imperative here in the US. The concern that we might have to rely on 'others' for critical capability in the case of, or in time of, war extends to more than oil and energy. If you can't build and restore your own hardware that are what you need to fight, you can't fight effectively. That line of thought has been with us for decades. it isn't the MIC problem that Eisenhower was talking about.

Once you close a shipyard, for example, do you have any idea how freaking hard it is to open a new one? Once you shut down a production line -- for example CH-46 -- do you have any idea how expensive it is to restart it and retool it?

Why do you think the UK just went to P-8 instead of making new and better Nimrods? Part of the decision was what it costs to re-establish your industrial capability. (I think the other reasons include production runs and lack economies of scale).

I repeat (this was part of formal training) maintenance of the defense industrial base is a strategic imperative for the US. Just how that will be done has a whole lot of answers, not all of which agree with one another. To assert that this is apathy and an excuse for justifying the boogey man known as the MIC is quite simply wrong.

Fifty years ago, we had multiple ship yards to support Naval ship building and overhaul. We have closed a few. You can't keep them open if the skills and crafts are not sustained through continued work. It doesn't stay "warm" as it needs to. You can't turn this on and off.

[KenV]

When warship programs are justified because they sustain the shipbuilding base; when people shrug their shoulders and say "whatevs" about the value of the V-22 or F-35B, because they believe that Marine influence is such that they will be bought anyway; when you can't touch bases or depots that eat a disproportionate amount of the budget; these are all cases where the MICC is manifest.Agreed. And that had been going on since at least the late 19th century. Eisenhower was not so much concerned with existence of the military industrial complex so much as he was concerned that it would spread beyond the realm of military acquisition and into the heart of the nation, including the commercial/civilian economy, social/domestic politics and even its spiritual underpinnings. And yes, nuclear arsenals were a large part of that since weapons and weapon systems could potentially hold entire cities hostage.

Two guys who laid the foundations of US nuclear power in particular really really worried Eisenhower. Curtis LeMay's and Hyman Rickover's personal influence and in particular their tremendous political influence while wearing a military uniform and without holding an elected public office were the antithesis of a civilian controlled military. Truman was able to slap down McArthur, but neither Truman nor Eisenhower were able to control or reign in either LeMay or Rickover. Unlike McArthur they kept a low public profile but amassed huge power and influence that in some ways exceeded that of the Office of the President. Johnson eventually reigned in LeMay but largely only because LeMay got into the public spotlight due to his public views on Vietnam.

Rickover on the other hand stayed under the public radar and was never reigned in. He continued to run the Navy's nuclear program AND the civilian Atomic Energy commission. Presidents Johnson, Ford and Carter could not reign him in and generally feared him. It took Reagan to break "the Rickover Cult" in the US Navy by forcibly retiring him. But only after Rickover had served a record 63 years on active duty and was over 82 years old. It was this kind of power and influence that Eisenhower was so concerned about. No one related to the F-35 even approaches that kind of power and influence. Fortunately, neither LeMay nor Rickover were able to pass their power and influence on to those who came after them.

FWIW, in my Navy career I got to meet both Rickover and his replacement, Kinnaird McKee. I once even got to walk Adm McKee's dog. If memory serves, she was an Afghan hound.

[Lonewolf_50]

FWIW, in my Navy career I got to meet both Rickover and his replacement, Kinnaird McKee. I once even got to walk Adm McKee's dog. If memory serves, she was an Afghan hound. I think your memory does serve, and I met them both as well (though McKee was Supe at the Boat School when I met him).

I can't say I cared for the interview with Admiral Rickover, as some of us were coerced into it. :mad: (Long story for another time, maybe). They tried that with only one class, and changed policy the following year.

[KenV]

I think your memory does serve, and I met them both as well (though McKee was Supe at the Boat School when I met him). That's where I met him also. His wife was walking their dog in the Yard, I was there at the same time, our paths crossed, and before I knew it, I was walking the dog. I later met the Admiral after a Bore Us All (Forrestal) lecture. I forgot the occasion, but a group of us were invited to the Supe's quarters. I remember the meeting, but for the life of me cannot remember why we were there.

I can't say I cared for the interview with Admiral Rickover, as some of us were coerced into it. :mad: (Long story for another time, maybe). They tried that with only one class, and changed policy the following year. Your's was apparently not the first class to be coerced. I was coerced. They told me that if I passed the interview, I would be a nuke. No choice, end of story. I made sure I did not pass. And on service selection night I selected Navy Air. Almost went Marine Air, but thought better of it.

BTW, are you ready for Army/Navy this Saturday? And have you seen the two great spirit spots on You Tube? They are excellent! How in the world did a mid get the 'dant, the 'supe, and the CNO to appear in a midshipman spirit video? Things have changed indeed. And in my opinion, for the better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svU2317XiPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0rAnmnlQ4U

[Willard Whyte]

C-17 production was capped at "forty and no more" unless Douglas got its act together. Not only did Douglas get its act together, but they turned the program into a "model acquisition program", and won two fairly rare back to back multi-year purchase orders.

Yah boo sucks. What's you're frikin point? On record as per my original post.

[Danny42C]

"F-35 Cancelled - then what ?"

Up the creek without a paddle, that's what ! :(

Danny42C.

[Lonewolf_50]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svU2317XiPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0rAnmnlQ4U
Will be pleased to enjoy the game, this weekend, thanks for the links.
I guess there will be no F-35 overflight for the game, eh? :cool:
(Hadn't realized that previous classes got the "deportation to Crystal City for a day" deal. All of the first class in my company who went there were volunteers).

@Danny: yeah, and even if it isn't cancelled, the eggs are all still in one basket in the out years.

[KenV]

(Hadn't realized that previous classes got the "deportation to Crystal City for a day" deal. All of the first class in my company who went there were volunteers).

It might have been a bit different for our class. We were encouraged (strongly) to "keep all our options open" and sign up for that all important Rickover interview. So I signed up. A year later we were informed that if we passed the interview, all your "options" closed and you were a nuke. Many of us tried to back out of the interview. To no avail. We were locked in. So if you had plans/aspirations other than being a nuke, the only option was to make sure you failed the interview. Given Rickover's volatile nature, that was not difficult. My interview lasted less than 30 seconds. And watching the four stripers running around like I-day plebes, I was very happy to get out of there.

[Lonewolf_50]

My interview lasted less than 30 seconds. And watching the four stripers running around like I-day plebes, I was very happy to get out of there. Heh, I was given a bit of an arse chewing by the old man and got dismissed in about a minute. Also recall the strangeness of all them officers in civvy suits: weird, but that was the 70's for you. Weird in a lot of ways.

[KenV]

LONDON – With plans to purchase just 37 aircraft, the Netherlands fleet
of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is likely to be one of the smallest anywhere in
the world. Yet the fighter’s introduction is seen as a catalyst for change, transforming not only the way the Netherlands thinks about air power, but also prompting cohesion with bilateral and trilateral discussions among other European operators.
“We need to be suitable to operate in a modern, agile, and ever-changing environment,” explains Gen. Alexander Schnitger, commander of the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF), in an Aviation Week interview.
He says the rapid change in the pace of technological development, the shifting security environment and the increasing role of cyber and information has evolved the modern battlefield, and his air arm needs to evolve to reflect it. The F-35 buy is just part of that.
“The trick is to build an air force around the ability to at least react proactively and engage in those areas,” Schnitger says.
Without such thinking, he says, the force could “run the continuous risk of using the F-35 as simply a one-on-one replacement for the F-16, and to use it as [a] bomb truck. But it can do so much more.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Just a "bomb truck?" Or something more? Until it's out there in a fight, for real, it's hard to know. As with any new platform, folding it into the larger fight can take some getting used to, and will. I recall how the F-18A (with shorter legs and shorter deck cycle time than F-14) took a while to get used to. The fleet did, but I well recall some of the frustration in the Coral Sea BG, Med, mid 80's, over keeping the grid up.

[LowObservable]

Considering the price it had :mad:ing well better be more than a bomb truck.

That said, I suspect the principal obstacle to exploiting its capabilities in the way that its advocates like to advertise will be communications.

[Courtney Mil]

I get your point, LO, but I suspect there is a tougher obstacle and that will be truly understanding what the capability is. As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems. And that doesn't just mean sticking it up as Red Air in an all US exercise against F-16s in that big container just north of Area 51 where its speed disadvantage is no longer a factor. Getting that part wrong will be potentially fatal to any tactical development.

That very sensitive data is also going to have to be communicated to partner nations without the usual NOFORN deadlock. A real version and a releasable version should make for interesting times.

[Lonewolf_50]

That very sensitive data is also going to have to be communicated to partner nations without the usual NOFORN deadlock. A real version and a releasable version should make for interesting times. Got it in one, Courtney, an issue that I've been puzzling over since I began reading this thread.

I remember (over two decades ago) a bit of a thing where the US was selling the Aussies the Seahawk (S-70-B2) but there was a difference in the electronic library our ESM system had available compared to what was provided the Aussies (in terms of what's in the ESM library). I imagine that was a matter of ongoing dialogue between nations. I guess a similar dance was done, or is being done, since our friends in Oz chose to get 24 of the R models (http://www.navy.gov.au/aircraft/mh-60r-seahawk).

[a1bill]

LOThat said, I suspect the principal obstacle to exploiting its capabilities in the way that its advocates like to advertise will be communications.

you mean like the USAF, USN,USMC, UK, AUS and some other air force advocates? I haven't seen any statements saying otherwise and in fact it's FOC ability to communicate is given as a strength, I read some are still in development, but I would be happy to read any links you have.

CM As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems

I guess they have the same data and testing ranges as they would have used for the F-22, I haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done. The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of.

I can't provide the link ( i looked) but I saw a f-22/f-33 pilot say, on youtube I think? that the f-35 has better RCS in the search bands than the f-22, this implies the f-22 has better targeting band RCS and supports statements that the F-35 is second to the f-22.

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

Thank you for your reply. I have to say I don't fully understand the terms you have used; perhaps you could explain a couple of things for me. Your second paragraph first.

I can't provide the link ( i looked) but I saw a f-22/f-33 pilot say, on youtube I think? that the f-35 has better RCS in the search bands than the f-22, this implies the f-22 has better targeting band RCS and supports statements that the F-35 is second to the f-22.

When you say "the f-35 has better RCS in the search bands than the f-22" does better mean smaller? What are the "search bands" - 9.5GHz or significantly lower? Detection and targeting can be done down to the 225MHz band (and lower, but the technology may not be usefully discussed in this context); are you stating that F-35 RCS is optimised throughout that entire spectrum?

I guess they have the same data and testing ranges as they would have used for the F-22, I haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done. The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the same range facilities are available to F-35; I assume you are referring to RCS measurement facilities?

You state that you "haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done." Why do you think you would see that? It is, after all, one of the most classified areas of the design.

You also state that "The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of." I'm very pleased to hear that as it was one of my major concerns, as you will have read in my previous post and several more over the years. Can you assure me that the stealth data has been fully evaluated over the entire sphere - all aspects and elevations - and over the full range of radar bands available to current air defence systems?

I'd also be very interested if you could tell me which partners have received disclosure and if there have been any caveats.

Thank you for your reassuring post. I look forward to your response.

[ORAC]

you mean like the USAF, USN,USMC, UK, AUS and some other air force advocates? I haven't seen any statements saying otherwise and in fact it's FOC ability to communicate is given as a strength.... Enough said....... :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[a1bill]

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the same range facilities are available to F-35; I assume you are referring to RCS measurement facilities?
yes
You state that you "haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done." Why do you think you would see that? It is, after all, one of the most classified areas of the design.
the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet, the ones saying they wonder about the f-35 rcs/stealth aren't also saying the same about the f-22, which seems odd to me, as both would have been tested
You also state that "The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of." I'm very pleased to hear that as it was one of my major concerns, as you will have read in my previous post and several more over the years. Can you assure me that the stealth data has been fully evaluated over the entire sphere - all aspects and elevations - and over the full range of radar bands available to current air defence systems?
I'm willing to guess that the testing done on the f-22 was also done on the f-35 and if one accepts the F-22 as stated, then one should also accept the f-35 as JPO stated that the f-35 has better RCS than anything except the f-22.

As to the bands, the pilot didn't say, what he did say was that "the f-35 had better RCS than the f-22" and then corrected himself saying "at least in the search bands" my guess is he was going say better 'stealth', which is being said
I'd also be very interested if you could tell me which partners have received disclosure and if there have been any caveats.
'FMS buyers don't get the RCS data till they place an actual order' is publicly said.

RAAF say they have embedded staff and receive relevant data, I assume RCS would be relevant data, I could probably google a quote or two from LM and such, they keep saying the share the data with the partners, although there was the 'for US nationals only' mix up

Thank you for your reassuring post. I look forward to your response.
your welcome, although I read that the f-22 is getting a new skin in the MLU, so current speculation may need to change

[Bevo]

the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet, the ones saying they wonder about the f-35 rcs/stealth aren't also saying the same about the f-22, which seems odd to me, as both would have been tested


Please be aware of the following information about signature measurements which is from a briefing I put together a few years ago. Note the first chart which is about single numbers referring to the signature of an aircraft.
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide4_zpsed00c6bf.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide6_zpsab607891.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide5_zpsec82a5a4.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Briefing/Slide7_zpsff600d4b.jpg

[a1bill]

Bevo, don't tell me, I'm not disagreeing, It's CM that is speculating on what is said "I suspect there is a tougher obstacle and that will be truly understanding what the capability is. As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems. And that doesn't just mean sticking it up as Red Air in an all US exercise against F-16s in that big container just north of Area 51 where its speed disadvantage is no longer a factor. Getting that part wrong will be potentially fatal to any tactical development."

my point is if you accept what is said about the f-22 RCS, they how can you say the f-35 RCS is questionable? I'm missing the logic.

[Radix]

.............

[LowObservable]

The general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet

Well, then, it must be right!

I'm willing to guess that the testing done on the f-22 was also done on the f-35 and if one accepts the F-22 as stated, then one should also accept the f-35 as JPO stated that the f-35 has better RCS than anything except the f-22.

1 - See Bevo's post, 2 - define "better". And I'm willing to guess that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

As to the bands, the pilot didn't say, what he did say was that "the f-35 had better RCS than the f-22" and then corrected himself saying "at least in the search bands" my guess is he was going say better 'stealth', which is being said

Radars search. That's what they're for. Some systems use different bands for detection, acquisition and tracking, but all bands can be used for search, which is why the phrase "search bands" is utterly meaningless except in the context of a specific class of multiband system.

'FMS buyers don't get the RCS data till they place an actual order' is publicly said.

And any government official recommending a contract signature on those terms should be publicly shot, if this is true. But it probably isn't.

although I read that the f-22 is getting a new skin in the MLU

Source for that?

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

Bevo, don't tell me, I'm not disagreeing, It's CM that is speculating on what is said

the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet


Your two statements there are vey much at odds with Bevo's very good explanation and with the laws of physics; and that, partly, is the crux of my "speculation". The RCS data I refer to is that from the various aspects, elevations in different frequency bands and varying polarisations. Not just a single figure. Put very simply, head sector I or X Band RCS is fine for air-to-air pre-merge, not so much for air-to-ground ingress where lower frequency systems may be present. That said, one cannot always present the head sector, so the full RCS model becomes very important, especially if the aircraft's performance parameters have been compromised to achieve improvements in RCS reduction. For obvious reasons and with that in mind, the complete RCS picture becomes incredibly sensitive, which is why your repeated reference to internet data is so flawed - not to mention your assumptions and guesses.

You also repeatedly try to link F-35 with F-22. There is a massive difference that you carefully avoid in your statements. F-22 is purely air-to-air and, as such, faces vastly different threats and has the option to engage, disengage and re-engage depending on the tactical situation and threat, making maximum use of its stealth model. F-35 in its primary role will not enjoy the same tactical freedom and is more likely to be forced to expose its higher RCS aspects to enemy systems. So, for that reason, it is vital for operators to understand fully the RCS model of the aircraft - a blanket -40db figure simply does not cut it. Also, your insistence in drawing comparisons between F-22 and F-35 is both illogical and irrelevant.

Going back to your statement at post 8154,

The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of.

Please compare that with your subsequent statement at post 8157,

'FMS buyers don't get the RCS data till they place an actual order' is publicly said.

RAAF say they have embedded staff and receive relevant data, I assume RCS would be relevant data, I could probably google a quote or two from LM and such, they keep saying the share the data with the partners, although there was the 'for US nationals only' mix up.

When challenged, I note you have changed your statement of fact that data has been shared to "they keep saying the [sic] share the data with the partners..." and "FMS buyers don't get the data till they place an actual order".

Going back to none have [sic] raised it as a concern that I know of.

My point, if you read it properly, was nothing to do with being concerned about RCS, it was about fully understanding the entire model in order to exploit its capabilities (see LO's post 8151). As usual, you assume that any discussion of F-35 is automatically a criticism. For the record, CM is not "speculating on what is said", CM is pointing out the massive errors in your interpretations of "what is said".

You still have not demonstrated what data is released (or to be released), nor to whom or with what caveats; a point that I hope you can now see is entirely relevant and vitally important.

In just two posts you have now used the terms 'guess', 'generally accepted', 'general claim', 'implies', 'assume' and 'speculation' seven times. That seems odd when one considers the certainty with which to state your internet-based assertions as facts. You also need to understand the difference between informed people discussing areas of tactical interest surrounding an important military project and people simply being critical of the project.

Happy to discuss RCS and its tactical implications further if it will help you fill an obvious gap in your understanding.



Radix,

You are absolutely correct.

[MSOCS]

CM,

F-22 is purely air-to-air and, as such, faces vastly different threats and has the option to engage, disengage and re-engage depending on the tactical situation and threat, making maximum use of its stealth model.

F-22 is not purely A-A. The mantra was once, "not a pound for air-to-ground" but F-22 has had JDAM and SDB capability for some time now.

I agree with those who have posted that, on the subject of RCS, it "depends." It always gives me a wry smile when stealth seems the be the only thing people care about; it is but one part of the system after all.

Anyway, good to see the debate continues to rage.

[a1bill]

the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet, now this was taken nicely out of context.
It's just a internet myth about the marble size. it's not an official statement from anyone. the point was even this about the f-22 isn't carried on about.

As opposed to official statements and interviews from those within the program
that the F-35 has the lowest RCS other than the f-22 and better 'stealth' than the f-22.
My own comparison with the f-22 is that the same data and testing ranges for the F-22 would have been used for the f-35. so accept or reject both.

my opinions are guesses and assumptions, unless it's an official statement or interview.

[Lonewolf_50]

a1bill:

From my experiences in Anti Submarine Warfare (using acoustics rather than radar) and targets that are of irregular shape, I find the points raised by Radix and Courtney about the rcs variations very familiar territory. The actual versus theoretical signal a receiver will have available to process, when trying to get a good paint on the target (such as an F-35 or a Tornado or whatever) will vary with aspect. (See page 4 of this paper on the acoustic version (http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=ece_fac)of this non uniform target signal ... which btw is a non-military application).

As Courtney points out, how the rcs varies with aspect (since the F-35 is not a perfect sphere) is classified ... and I'll add for a Damned Good Reason. While I hope that it remains so, I have some doubts in this age of people not being able to keep their traps shut. :ugh::mad:

[PhilipG]

I feel that the point is slightly being missed in this part of the thread, Airframe Stealth however measured is not the be all and end all of stealth.

The F35 is meant to be rather a noisy plane, it is meant to be part of a net centric solution to war fighting, it is neither small nor fast and does not have a great range.

I understand that what are now considered LPI links are being used for the data communication between the planes and other members of the strike package, how long will these links remain LPI?

The engine in an F35 is quite large and as discussed the plane cannot super cruise, except when loosing height and then allegedly only for a certain short time, implicitly the thermal signature of the engine will be quite high and thus moderately easy to target.

The cloak of invisibility and invincibility that the F35 is alleged to have I don’t think anyone is suggesting is like the Emperor with no cloths, non-existent, rather it is of rather lower quality than that worn by an F22 or a B2.

Once the true performance of the F35 has been understood, I am sure that appropriate tactics can be developed, slightly different ones will obviously be needed for first day of war strike as to those needed for an F35 engaged in National Air Defence with externally mounted missiles.

[a1bill]

Lonewolf_50,
thanks for the link, water is just very thick air :) and the similarity with radar would be there. It does need more than theory and I guess it's one of the reasons they put the f-35 on a pole on an outdoor range for some of the testing.

PhilipG,
they are saying the f-35 has better RCS than a B-2 and is only second to the f-22. They are also saying the f-35 has better 'stealth' than the f-22
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
Bear in mind that the F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins.

“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf_50,
thanks for the link, water is just very thick air :) and the similarity with radar would be there. Not gonna derail, but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. :cool:


“Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.” "The synergistic effects" looks to me like the recycling of the "force multiplier" rhetoric of the 1970's and 1980's. I guess when we've been at this for long enough, we see various things recycle. More to the point, the USAF mouthpiece's PoV is that for some reason, they have to do this whole thing alone with the Joint Strike Fighter. :E :8 :} I guess one has to dumb this down when speaking to those outside the profession --- the press.

[Rhino power]

[So] I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

That statement is a contradiction in terms surely? If 'he' needs eight F-35's to go after a target which only requires two F-22's, then how can the (8) F-35's be 'equally or more effective'? By definition if you need eight of one aircraft instead of two of another, the eight aircraft are less effective!

-RP

[Lonewolf_50]

That statement is a contradiction in terms surely? If 'he' needs eight F-35's to go after a target which only requires two F-22's, then how can the (8) F-35's be 'equally or more effective'? By definition if you need eight of one aircraft instead of two of another, the eight aircraft are less effective!

-RP I think that the point he was trying to make is that the F-22 is optimized for Air Superiority, while the F-35 is not, but is instead a multipurpose strike aircraft with air-to-air as an included mission area. I'll make a guess here: the officer in question was making a poorly veiled criticism of the decision to cut short the F-22 buy.

[a1bill]

Lonewolf_50, that was what the smile was for.

my take on it is for A2A, where they make up for the f-22's ability to 'turn and run' is 8 f-35 = 2 f-22 and is a very bold statement that the f-35 wouldn't need to "turn and run' with those numbers and the f-22 could have to.

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

My own comparison with the f-22 is that the same data and testing ranges for the F-22 would have been used for the f-35. so accept or reject both.

I still fail to see why you keep pushing this assertion in response to people's replies to you. I do not question the source, content or value of the data collected. If you read posts properly you will see (although, given your record in that department, I doubt it) that it is the full sharing and application of that information that I am discussing.

As usual, you carefully ignore all the other points that members here address to you.

[a1bill]

I'm still waiting for LO and coms.
the RCS data sharing I'm going to have to google to get a link that you may accept,

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

I wouldn't be too worried about a link concerning the sharing of classified US information - it is not an area that anyone is likely to discuss in any detail in the media.

You might explain a statement you have made twice now.

they are saying the f-35 has better RCS than a B-2 and is only second to the f-22. They are also saying the f-35 has better 'stealth' than the f-22

So, you claim "they" are saying that RCS goes in the order F-22, F-35, B-2, but that the stealth properties put F-35 ahead of F-22; you don't place B-2 in that latter league. The important aspect of this apparent dichotomy is what other EM properties lead to your conclusion?

[Bevo]

Lonewolf_50,
thanks for the link, water is just very thick air :) and the similarity with radar would be there. It does need more than theory and I guess it's one of the reasons they put the f-35 on a pole on an outdoor range for some of the testing.

The REAL signature testing is done in flight where the flight controls are active and gaps caused by aerodynamic loads can be seen. That type of testing is done at only a very few places in the U.S.

they are saying the f-35 has better RCS than a B-2 and is only second to the f-22.Please stop with these useless comparisons. As I have said, without listing frequency, aspect angle, and elevation angle they are completely meaningless. It will probably surprise you that it is easier to reduce the low frequency signature on the forward sector of a larger aircraft like the B-2 because of edge length.

[a1bill]

CM, as soon as I see someone say the f-35 has better 'stealth' than the B-2, I will tell you, until now I haven't seen it.
we talled about this back on P404 and I think by stealth he means REC given his statement
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.
I'm still waiting for you to say why you think the testing doesn't resolve what you said
I get your point, LO, but I suspect there is a tougher obstacle and that will be truly understanding what the capability is. As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems. And that doesn't just mean sticking it up as Red Air in an all US exercise against F-16s in that big container just north of Area 51 where its speed disadvantage is no longer a factor. Getting that part wrong will be potentially fatal to any tactical development.

That very sensitive data is also going to have to be communicated to partner nations without the usual NOFORN deadlock. A real version and a releasable version should make for interesting times.

Bevo, in the public forum, this is all we have. general and sweeping statements

[Courtney Mil]

You're still waiting? Then read! As I told you, I have no issue with the source, content or value of the data. Disclosure is a different matter as is the analysis and tactical application. The bottom line is that the RCS models will have shapes that are relevant to my statement and to tactical deployment. Do you have any experience in tactics and analysis? You might also consider Bevo's point.

[ORAC]

Exercise Raises Questions About Marine Corps F-35 Plans (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/169774/exercise-raises-questions-about-marine-corps-f_35b-plans.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

Exercise Raises Questions About Marine Corps F-35 Plans (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/169774/exercise-raises-questions-about-marine-corps-f_35b-plans.html) Gee, no axe to grind there. Shades of the V-22 all over again.
So, here are the Marines, sorting out how they can and will use the F-35 and we get

Is It Worth The Cost?

Well, it has to be, since all of the chances in the last 14 years to cancel it have not been taken.

The eggs are in the basket, sort out how to make it work.
:ugh:

[Courtney Mil]

Time to make an omelet.

[Thelma Viaduct]

"The latest available price for the F-35B, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee (see table below), is $251 million per aircraft"

How many F/A-18E/F/Gs does that buy you? 3 at least i reckon.

More importantly, I believe through life costs for fighter aircraft is ~ 10 x purchase price. I'm sure stealthy aircraft are probably a bit more than x10.

[LowObservable]

Actually, there are more rotten eggs to be paid for - another $30 billion in procurement for a couple-hundred-more F-35Bs, maybe twice that in through-life support.

And it's hardly axe-grinding to observe that we knew almost six years ago that the F-35B was no Harrier, and knew what its exhaust would do to any surface. The Marines and Lockheed Martin responded then by lying.

The current Marine "doctrine" (the Marines define "doctrine" as "fictional processes that justify major defense programs") calls for the F-35B force to hop from one M-FARP to another every 72 hours or so, to avoid SRBM attacks. Not so easy to do when it takes 17 days of :mad:s-out effort to build a simple landing pad.

[a1bill]

LO, remember page 405? How is that f-35 reduced and 72 f-15/16 working out for you? I told you you shouldn't listen to sweetman

and he just posted this
Opinion: Why Does U.S. Air Force Want New F-15s Or F-16s? | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-why-does-us-air-force-want-new-f-15s-or-f-16s)
The first step is admitting there is a problem

I agree I think it's time he accepted he has a problem, The air force has already called BS on it from his first article. That wasn't enough, he has to rewrite the same article


as well as today, I saw that not only aren't they cutting production back, they are ordering an extra 11

The Air Force, Marines and Navy will get 11 more Lockheed Martin F-35 joint-strike fighters than asked for under the spending deal reached by congressional negotiators Tuesday night that would fund the government through September 2016 and avoid a shutdown.
The $1.1 trillion agreed-upon spending package would provide $111 billion for defense upgrades and new supplies, including 68 F-35s. The Pentagon this year had asked for fiscal-2016 funding to acquire 57 F-35s.
Six of the aircraft would go to the Marines, three would go to the Air Force and two would go to the Navy, according to Politico. In total, the extra planes amount to around $1.3 billion in extra funding, Politico said.
The bill is expected to pass in the House and Senate this week. That would follow a vote, set for Wednesday, to approve a stopgap measure that would extend the government's spending authority through Dec. 22, the Washington Post reported.

[ORAC]

The military haven't ordered more, the politicians have added more to help out LM, there's a difference.

The reluctance of the military is that they know all the early airframes will, inevitably, have to go back for extensive modifications as further changes are made to the design as testing continues. More probably they'll end up at AMARC wrapped in preservative. Which is why they've been fighting off the ramp-up to full production.

[LowObservable]

You need to send that strongly worded letter, a1bill, since it seems that AW&ST's editors are not hearing your excellently founded views.

The plus-up is interesting, and I think ORAC has it. LM was planning a year ago to book 64 partner/FMS sales in FY2015-16.

They were two sales short in 2015, but the FY16 goal in 2014 was 41. Now, they need only 28 partner/FMS sales in FY16 to meet the total production plan.

[glad rag]

The plus-up is interesting, and I think ORAC has it. LM was planning a year ago to book 64 partner/FMS sales in FY2015-16, and I don't think they are on track to do it.

Almost 5 decades on and the same old...

_QE4E41-hk0&list=RD_QE4E41-hk0#t=38

[a1bill]

LO, the point may be that not only are the forces aren't cutting the f-35, the government is also adding 11 units
where are the US air forces cuts coming from, that was said by sweetman?

now you are throwing in a red herring and suggesting it's not the US, it's the other partners and FMS that are reducing their order. The US government hasn't been shy about cutting tails in the past, it now can't and has to increase it's order to make up for others? well done.

LO, you wouldn't have a link to the other partner/FMS cuts, I've read nothing about it. Or is it just your opinion of what might happen?

[KenV]

The military haven't ordered more, the politicians have added more to help out LM, there's a difference.......
...Which is why they've been fighting off the ramp-up to full production. Is it just me, or are those two statements contradictory?

And on a separate note: what is the first statement based on? Hard data? Conjecture? Wishful thinking? Nabob thinking?

[a1bill]

it's simple Ken, they are going to stop the ramp up by ramping up.

it's good that they are being nice to LM and helping them out. lets hope they stop taking money off them for missed test points and stop making them pay for cost overruns next

[LowObservable]

It's fairly simple, even for the pettifogging Polyannas of positivism.

LM is on record at AFA 2014 as predicting 55 DoD orders in 2016 and 41 partner/FMS orders, for a total of 96. The president's budget added two DoN aircraft, for a total of 57. It is my information that long-lead contracts were also awarded for 96.

So the question is whether the 11 aircraft just added will be matched by an increase in production. If not, and the total remains at 96, then the plan relies on 28 partner/FMS orders.

The DoD isn't going to do anything, at this point, that would block sales to partners. So clearly, they don't expect more than 28 orders, which is probably realistic, but someone tipped off Congress to authorize the extras to keep the production ramp in shape.

[a1bill]

LO. being rude isn't playing nice, were you a bully at school?

it is announced when the other partners/FMS place their long lead time orders, are you saying these orders were placed without the partners/FMS making the order?

The US gov have happily cut f-35 orders before, it's a funny thing that now they can't do what the USAF and politicians want and cut the f-35 to buy legacy

it still doesn't support the proposition that they are cutting the f-35 orders to buy 70 odd f-15/16 does it

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

You are sidestepping all the technical points that rise from your numerous statements. Presumably you hope the difficult questions will simply go away if you ignore them long enough. OK. But I would like you to answer one of my previous questions:

You stated that F-22 has "better" RCS than F-35, but that F-35 has better stealth than F-22. Without resorting to nominating previous pages of this thread and without posting links and without stating what someone else said, please explain what other EM properties lead to that conclusion and that can be.

You have made these statements, now please demonstrate what you mean by them; they are not just quotes to be thrown around to support an argument. Please explain their meaning.

[a1bill]

CM, perhaps if you look on the last page #8176
there is the link and quotes. stealth and RCS are different , aren't they?


also even sweetman, but you need to dig through the snide comments he makes
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

I normally thank people when they correct me

[Courtney Mil]

So you are unable to explain the technology you were spouting about. Thank you for clarifying that.

[LowObservable]

a1bill - As I have explained before, I haven't even started being rude. But if being called a "pettifogging Polyanna of positivism" (which obviously was a response to KenV's allusion to the wit and wisdom of ex-VP Agnew) hurts your sensitive feelings, I will do it again and again.

Again, put simply: if 2016 orders stay around 96, then the "extra" F-35s are being bought to substitute for the missing partner/FMS orders, avoiding a cost increase (since LL items have been bought, it would be quite steep) that would imperil other hoped-for orders.

The next question: are the on-US orders just running a little late, or is the projected late-decade surge (320 jets through the 2020 order year) a mirage? I guess we'll find out. Maybe the Turks will sign on for all their 100 airplanes.

That has little to do with ACC's concern about its ability to afford a sustained 60-80 jets in the out-years and even less to do with the potential for a bridge buy of older types. In fact, it doesn't seem that the AF and Navy are particularly enthused, as the AF is getting only three of the extras and the Navy two.

[LowObservable]

CM - I suppose in theory an F-35 could have a greater RCS than an F-22 and still be "stealthier" because of detectability by other means in other bands. But that is really unlikely given that radar is still the prime means of detection, and probably isn't what Hostage meant.

And clearly this argument is being pushed by a person who seems to be rather obsessed, but with a limited understanding of the technology involved.

[a1bill]

I think you will find that IR comes under the 'stealth' heading too

I quoted o'bryan and said that I think he meant RCS when he said stealth
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

sweetman link quoted
Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.

The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

The same internet quotes over and over again.

You've already displayed your ignorance in this area. Here's another opportunity for you. The Hostage quote about "cross section"; did he mean physical dimensions or RCS?

I ask the question again. Can you explain, in your own words, the practical differerences between RCS and stealth and how do those differences account for the reversal of two platforms' rankings?

You made the statement, so you shouldn't have too much trouble backing it up. In your own words, please. Not just "he said" or more links. You explain what you're posting here.

[a1bill]

If Hostage is referring to RCS, he is at odds with O'bryan. That then brings into play the f-22/35 pilot who I recall saying the the f-35 has a smaller RCS in the search bands. If both Hostage and O'Byran are both talking RCS, are they both talking in the same bands?

[LowObservable]

It's more a case of different people trying to spin a not-very-believable story two different ways and merely spreading confusion.

[LowObservable]

By the way, from the link that the OzTroll supplies:

Three questions that all those export customers should answer to their voters: In what Block will those magic cyber capabilities appear? What guarantees have been provided that F-35 cyber weapons developed by the U.S. will be shared with non-U.S. operators? And, failing that, will international partners be enabled to program their own cyber-operations tools into the F-35?

We seem to have seen answers to those questions recently.

[a1bill]

I used the sweetman link to show even the fringe bloggers are reporting the quote that the f-35 stealth is better than f-22 , "also even sweetman, but you need to dig through the snide comments he makes "

as to you quoting sweetmans 'opinions', I guess that's up to you, Sweetman is at the level of Axe, APA and ELP. I've even seen him quote from among them

I wouldn't call them answers but you may have seen him expand his nonsense with a rubbish article about the RPL and EW

[LowObservable]

That's not very coherent. Try again in the morning.

[glad rag]

I used the sweetman link to show even the fringe bloggers are reporting the quote that the f-35 stealth is better than f-22 , "also even sweetman, but you need to dig through the snide comments he makes "



What has this to do with anything connected to :mad: reality??

:*

[a1bill]

GR, CM didn't know about the quote I spoke about and asked me to provide it, I gave the AW site and an article by sweetman. then here we are.

[Courtney Mil]

CM most certainly did not ask you to provide any quote. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

[a1bill]

I know that you encouraged me to wax lyrically about all I know, but you ask this
http://www.pprune.org/9212507-post8174.html

[ORAC]

Well a1bill just went on my ignore list - and only the second one on it after over 10 years........

[ORAC]

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/zu7u6P45GrSu.GuDsZr7RA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MTg3O3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3 PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt151216.gif

[LowObservable]

"What has this to do with anything connected to :mad: reality??"

:mad:ed if I know, GR.

[glad rag]

I know that you encouraged me to wax lyrically about all I know, but you ask this
http://www.pprune.org/9212507-post8174.html

a1 the f35 is coming.

Here in the UK the politicians have manoeuvred themselves [in the widest sense] into purchasing the least effective variant of a dismally performing aircraft [referenced to the ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS]
This in turn has ensured the there will be no cross operability with any other significant naval air arm and has induced a spate of support airframes tailored to suit a gelded carrier [oh what of those great British Naval Aviation innovations]

So you won't be surprised if some of us haven't fully "bought in" to the dream.

[GlobalNav]

"So you won't be surprised if some of us haven't fully "bought in" to the dream."

Isn't it just a crazy world we live in now? You know, the world where Putin praises Trump. Oh yeah, and the one where Trump says he's "honored" by Putin's praise. The F-35 sounds eminently more sane by comparison.

[Courtney Mil]

Actually, Glad Rag, that is a very relevant and timely remark.

Here in the UK the politicians have manoeuvred themselves [in the widest sense] into purchasing the least effective variant of a dismally performing aircraft [referenced to the ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS]
This in turn has ensured the there will be no cross operability with any other significant naval air arm and has induced a spate of support airframes tailored to suit a gelded carrier [oh what of those great British Naval Aviation innovations]

So you won't be surprised if some of us haven't fully "bought in" to the dream.

The U.K. could have had a better model (the cost of the cats and traps was a ridiculous situation) and the performance baseline has been eroded to a level that is, shall we say, less than impressive. Maybe if you were a FAA operator, you might be grateful for a Harrier replacement - yes, I understand the differences. But I also understand the reservations and I think GR expresses that very well.

[glad rag]

"So you won't be surprised if some of us haven't fully "bought in" to the dream."

Isn't it just a crazy world we live in now? You know, the world where Putin praises Trump. Oh yeah, and the one where Trump says he's "honored" by Putin's praise. The F-35 sounds eminently more sane by comparison.

Is that the best you can do?

Indeed the US and Russia are quite "cosy" just now.

[a1bill]

for some the news only gets worse from AvW,
As the U.S. Navy prepares its budget submissions for the upcoming fiscal year, the U.S. Defense Department wants the Navy to buy 31 more F-35Cs,

[AR1]

Does this thread still have a point? As it stands we are commited. And thats it.

[LowObservable]

The fascinating question, of course, is "31 more than what"?

“To meet the expanding adversary fighter threat, we will procure 31 additional F-35C relative to the Navy POM submission (and 10 more than the PB-16 plan)".

So the answer is "31 more than a plan we haven't seen" which apparently contained a startling 21-jet cut relative to the PB16 (Presidential Budget, the one published at the beginning of the year).

This is fully consistent with two known facts. Navy Air has been developing plans that fund as few as 12 F-35Cs; and we've just seen a plus-up that, most likely, is a matter of the U.S. taxpayer buying up FY16 jets that the export customers don't want (yet).*

So (clickclickclick on the old calculator) this week sees the Pentagon spending $6 billion on extra jets that the users don't want (at least yet) to avert the start of the good ol' death spiral. You're right, a1bill - for some, the news only gets worse!

* That's on the most-probably-correct hypothesis that the plus-up doesn't boost total production, but awaiting final confirmation on that.

[a1bill]

you mean it's just a click bait story from AW? That's disappointing of them.

[LowObservable]

AR1 - Indeed the UK is committed. However, current actions will influence what the final bill will be (=what other capabilities will be cut to pay for the carrier force) and how much capability the force itself will have, and when.

[sandiego89]

AR1 does this thread even have a point....

AR1, ignore the "cancelled" title to this thread. For better or worse :E this has become the F-35 news and views thread on this forum. Maybe with the new year we should try again to start a fresh one....

[Maus92]

It's been interesting to see F-35 authorizations rise during various committee hearings this fall. First, we get an extra six -Bs to fulfill its unfunded requirements, the justification being those are to replace the Harriers lost during the Camp Bastion attack, an argument the USMC has been trying for the last few cycles. Congress adds an additional 12 Super Hornet (split between E/F/Gs) orders to fulfill a Navy unfunded priority, but only two of eight unfunded -Charlies are authorized. The last five F-35 were split between -Bs and -As, noting that the USAF did not request additional F-35As.

Looking at the funding that was actually included in the bill, it is apparent that these aircraft will be produced using AP funding from prior years, and modification and O&S funds from somewhere else. The theory that production slots and long lead items availability allow it to happen fairly painlessly seems valid.

Finally, my cynical side see a bit more than a coincidence between 12 Boeing Supers and 11 Lockheed Martin F-35s. I'd wager some "handshakes" were made.

[Courtney Mil]

Again, why the need for Growlers if the F-35 is so fifth generation and its stealth so good?

[LowObservable]

Maus - I'm making the case in this thread that the F-35 plus-ups are to sustain the production ramp until (in theory) actual partner/FMS contracts catch up with the projections. Do you think that's correct?

[Maus92]

LO - certainly plausible. As you know, they've be spending lots of money on infrastructure to support a certain level of production. To allow those facilities to run at an uneconomical rate would be, uneconomical. Carter's very recent push towards aircraft production (both F/A-18 and F-35) vs. ships could also pump up the volume in the next few years - if the Navy goes along. Lots of mixed messages re: F-35 numbers coming out of OSD this month. The game continues.

[Turbine D]

Ah,

Behind all the maneuvering by DoD on the F-35 to prevent the price of the aircraft from exceeding promised figures is the avoidance of a hearing in Congress like this. This happens to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense testifying to the Senate on US Syrian strategy. Imagine a hearing like this on the F-35 skyrocketing costs... Both the Congressional supporters and the DoD supporters of the F-35 Program need to get beyond the November 2016 elections without this type of hearing happening, watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQwofJEQ6ng

[WE Branch Fanatic]

There is a myth busting video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U) - not sure how to post a YouTube clip...

Also CVN availability seems to becoming an issue - hence stories like this (http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsus-deploys-av-8b-harrier-jets-to-support-fight-against-isil-4733468):

The US has deployed AV-8B Harriers fighter jets to support Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in its fight against the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq.

The Harriers from the US Marine Corps (USMC) Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM)162 will conduct their first missions over Iraq.

VMM-162(REIN) is the aviation combat element of the 26th MEU, currently embarked with the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) Amphibious Ready Group (ARG).

Additionally, the ARG-MEU team of marines and sailors are deployed throughout the region to carry out missions in support of OIR, including theatre security cooperation and maritime security operations.

"We're here to assure our allies, deter any adversaries and provide a persistent US presence here in the US 5th Fleet area of operations."

Kearsarge ARG commander captain Augustus P Bennett said: "The Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group with the embarked 26th MEU, along with our coalition partners, are here to degrade and destroy ISIL's current operations under OIR.

"The combined ARG-MEU team is an expeditionary Navy/Marine Corps force that stands ready and has been trained for these types of operations. We're here to assure our allies, deter any adversaries and provide a persistent US presence here in the US 5th Fleet area of operations."

In October, the last naval aviation missions in support of OIR were conducted from USS Essex (LHD 2).

Just as well there is a ship-borne STOVL option!

[LowObservable]

More like recycling myths, I suspect, although I did not get far, with the narrator sounding like the voice-alert system from a 1986 Toyota.

Sounds like the Kearsage is being positioned to do CSAR (see: Libya) in the event of an "oops, butterfingerski" from the S-400 crew, or whatever "Fox 2... oh :mad:" sounds like in Turkish.

What it almost certainly is not is adding six AV-8Bs because of inadequate bomb-dropper numbers, because it seems that the choke-point for the operation is ISR, PED and other targeting phases.

[Maus92]

Truman CSG is now in the 5th Fleet AOR, one month into a 7 month deployment.

[LowObservable]

Yes, but that's only a CSG - no comparison to the mighty firepower and range of six AV-8Bs.

[Lonewolf_50]

Again, why the need for Growlers if the F-35 is so fifth generation and its stealth so good? This is an easy answer:

1. Because for the next 15 years, not every mission will be flown by F-35's.
2. Because one can expect the EM spectrum to get more interesting, not less so, and our old habits of keeping some EW in a strike package aren't all bad.

[glad rag]

F-35 Officials Prove Need for Cyber Testing by Cancelling One (http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/f-35-officials-prove-need-for-cyber-testing.html)

"..cyber tests are particularly important for the F-35, which is commonly referred to as a “flying computer (http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/13/f-35-the-future-for-the-worlds-most-advanced-aircraft.html).”

The plane has approximately 30 million lines (http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/SE-FY13-AnnualReport-25March2014-Final.pdf) of software code controlling all of the plane’s functions, from moving flight surfaces to creating images in its infamous $600,000 helmet (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/magic-helmet-for-f-35-ready-for-delivery/).

All this is tightly integrated with the ALIS program, which many consider to be the plane’s largest vulnerability (http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-hackers-2014-2).

Should an enemy hack the ALIS system successfully, they could disable F-35 systems in combat, cause disastrous crashes, or ground the entire fleet (http://cyberwarzone.com/new-f-35-fighter-jet-vulnerable-cyber-attacks/)."...

[Tourist]

Should an enemy hack the ALIS system successfully, they could disable F-35 systems in combat, cause disastrous crashes, or ground the entire fleet (http://cyberwarzone.com/new-f-35-fighter-jet-vulnerable-cyber-attacks/)."...

How is this different from the computer running the fly-by-wire system or FADEC of any fighter since F16?

Once you have a computer between you and the flight controls or engine, you are entirely exposed to hacking if an enemy manages to get into your software. The fact that nobody has managed it yet suggests it ain't easy....

This is just a moron article.

[Rhino power]

How is this different from the computer running the fly-by-wire system or FADEC of any fighter since F16?

Because of the way the ALIS system integrates with the F-35, via a global network, I'm not aware of any other fighter since, and including, the F-16 that once airborne has any of it's systems, let alone flight or mission critical systems connected via such a network?

-RP

[MSOCS]

Article clearly bolleux. There are not 30 million lines of software code, leading me to believe it's a completely incredible and weighted pile of journalistic rubbish.

Still, if it fits the narrative of the poster....

[glad rag]

How is this different from the computer running the fly-by-wire system or FADEC of any fighter since F16?

Once you have a computer between you and the flight controls or engine, you are entirely exposed to hacking if an enemy manages to get into your software. The fact that nobody has managed it yet suggests it ain't easy....

This is just a moron article.

A400 accident ring a bell, old stick and wire man.

:ok:

[glad rag]

Article clearly bolleux. There are not 30 million lines of software code, leading me to believe it's a completely incredible and weighted pile of journalistic rubbish.



Prove it to the forum then, as you are so confident in all matters re F-35 you'll have all the facts to hand.

I tend to take a step back and look at the overall picture...

http://st.depositphotos.com/1177254/3943/i/110/depositphotos_39439129-Rusty-Nail-Head.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Probably six and a half just now; maybe eight and a half when it's finished. But what exactly is a "line of code"? If they're talking instructions and including the diagnostics and all the other stuff the onboard boxes need to interface with, they could be right. But not all defence experts understand software architecture or even the terms used to describe it.

[MSOCS]

It's around "8.5 - 9" million lines of software code for SDD; devil being in the detail, of course.

CM - as always you make a good point but I'm still suspicious of a x4 ish order of magnitude inflation in their facts.

Software has always been the biggest sticking point for me and they have always been behind, since around 2005. Some poor decisions were made back then and we've faced the brunt of those decisions since.

[airsound]

I was particularly impressed with Glad Rag's last quoted article New F-35 Fighter Jet is vulnerable to cyber-attacks - Cyberwarzone (http://cyberwarzone.com/new-f-35-fighter-jet-vulnerable-cyber-attacks/)

For instance, the F-35 Figther Jet and even better The United States Armed Forces are developed a New F-35 Fighter Jet Obviously a highly literate publication.

airsound

[glad rag]

Strawman abound however.

Oh btw, is there anyone here who is old enough to remember the "fun and games" involved when SEMA first came online on the Tornado units???

Despite that electronic system, the paper based 700's were retained as primary reference, now is this the case with this F-35 aircraft???

[Radix]

.............

[Courtney Mil]

I think you'll find the S in SLOC stands for Source, not Software. Development software will typically extend over more lines due to readability for future revisions.

In the final "software", the term "Line" doesn't really have much meaning.

To get up to 24 million lines you'd have to count a lot of off board code as well as the internal aircraft systems.

[LowObservable]

Whether the software is on or off the jet is not such a crucial distinction if you can't sustain ops without it.

[ORAC]

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/F_01tEWNLkl0CzH0i7E7uQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MjkzO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2Zm PTA7cT03NTt3PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt151220.jpg

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Yes, but that's only a CSG - no comparison to the mighty firepower and range of six AV-8Bs.

US amphibious ships can carry up to twenty jets in a secondary strike role. Why do you think she (Kearsarge) only has six embarked?

BTW this part of the quoted article suggests that was a CVN free period:

In October, the last naval aviation missions in support of OIR were conducted from USS Essex (LHD 2).

Hence my point about the value of shipborne STOVL stands.

Also VMM? Thought USMC Harrier units were VMFA?

[Tourist]

If someone thinks it's the same as a FADEC, he/she really needs to read up on modern computing/networking...!?

Hacker control of a FADEC is just as dangerous as hacker control of any other part of an aircraft.....


I am, I freely admit, not particularly computer savvy, so I went and asked my brother who just happens to be a reasonably well known in the industry white hat hacker or "pentester" as the article put it.

What he said was "You can set up connections that an attacker cannot piggy back on, yes - data-only information pathways - however if the system is set up like that, an attacker could still........."

I won't tell you what he thought they might be able to do in case it gives anybody ideas, but essentially, the idea that a hacker could make the aircraft fall out of the sky is bogus with an even moderately well set up system, however they could possibly cause havoc with the logistical system on the ground if they got entry.

The thrust of the overly dramatic article suggesting that F35 is going to be falling out of the sky due to hackers targeting ALIS is, as I stated earlier, b@llocks.


He finished by saying "But one of the core ways to check that you have implemented it correctly is to use penetrating testing :-)"

But then he would say that, wouldn't he.

[Kitbag]

Tourist, did you actually read the article? The only bit of drama seems to be coming from you. It is quite clear the issue under threat is the logistics system, not the software that controls the ac (although that threat level may rise in future).

The point is as LO has said, you don't need to have a hack to bring aircraft down whilst flying, you just don't allow them to fly in the first place.

[sandiego89]

WE Branch Fanatic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yes, but that's only a CSG - no comparison to the mighty firepower and range of six AV-8Bs.
US amphibious ships can carry up to twenty jets in a secondary strike role. Why do you think she (Kearsarge) only has six embarked?

BTW this part of the quoted article suggests that was a CVN free period:

In October, the last naval aviation missions in support of OIR were conducted from USS Essex (LHD 2).

Hence my point about the value of shipborne STOVL stands.

Also VMM? Thought USMC Harrier units were VMFA?


WE, the Kearsage is a part of a Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) with a Marine Expiditionary Unit (MEU) emparked. The normal complement of the MEU airwing will include Harriers, MV-22, CH-53's, UH-1, and AH-1 aboard the LHD and on the other ships in the ARG. Usually 6 Harriers will be deployed.

This is a MEU deployment- not a "Harrier Carrier" deployment.

When the Harriers are deployed as part of a MEU they are attached to a medium helicopter/tiltwing squadron, thus the VMM designation in the article. The medium squadron is the largest squadron in the MEU and now consists of MV-22 (until recently it would have been the CH-46 sqaudron). The whole harrier squadron does not deploy, just a detachment of 6 jets and associated pilots and maintainers. They are adminstratively assigned to the larger helo/tiltwing squadron for the deployment. Sometimes you will see it noted as VMM (reinforced).