F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your well considered vote of confidence in our "weak moderation" Just This Once....
I wonder if you realise that the 2 people moderating this forum (which used to be completely unmoderated incidentally - I guess that was weaker moderation huh?) also have responsibility for other forums, and thus might find it a bit tricky to follow absolutely each and every post in the forums for which they have a responsibility.
Rather than whining about weak moderation, why not use the "report post" function and get our attention on such things. Oh yes --- somebody did just that, and you will find that the miscreant is "in limbo" for a while.
Stop whining and take action!
I wonder if you realise that the 2 people moderating this forum (which used to be completely unmoderated incidentally - I guess that was weaker moderation huh?) also have responsibility for other forums, and thus might find it a bit tricky to follow absolutely each and every post in the forums for which they have a responsibility.
Rather than whining about weak moderation, why not use the "report post" function and get our attention on such things. Oh yes --- somebody did just that, and you will find that the miscreant is "in limbo" for a while.
Stop whining and take action!
I was about to post that we must all take our share of the responsibility for moderation. Our mods here police this area, not as paid professionals, so give them some latitude.
The secret is to use the buttons on the threads to alert them to posts or posters that cause you a problem.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your opinion about any posters, I'm simply putting forward my view, right or wrong, about this place works. The Mods aren't the people to attack for the behaviour of posters.
Sorry my post is a bit late, I had to take a long phone call in the middle of posting.
Hope you get what I'm saying.
The secret is to use the buttons on the threads to alert them to posts or posters that cause you a problem.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your opinion about any posters, I'm simply putting forward my view, right or wrong, about this place works. The Mods aren't the people to attack for the behaviour of posters.
Sorry my post is a bit late, I had to take a long phone call in the middle of posting.
Hope you get what I'm saying.
Thnks, Buddy.
And, more importantly...
JSFfan,
Please take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I think you should be aware from reading posts here that you're not making a great impression just now. Attacking the people for whom this thread was created by using phrases such as:
"now I did ask you to check before you type and make yourself look stupid"
"it seems those saying they are concerned about it haven't read it"
"keep up"
"that's a bit early to switch tack, the naysayers song changes verse at IOC doesn't it? "
Don't ridicule the people here who understand far more about this business than you do with your reading on press articles on the internet. More particularly, back off with your attitude of accusing everyone who raises questions, debate or doubts about the F-35 program. Just expressing an opinion that doesn't match your expectation does not make that person a "naysayer".
The whole purpose of this forum is debate between mil aircrew and the "folks on the ground without whom, etc..." on matters such as these. I could be a great debate if you would just moderate your tone and attitude a bit. Again.
If you piss off enough people here the mods will see it. Why not join the debate rather than try to kill it? You may just learn something more if you try.
Offered in good faith.
Courtney
And, more importantly...
JSFfan,
Please take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I think you should be aware from reading posts here that you're not making a great impression just now. Attacking the people for whom this thread was created by using phrases such as:
"now I did ask you to check before you type and make yourself look stupid"
"it seems those saying they are concerned about it haven't read it"
"keep up"
"that's a bit early to switch tack, the naysayers song changes verse at IOC doesn't it? "
Don't ridicule the people here who understand far more about this business than you do with your reading on press articles on the internet. More particularly, back off with your attitude of accusing everyone who raises questions, debate or doubts about the F-35 program. Just expressing an opinion that doesn't match your expectation does not make that person a "naysayer".
The whole purpose of this forum is debate between mil aircrew and the "folks on the ground without whom, etc..." on matters such as these. I could be a great debate if you would just moderate your tone and attitude a bit. Again.
If you piss off enough people here the mods will see it. Why not join the debate rather than try to kill it? You may just learn something more if you try.
Offered in good faith.
Courtney
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 60
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never considered the 'head in the sand' technique to be a useful attribute for a military professional, whatever the annoyance may be.
One day the annoyance may say something useful and relevant. Then who would be the fool? Though I do admit that in this case it's somewhat unlikely... :-)
One day the annoyance may say something useful and relevant. Then who would be the fool? Though I do admit that in this case it's somewhat unlikely... :-)
I take your point, Hanoi, but I think you misunderstood my position. I most certainly do not want anyone at all to refrain from posting here. I'm simply asking that some stop being abusive when those associated with Mil Av express opinions or raise concerns about the F-35 project. The forum is for discussion, not for non-mil enthusiasts to start throwing their weight around.
As regards Spazsinbad's post and link apropos the OV-10 test and eval ...
1. What can an OV-10 do that an A-10 can't?
2. With armed helicopters aplenty in the order of battle, what does the OV-10 bring to the table that an attack helicopter can't?
The "Light Heavy Mix" argument is a multifaceted stone, reflecting light in a variety of colors. The objective seems to be that "light CAS" means "inexpensive CAS" which means "limited capability CAS" and runs into what class of military operation CAS fits into.
In some cases, it's airborne Fires, which is a subset of Fires. True for JSF as for Cobra as for F-16 as for Reaper and for that matter, artillery and mortars.
The "eyes on" feature of any CAS platform has been supplemented immensely (as the ground commander sees it) with entire families and ranges of small to medium sized RPV's and UAV's. Getting eyes on target is sometimes all that is needed to call in fires.
A lot of fires are beginning to take advantage of Smart Rounds and Brilliant munitions, with something like Copperhead being an example of a growing familiy of fires provided that are at least partially guided by the party calling for fires. We are back to the scouting roll that aircraft originally took on over the trenches of WW I, in that regard.
I question the point of the OV-10 proposal, and am not sorry to see it go back to NASA.
1. What can an OV-10 do that an A-10 can't?
2. With armed helicopters aplenty in the order of battle, what does the OV-10 bring to the table that an attack helicopter can't?
The "Light Heavy Mix" argument is a multifaceted stone, reflecting light in a variety of colors. The objective seems to be that "light CAS" means "inexpensive CAS" which means "limited capability CAS" and runs into what class of military operation CAS fits into.
In some cases, it's airborne Fires, which is a subset of Fires. True for JSF as for Cobra as for F-16 as for Reaper and for that matter, artillery and mortars.
The "eyes on" feature of any CAS platform has been supplemented immensely (as the ground commander sees it) with entire families and ranges of small to medium sized RPV's and UAV's. Getting eyes on target is sometimes all that is needed to call in fires.
A lot of fires are beginning to take advantage of Smart Rounds and Brilliant munitions, with something like Copperhead being an example of a growing familiy of fires provided that are at least partially guided by the party calling for fires. We are back to the scouting roll that aircraft originally took on over the trenches of WW I, in that regard.
I question the point of the OV-10 proposal, and am not sorry to see it go back to NASA.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 2nd Oct 2013 at 16:35.
Good post, Wolf. And lots for us all to consider concerning fires. I often think, probably with inexcusable ignorance, that the term CAS is becoming somewhat misused - at least, questioning its literal meaning, if you see what I mean. When we start talking about very expensive platforms, designed to stand off, I wonder if that's really CAS, the flexible, eyes-on, on-call asset?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50 makes a good point about confused roles.
- For my money, this is CAS.
(Why there is a difference between CAS (by FW ac) and CCA (by RW ac), I don't know. They are performing the same function using some of the same weapons, just at different speeds and heights. Not being qualified to control either but having seen plenty of both, can someone comment as to what the difference in doctrine is, because it is not obvious from the observer's POV?)
and
- isn't this part of what used to be called Army Cooperation? This should be able to facilitate the targetted use of any sort of fire, either by spotting for the FST on the ground or controlling it from the air (does the RAF still have any FAC(A)s or the AAC any AbFACs?)
Either way, the important word is 'close'. If the aircraft is not close to the troops it is supporting, isn't it doing battlefield air interdiction?
In some cases, it's airborne Fires, which is a subset of Fires.
(Why there is a difference between CAS (by FW ac) and CCA (by RW ac), I don't know. They are performing the same function using some of the same weapons, just at different speeds and heights. Not being qualified to control either but having seen plenty of both, can someone comment as to what the difference in doctrine is, because it is not obvious from the observer's POV?)
The "eyes on" feature of any CAS platform has been supplemented immensely (as the ground commander sees it) with entire families and ranges of small to medium sized RPV's and UAV's. Getting eyes on target is sometimes all that is needed to call in fires.
We are back to the scouting roll that aircraft originally took on over the trenches of WW I, in that regard.
Either way, the important word is 'close'. If the aircraft is not close to the troops it is supporting, isn't it doing battlefield air interdiction?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
JSP 3-09.3: Close Air Support: ...
US Army describes close combat attack (CCA) as a hasty or deliberate attack by Army aircraft providing air-to-ground fires for friendly units engaged in close combat as part of the Army combined arms team. Due to the close proximity of friendly forces, detailed integration is required. Due to capabilities of the aircraft and the enhanced situational awareness of the aircrews, terminal control from ground units or controllers is not necessary. CCA is not synonymous with close air support (CAS).......
For further guidance on US Army helicopter operations and associated tactics, techniques, and procedures for CCA, refer to Field Manual (FM) 3-04.126, Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter Operations........
US Army describes close combat attack (CCA) as a hasty or deliberate attack by Army aircraft providing air-to-ground fires for friendly units engaged in close combat as part of the Army combined arms team. Due to the close proximity of friendly forces, detailed integration is required. Due to capabilities of the aircraft and the enhanced situational awareness of the aircrews, terminal control from ground units or controllers is not necessary. CCA is not synonymous with close air support (CAS).......
For further guidance on US Army helicopter operations and associated tactics, techniques, and procedures for CCA, refer to Field Manual (FM) 3-04.126, Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter Operations........
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So for the US Army, CCA is aircraft operating independently of the troops on the ground, while CAS is aircraft under the control of the troops on the ground.
Fire control measures are still an issue, regardless of the source of fires.
Appreciate all of the responses, gentlemen.
JSF may be envisioned by the Air Forces and our Navy as a "strike" / "interdiction" asset. (Yes, CAS and Interdiction have some overlap. It all depends upon how "deep" a ground commander is able to see or think, and at what echelon he operates.)
In that regard, the percentage of the time one would expect to call upon JSF assets for CAS may be low. This of course depends upon the phase of the operation one is in, what is available, and what the ground commander needs. I would expect that the B/Marine variant in the US concept of OPS would be more often called upon in the CAS role, if MAGTF's remain more or less as they are organized today.
For other Joint Task Forces, the force mix and timing will dictate how often the high dollar fighters get called upon for CAS.
Would the question be what do the blokes on the ground want from CAS aircraft? After all CAS is only there for them and not an end in itself.
You might be surprised at the trouble I had with convincing "strike" and "interdiction" minded USAF folks of that fact. Their role was to be the supporting actors, not the stars. (Heh, you try telling a fighter pilot that ...
)
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 3rd Oct 2013 at 19:06.
An interesting pdf here of the Inspector General's report into the F-35 programme, published on Monday. It does expose a number of the problems with the programme, but it should also be noted that some of the issues cited in the report have already been either identified or fixed.
http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-140.pdf
The reaction to the report from the F-35 Project Office was “thorough, professional, well-documented and useful to the F-35 Enterprise.”
http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-140.pdf
The reaction to the report from the F-35 Project Office was “thorough, professional, well-documented and useful to the F-35 Enterprise.”
The reaction to the report from the F-35 Project Office was “thorough, professional, well-documented and useful to the F-35 Enterprise.”
From an aviators point of view page 61-63 does not make comfortable reading. Whilst I accept there will always be an element of risk in flying to ignore public law and DoD policy with regards to critical safety items is surely just asking for trouble.
On a positive point at least the faults have been highlighted now rather than 10 years down the line!
Wonder how this went down in Whitehall?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having also skimmed the pdf, it pointed out some very scary things that hopefully are being dealt with as regards for the most part the physical plane and its systems.
What I feel is far more concerning is the situation with the software and the way that the discreet parts of the plane are going to talk to each other: -
"Software remains the biggest risk of the F-35 program, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan
Lockheed Martin’s scheduled delivery of the full-capability Block 3F software in 2017 “highly depends” on the performance of interim Block 2B and 3I software releases, Bogdan said. Block 2B software, released for flight test in February, is the “initial warfighting” software that adds sensor capabilities missing from the training software releases, plus the AIM-120 air-to-air missile, GBU-12 laser-guided bombs and the GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Lockheed Martin plans to release Block 3F software to the services in 2017."
As I understand the process of getting planes ready in 2017 with Block 3F software requires the plane's hardware to be upgraded so that it will work with 3F software.
This in my mind highlights two serious issues: -
What planes are built just prior to 2017, are they the new spec hardware planes that need 3F to fly or at what standard are the planes built?
How does the training for the teams on the present early build planes, transfer to the new hardware and more integrated software 3F planes?
Any one got any ideas?
What I feel is far more concerning is the situation with the software and the way that the discreet parts of the plane are going to talk to each other: -
"Software remains the biggest risk of the F-35 program, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan
Lockheed Martin’s scheduled delivery of the full-capability Block 3F software in 2017 “highly depends” on the performance of interim Block 2B and 3I software releases, Bogdan said. Block 2B software, released for flight test in February, is the “initial warfighting” software that adds sensor capabilities missing from the training software releases, plus the AIM-120 air-to-air missile, GBU-12 laser-guided bombs and the GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Lockheed Martin plans to release Block 3F software to the services in 2017."
As I understand the process of getting planes ready in 2017 with Block 3F software requires the plane's hardware to be upgraded so that it will work with 3F software.
This in my mind highlights two serious issues: -
What planes are built just prior to 2017, are they the new spec hardware planes that need 3F to fly or at what standard are the planes built?
How does the training for the teams on the present early build planes, transfer to the new hardware and more integrated software 3F planes?
Any one got any ideas?
As a programmer, I am amazed that software ever works properly.
It's always underestimated, there are umpteen ways to design anything and many will never deliver what is wanted. Customers want the earth promised to them at no extra cost. Bull**** rules at every level. Nobody can agree on the best method to work to.
It's only a success as an industry because there's so much competition that eventually someone gets it right and produces a worthy product that kills off the other 9 contenders that never really delivered value.
I just can't imagine how one could set out to produce a great bit of aviation software from scratch and have any confidence at all that it would be ok. I'd almost say you need to have 3 competitors for every subcomponent and pick and choose the best after the fact.
It's always underestimated, there are umpteen ways to design anything and many will never deliver what is wanted. Customers want the earth promised to them at no extra cost. Bull**** rules at every level. Nobody can agree on the best method to work to.
It's only a success as an industry because there's so much competition that eventually someone gets it right and produces a worthy product that kills off the other 9 contenders that never really delivered value.
I just can't imagine how one could set out to produce a great bit of aviation software from scratch and have any confidence at all that it would be ok. I'd almost say you need to have 3 competitors for every subcomponent and pick and choose the best after the fact.