F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think "high fidelity" is a "how long is a piece of string" question. Personally, if I can meet my ID criteria for a target with sufficient visual acuity that's good enough. In Gulf War 2 people were successfully doing it "in a CAS context" using gyro-stabilised binoculars from 20,000 feet. The SAR-map quality of modern radars is truly spectacular.
That's true to a point, but whether APG-81 can detect/track dismounts is a good question. 1-meter resolution is a nice map, but not really what JTACS are used to, and more importantly I can't keep that radar consistently on a ground target.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes LO, but these are being described correctly as "pictures", not video. Let's not muddy the waters. I don't for one second believe the article's quote was trying to compare the persistent field of view or resolution of a Lightning III or Sniper pod with that of a modern AESA SAR map. Given the choice I'd use the pod for CAS over SAR Map any day but the article makes a good point that, whereas in the past any ability to conduct CAS through cloud would be limited, the F-35 has a number of other strings to its bow. The same could be said for F-18 etc but they would undoubtedly be much more vulnerable in a "no go" area. As a pilot, I'd rather fly an F-35 on an opposed CAS mission in contested airspace over anything else.
As a pilot, I'd rather fly an F-35 on an opposed CAS mission in contested airspace over anything else.
If I was a JTAC, I'd have an arm-trembling death-grip on my lucky rabbit's foot if I had to give Mr MSOCS the old Cleared Hot on the basis of radar imagery.
If I was a JTAC, I'd have an arm-trembling death-grip on my lucky rabbit's foot if I had to give Mr MSOCS the old Cleared Hot on the basis of radar imagery.
Last edited by LowObservable; 3rd Mar 2015 at 19:50.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=MSOCS;8887731 As a pilot, I'd rather fly an F-35 on an opposed CAS mission in contested airspace over anything else.[/QUOTE]
Why? what is your reasoning behind that?
Why? what is your reasoning behind that?
And if I were a grunt on the ground, I'd rather you and your several mates were flying A-10's, rather than a single, mustn't get shot down as it would look politically bad, F-35.
But what do I know, I'm neither a grunt or a pilot.
But what do I know, I'm neither a grunt or a pilot.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was a JTAC, I'd have an arm-trembling death-grip on my lucky rabbit's foot if I had to give Mr MSOCS the old Cleared Hot on the basis of radar imagery.
Glad Rag - My reasoning is plentiful. In a contested, degraded, opposed battlespace, I'd rather be in an F-35 doing CAS than any other platform. It's no good being in an A-10 titanium cockpit if being shot down by a radar-guided SAM is an assured outcome. You're no good to the "grunt on the ground" if you can't get near where he/she needs you or you're a smoking pile of wreckage.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAS doctrine requires local air superiority. Anyway, I'm not so sure that using a SAR radar map would be wise with troops danger close on a fluid battlefield. Interdiction is another matter altogether, as well as selecting fixed targets away from contact.
LO: The Commandant is drunk on Kool Aid.
LO: The Commandant is drunk on Kool Aid.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Maus, it does but you know what? Air Superiority isn't guaranteed and sometimes you just have to get on with what you have and do the best you can for the guys and girls under fire.
My point is this; for many countries outside of the good 'ole USA, the F-35 offers the only tangible means of being self-sufficient in establishing that "local Air Superiority" and delivering success in a contested and complex environment without sustaining unpalatable aircraft losses. I sense you are taking the statement from the article too far. The challenging conditions of very poor weather, where the only means of establishing SA is to utilise a well-placed SAR map, is of low probability and duration. What the article clearly tries to state - and rather over-emphasises - is the utility of a 5th Generation platform, genuinely capable of conducting a number of roles in rather unique circumstances; it simply tries to accentuate the strengths under such circumstances and certainly doesn't mean that rationale applies to all scenarios and conditions.
Positive identification, either by direct ID or reference to features backed up by comm (voice or digital), is absolutely NOT akin to taking a SAR map and releasing a weapon, Danger Close, on a whim or hunch. Indeed, military CAS training involves a plethora of stressing scenarios to stretch the problem solving skills of both JTAC and aircrews to achieve the desired effects. Utilisation of a SAR map is one of many available "means" and not necessarily the "way".
My point is this; for many countries outside of the good 'ole USA, the F-35 offers the only tangible means of being self-sufficient in establishing that "local Air Superiority" and delivering success in a contested and complex environment without sustaining unpalatable aircraft losses. I sense you are taking the statement from the article too far. The challenging conditions of very poor weather, where the only means of establishing SA is to utilise a well-placed SAR map, is of low probability and duration. What the article clearly tries to state - and rather over-emphasises - is the utility of a 5th Generation platform, genuinely capable of conducting a number of roles in rather unique circumstances; it simply tries to accentuate the strengths under such circumstances and certainly doesn't mean that rationale applies to all scenarios and conditions.
Positive identification, either by direct ID or reference to features backed up by comm (voice or digital), is absolutely NOT akin to taking a SAR map and releasing a weapon, Danger Close, on a whim or hunch. Indeed, military CAS training involves a plethora of stressing scenarios to stretch the problem solving skills of both JTAC and aircrews to achieve the desired effects. Utilisation of a SAR map is one of many available "means" and not necessarily the "way".
Last edited by MSOCS; 3rd Mar 2015 at 22:15.
I'll accept that SAR could be used in extremis (low cloud) as a CAS tool - a georegistered image on which the JTAC could place target coordinates; but two observations. First, it is not unique to the F-35 and second, that's not what anyone in Congress would have gathered from Dunford's remarks. "One meter" is not the everyday interpretation of high fidelity.
I'd be interested in comments on Dunford's win-the-war-with-eight-jets line. Does that not suggest that the QEs are three times bigger than they need to be? Because if I think back to my early CV briefs, the size started with sorties needed to win the war.
I'd be interested in comments on Dunford's win-the-war-with-eight-jets line. Does that not suggest that the QEs are three times bigger than they need to be? Because if I think back to my early CV briefs, the size started with sorties needed to win the war.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, I was very specific and careful to not say SAR is a unique capability to F-35 as I know fully well it isn't. The term unique refers to the ability of a 5th Gen platform such as the F-35 to operate "balls deep" in a battle space replete with varsity threat systems and conduct CAS, or any other mission within its design for that matter.
I also don't believe that you think for Congress so I challenge your opinion as to what those on the Hill "would have gathered" from Dunford's remarks. They are briefed to a much higher level than Aviation Week et al and smart enough to make their own minds up (cue typical politician cynicism).
You make an interesting point ref QE. Sadly I don't have the background.
I also don't believe that you think for Congress so I challenge your opinion as to what those on the Hill "would have gathered" from Dunford's remarks. They are briefed to a much higher level than Aviation Week et al and smart enough to make their own minds up (cue typical politician cynicism).
You make an interesting point ref QE. Sadly I don't have the background.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original quote by MSOCS: My point is this; for many countries outside of the good 'ole USA, the F-35 offers the only tangible means of being self-sufficient in establishing that "local Air Superiority" and delivering success in a contested and complex environment without sustaining unpalatable aircraft losses.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 advocates have the aircraft performing a wide array of tasks that other platforms traditionally perform: BMD to AWACS to ISR to EW (+ CAS) - in other words, and if one was to believe the hype - every mission sans logistics and troop transport. If the USN believed this, they would not be investing in E-2D, Growlers, and P-8s. They don't, and aren't doubling down on F-35.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO: why would one need a SAR map if the JTAC was passing you a coordinate? The JDAM doesn't need an image to hit its target. Maybe it would make the pilot feel more comfortable about attacking something he cannot see?
MSOCS - Dumb, smart or whatever. When you speak to Congress you speak to generalists, by definition. As you pick and choose what you say to them (and what you place on the record) you are shaping their awareness.
USAF pilot who flew MiG-29
From a trucky who wouldn't know an AMRAAM from an armchair; someone pointed me in the direction of this piece. His comments re the F-35 seem interesting.
How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs
Wiki says there isn't a carrier version of the F-22 and there's also an export ban.
How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs
Will the F-35's sensor fusion and low observability (stealth) allow it to overcome its lackluster maneuverability and kinetic performance against future enemies?
I can't answer this one. I can ask, "Why did they make it such a pig?"
If you had to fly any fighter into an air combat arena today, including an operational F-35A as an option, what would it be?
The F-22. It's a better jet than the F-35. It can carry at least as much, further and faster. If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter . .
I can't answer this one. I can ask, "Why did they make it such a pig?"
If you had to fly any fighter into an air combat arena today, including an operational F-35A as an option, what would it be?
The F-22. It's a better jet than the F-35. It can carry at least as much, further and faster. If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter . .
EDIT:
Weird letters appeared, now removed.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 5th Mar 2015 at 12:38. Reason: Weirdness happened
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil, That's come up else where before. The short is that Spanky was commenting based on limited information and he admitted as much later. There is no doubt the F-35 is not the F-22 when it comes to kinematics, they were designed with different mindsets. Just looking at them parked next to each to other that much becomes obvious.
A lot of the hand wringing here seems to be about what it can currently do, which is to say not much. The thing is still in system design and development. From what I could find in 6-9 seconds on google we're about 5 years late to planned first IOC. Dudes I know in the program seem to think it will be an awesome jet in the next 5-10 years and is basically back on track if you ignore the 5 year setback.
The next question is if you look forward 5-10 years, what would the capability be of our legacy platforms in that threat environment? Third world ****-holes will probably still be just that, what we have now is fine. Near peer countries will still be nasty and the purvue of LO only platforms, legacy will be relegated to standoff munitions only, with their lengthy flight time. What about countries like Algeria? How many countries will be able to afford jumping from we're good to go to pretty scary? I don't think anyone knows for sure.
This whole thing is a lot more complicated than "the Air Force hates CAS, because the A-10 doesn't have a pointy nose and all they care about is the glory of shooting down planes" and other non-sense emotional arguments. I say all that as a slow ass helo pilot that would prefer the A-10 didn't go away anytime soon. But there is only so much money.
A lot of the hand wringing here seems to be about what it can currently do, which is to say not much. The thing is still in system design and development. From what I could find in 6-9 seconds on google we're about 5 years late to planned first IOC. Dudes I know in the program seem to think it will be an awesome jet in the next 5-10 years and is basically back on track if you ignore the 5 year setback.
The next question is if you look forward 5-10 years, what would the capability be of our legacy platforms in that threat environment? Third world ****-holes will probably still be just that, what we have now is fine. Near peer countries will still be nasty and the purvue of LO only platforms, legacy will be relegated to standoff munitions only, with their lengthy flight time. What about countries like Algeria? How many countries will be able to afford jumping from we're good to go to pretty scary? I don't think anyone knows for sure.
This whole thing is a lot more complicated than "the Air Force hates CAS, because the A-10 doesn't have a pointy nose and all they care about is the glory of shooting down planes" and other non-sense emotional arguments. I say all that as a slow ass helo pilot that would prefer the A-10 didn't go away anytime soon. But there is only so much money.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The author of the piece posted a clarification on a well-known F-35 fan site - but not a retraction of his statements - basically saying the pilots will learn how the fight the F-35.