F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Killface]

Another, slightly strange post there KF. As a member here for a while, I wouldn't have said that LO is famed for (what was your phrase?) 'pedantic rants'. Makes me wonder if you're not such a new-comer to the forum, but rather one that's been here, but, for some reason, has had posting privilidges temporarily withdrawn and has decided to come back in another guise and ty to throw your weight around a bit whilst disrupting the conversation rather than adding to it.

Do keep up the good work.

Its a big internet, there are other forums, and its not like it hard to find Bill Sweetman's opinion on things on the internet, in fact its his job to do so.

U.K. Thinks 5th Generation

(see comments)

I am more than happy to talk about the JSF, if we can get passed people trying to give me a hard time for my name, while accusing me of being an alternate handle of someone else, and deeming me a troll since the second I came aboard here.

I could try "SlaughterChops". It seems to impress the Walts.

what is that adding? Just so I'm clear on the rules-- all insults and off topic posts about me and my name are fair game and adding to the topic? Sorry I'm new, and double standards are tricky, and yes I will call you out on them.

Lets talk about this:

But to make them in public, with the goal of monopolizing the combat aircraft business, so that you make tons of money while combat pilots put life and limb on the line in a non-invulnerable jet that you bamboozled politicians to support... that's not good at all.

Multiple air arms around the globe have been involved with the JSF since day 1, and yet they are remarkably silent about the aircraft not working with their own lives depending on it? how odd. why? its fun to sell the evil dealings of corporations and politicos, but the problem is there are all these uniformed people too, and they kind of throw a wrench in that logic. Why do they still want the JSF? Why do they still fight for it in congress? Are the poor things that do this for a living, just not as smart as the internet aviation writers, without access to classified info?

discuss

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, thanks for posting. The technology in that is very impressive, even the sceptics would have to admit. Still the jetpipe of a reheated engine bend through 90 degrees (almost, I know) and still maintain the airflow through the stages is a real masterpiece. Amazing to see.

[Courtney Mil]

Don't quite get the Bill Sweetman reference, btw. Aviation writer, some great books and years in Janes. Don't see the issue here.

Oh, and Chinese fighter is just all wrong.

[Killface]

If, conversely, the first half a dozen USMC aircraft are sabotaged or destroyed on the ground in some dusty hell-hole by insurgents armed with RPG-7's and headscarves, we might want to consider what they were doing there in the first place while the “Nay” camp hold a round of celebratory parties in DC under the theme of, "see - I told you so”.

Uh you aren't trying to paint a terrorist operation to destroy aircraft on the ground via infiltration tactics as a strike against a particular type of aircraft are you? the Harriers destroyed in afghanistan could have just as easily been F-16s or A-10s. Many Apaches were destroyed in Iraq when caught in the open by insurgents, but I wouldn't hold that as a strike against the Apache:

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/15/in...h-64s-in-iraq/

is that the apaches fault or the shutter bugs? I'm not blaming the aircraft on that.

Don't quite get the Bill Sweetman reference, btw. Aviation writer, some great books and years in Janes. Don't see the issue here.

Aviation week saw an issue:

"Aviation Week is committed to providing objective aerospace and defense journalism based on independent and balanced coverage. Following comments posted on his personal Facebook page, the editorial team has decided that Bill Sweetman will not be covering the F-35 program for a period of time. We will continue to hold our journalists to the highest standards of editorial integrity to best serve the aerospace and defense community."

I know its the old "he isn't biased when he's biased for me!" thing. but yes there is an issue there, whether you see it or not. Its more obvious than exploding concrete to me, and was for aviation week as well.

If we want to play the "his credentials are good enough that there isn't an issue" game I can post tons of LM pilot interviews by former military flyers with impressive history, including combat. No issue with that? Billie Flynn LM Test Pilot, some great experience, flown many aircraft types and years in the RCAF. Don't see the issue here. I could link to Loren Thompson if you would like as well. OR how about General Mosely, USAF Ret.?

Pentagon Should Investigate Fighter Options Beyond The F-35

Bill Sweetman has become so toxic, they left his name of the above piece. I wonder why they would do such a thing? please don't try and convince me Bill is above bias, because not even his own publication thinks so. whether he is right or wrong is up for debate, but unbiased? no that case is closed.

[Bastardeux]

This is all getting very aggressive.

As for:

Uh you aren't trying to paint a terrorist operation to destroy aircraft on the ground via infiltration tactics as a strike against a particular type of aircraft are you?

I doubt it, I think he's making the point that if the next couple of decades continue on the trend of insurgent warfare, then the role that the hundred million dollar super super does-everything jet will fill could just as well be filled by a super Tucano and would be no less susceptible to enemy attack. I thinks it's a very important point, but unfortunately we won't be able to tell when the decision for yay or nay is actually made.

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by Killface

Multiple air arms around the globe have been involved with the JSF since day 1, and yet they are remarkably silent about the aircraft not working with their own lives depending on it? how odd. why? its fun to sell the evil dealings of corporations and politicos, but the problem is there are all these uniformed people too, and they kind of throw a wrench in that logic. Why do they still want the JSF? Why do they still fight for it in congress? Are the poor things that do this for a living, just not as smart as the internet aviation writers, without access to classified info?
discuss

I believe you're missing the point...there's nothing to discuss about from the quoted paragraph, except convincing one another of the strength of their respective faiths.
However, I don't think the objective of this forum is sacral but mundane, dealing with facts and experience.
Therefore, having neither may understandably pose a problem in superimposing one's opinion, but that's how it works.
For example, how would people here know why partner nations "fight" to keep the JSF and how are people supposed to discuss that in the first place, without going into speculation way more than required to keep the discussion within reason?
This kind of question is equal in silliness to the one asking someone to make an assessment on JSF's total combat capability.
Still, people here can (and do) discuss specific items and details based on experience and knowledge, but that's all there is...a point sadly missed by JSFfan, for example.

Hope this helps.

[Lonewolf_50]

Insurgent warfare isn't something new. As noted, all aircraft are at risk for it.

Killface:

the article, on page two, suggests a recompete while ODT & E are still underway. I am not sure the author actually understands how acquisition works. There are actually rules and laws that Congress gets very upset to see broken ... most of the time.

I don't disagree with the author's frustration on the program bloat.
He's not unique in his perspective there.

I don't understand how that article is toxic.

[Killface]

However, I don't think the objective of this forum is sacral but mundane, dealing with facts and experience.
Therefore, having neither may understandably pose a problem in superimposing one's opinion, but that's how it works.
For example, how would people here know why partner nations "fight" to keep the JSF and how are people supposed to discuss that in the first place, without going into speculation way more than required to keep the discussion within reason?
This kind of question is equal in silliness to the one asking someone to make an assessment on JSF's total combat capability.
Still, people here can (and do) discuss specific items and details based on experience and knowledge, but that's all there is...a point sadly missed by JSFfan, for example.

Hope this helps.

It does, thank you for this post. And for the record I say the military fights for the JSF as in they go in front of Congress or their respective civilian boards and argue for it, the american marines arguing most ardently for it. I will try to narrow my focus more to the trees rather than the whole forest

I don't disagree with the author's frustration on the program bloat.
He's not unique in his perspective there.

I don't understand how that article is toxic.

No what I am saying is its a valid argument, but his name is so toxic with the JSF he couldn't actually write it on the post, lest it be instantly dismissed. As you say many share this perspective, its an interesting article no doubt, why isn't someone's name on it? because Bill wrote it. And they can't say he wrote it, or it loses credibility. unless someone else wrote that and for some reason declined to put their name on it, which is odd because that story was a bombshell when it came out.

If you saw a book about WWII but the Author's name was Hitler would you bother reading it? if you did how seriously would you take it? Its not the subject, or the article, but the author that has become less than credible. HTH

just so we are clear. I will gladly tone it down, and relax when the 3 individuals who are picking on me drop it as well. I will not post anything controversial or personal unless provoked, from here on out. If you want to troll me, I will fall for it and respond. if not, lets let bygones be bygones

[FlightlessParrot]

If you saw a book about WWII but the Author's name was Hitler would you bother reading it?

When you Godwin the conversation so irrelevantly, it might indeed be time to "tone it down." And, of course, a book by That Man on WW II would be an instant best seller, so your point is self-defeating, in so far as it is intelligible.

[Two's in]

Insurgent warfare isn't something new. As noted, all aircraft are at risk for it.

Quite correct, except as Bastardeux correctly surmises I don't need a couple of hundred million bucks worth of otherwise unwanted technology in that case. I'll just arm up some turboprop trainers in the COIN role - hey wait a minute! What does COIN stand for again? And yet here we are in year 10 of continuous COIN ops and still no dedicated COIN platform.

To reiterate my main point, if the capability isn't tested and proven in Combat, it's going to be harder to prove it was ever relevant.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Originally Posted by Two's in

The F-22 has virtually dominated the category of "largely irrelevant" due to a lack of opportunities to display all that shiny new technology.

...or, the F-22's lack of opportunities thus far are more likely directly related to its incredibly narrow mission set, that is, of air dominance... something the US and its allies have enjoyed in their areas of operation since before the F-22 hit IOC.

[clicker]

I'm a serving Royal Air Force pilot with a mostly air defence background. How about you?

Just a lurker, aviation minded though.

My name's Courtney and I'm an aeroholic.

Yep its an incurable trait.

===

Me, I know ferk all about the technical side of aviation so can't really comment too much and I do not know enough to counter any of the discussions here but I do wish that we could go back to real basics.

1/ Military say what they need, required specs and how much they can afford.
2/ Maker says they can build and quotes a price.
3/ If military agrees with price they pay, maker builds and all happy.

If something does not work or project runs late then maker fixes and no extra cost to military. Delays cost makers unless military ask and pay for changes.

[Killface]

a book by That Man on WW II would be an instant best seller, so your point is self-defeating, in so far as it is intelligible.

I assume if Aviation week was more concerned with sales than unbiased and independent reporting they would have kept Bill on. However they suspended him and gave a public statement as to why.

If they want to sell biased garbage, and become an aviation tabloid in order to make money that's their choice, but they don't seem to want to go down that road and their reputation seems important to them.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Fortunately AvWeek has Amy Butler and Guy Norris, both of whom more than live up to the levels of integrity and moderation we expect from aviation and defence journalists.

[kbrockman]

Some good news for the F35;
U.S. Air Force To Move Forward Target Date For F-35 Use - Carbonated.TV

U.S. Air Force To Move Forward Target Date For F-35 Use
* Air Force aims for mid-2016 start

* Navy eyes mid-2018 date for operational use of F-35s

* Marines sticking to mid-2015 target date (Adds reaction, F-35B vertical takeoff)

The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.

The Air Force's decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
....

The planes will run the F-35's 2B software, which will give the Marines an initial war fighting capability that includes some air-to-air skills, the ability to strike targets on the ground and carry several internal weapons, including laser-guided bombs.

[kbrockman]

And also some other news regarding F35,
another system that adds complexity and increases operational costs.
Talking Stealth: USAF Pushes for 5th to 4th 'Gateway'

Talking Stealth: USAF Pushes for 5th to 4th 'Gateway'
Posted by Amy Butler 12:15 PM on May 09, 2013

USAF officials are preparing by year’s end to begin flight testing of a communications gateway technology designed to solve the vexing problem of allowing stealthy aircraft to communicate with legacy fighters, though they operate using different protocols.
The goal is to “network” combat air forces so that pilots of the F-22 — and in the future the F-35 — can share data with those flying legacy aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16 aircraft, says Lt. Col. Scott Hamilton, chief of the tactical datalinks program branch at the service’s Air Combat Command (ACC).
....
The 5th to 4th operational concept calls for the gateway to be hosted on a separate platform that can maintain line-of-sight with needed receivers. This means the host aircraft must be able to fly high enough — such as the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft — to connect with forces behind enemy lines. Or, the host could possess enough stealth to operate behind enemy lines. One ACC slide depicting the concept shows a Global Hawk as a host, but the Air Force is pushing hard to terminate the program and mothball the aircraft it has purchased. Hamilton says the Air Force has not yet made a final decision on what the host aircraft will be.

Because the gateway aircraft will host all of the 5th to 4th components, engineers do not envision having to add equipment onto fighter aircraft. This was a primary goal , as adding any antennas onto the F-22 or F-35 without compromising their radar evading qualities could prove troublesome and costly.

Hamilton says that developing the antenna system for the gateway and avoiding electromagnetic inference within the system could prove to be the most challenging piece of the JETpack project.

[FlightlessParrot]

I assume if Aviation week was more concerned with sales than unbiased and independent reporting they would have kept Bill on. However they suspended him and gave a public statement as to why.

If they want to sell biased garbage, and become an aviation tabloid in order to make money that's their choice, but they don't seem to want to go down that road and their reputation seems important to them.

Most magazines make their money from advertising, not sales of copies. Whether or not that is relevant in this case, I could not possibly know.

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting to see the datalink/network issue back again, Kbrok. I wouldhope that connecting new and legacy networks isn't thebiggest technological challenge in the world. Not having everyone on the samenet (or even stacked nets) clearly loses some of the benefits and functionalityof networking and will probably introduce some data latency. But, given this isa 'temporary' workaround to bridge the generation gap whilst F-15, F-16, A-10,etc are flown on until F-35 arrives in force, it's probably the most practicaland affordable solution.

The real downside to my mind is that the 'gateway' is a single node withplenty of emissions and, therefore, a single point of weakness making it agreat target. Normal networks don't have that vulnerable, single link.

[LowObservable]

CM - Also, from the CONOPS viewpoint, my quibble with an airborne gateway is that when the adversary's Vera-E or Chinese equivalent sees the gateway airborne and gabbling away, it's a cue to watch out for F-35s/F-22s.

By the way, on the USAF initial "operational" capability... I'm looking at a chart (which I would post if I had an online source) that says that Block 3F (that USAF won't get until after IOC) includes IFF Mode S certification and Mode 5 integration. How does that affect AA weapon usage in typical RoE? My guess is that most RoE will restrict employment of anything more lethal than a Nerf dart without IFF 5/S, but I could be wrong.

Also TBD - how much the focus on clearing 3I operationally for the USAF will affect the timing of 3F.

re: terrorist attacks on the ground. This may be a concern if you are in the kind of operation where you're running out of a small civilian airfield with a short runway (justification for the F-35B), since such things tend to be adjacent to towns, not all of whose residents may be fans of the US Marine Corps.

MANPADS could ruin your whole day as you come in for a VL or creeping VL, slow and committed with a nice big IR signature. Likewise guided rockets or mortars - the bad guy pulls the trigger just as you start final descent to touchdown. How fast can you taxi?

[kbrockman]

What's most interesting is that it is a line of sight system which begs the question on how close this gateway has to operate in topographically challenged environments.

What to do with missions deep behind enemy lines?
a series of gateways, sat-link, anything else???

What will all this mean for us, the smaller air forces?
Are we going to have to purchase, maintain and operate this extra feature to be able to make full use of our F35's abilities or are we only supposed to operate it in cooperation with the big boys (US, UK, ???), also undoubtedly we're going to have to go for every update, adjustment and serious maintenance issue to the original US (Northrop) supplier, most likely with the same legal limitations that come with the F35.

I'm sorry but this sounds like one more reason for us to invest in Stand off weapons , drones and a less complex fighter iso the F35 total package.


edit 4 spelling