Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 13th Jul 2015, 22:46
  #6761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 759
Originally Posted by USNI News 13 Jul 2015
...PENTAGON – The Marine Corps added one final test before deciding whether to declare initial operational capability for the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): a first-ever Operational Readiness Inspection...

...Davis said he would not prejudge the results of the ORI, but he expects the squadron will prove ready for IOC. During operational testing aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), JSF-trained pilots worked alongside the ship’s crew that had never worked with the aircraft before, creating a steep learning curve for both the Marines and the sailors onboard. But Davis said everything went well – they flew all required test points, qualified all pilots for day operations, qualified some for night operations, and trained some of the landing safety officers and deck crew for future JSF operations. The Marines even flew an F-35 engine out to the ship on a cradle slung under an MV-22 Osprey, which many believed would be challenging if not impossible to do, Davis said.

After dropping live ordnance earlier this month, all that stands between the F-35B and its introduction to the fleet is the ORI – an assessment that comes from the British military. Davis said he did an exchange tour when he was a captain, and before certifying the first GR5-variant Harrier squadron, an assessment team came in to ensure the squadron could meet the full range of NATO requirements. Davis said he liked the idea of having one last check from those who know the program best before officially green-lighting the squadron, and he decided several months ago to bring the tradition to the U.S.

“A lot of people said, or had conjecture, that the Marines, me, were just going to declare IOC regardless. You have 10 jets, you’re going to declare,” he said. “We have a very stringent requirement for what the airplanes are able to do, and we were hell-bent on measuring and making sure we had what we said we were going to have in order to declare initial operating capability.”
FODPlod is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 23:09
  #6762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil:
How you going to lock the missile to a target if it's in an internal bay?
Isn't that what the $400K, super lid is for?

-RP
Yes it is one of the many things the expensive electric hat is for, but if the missile is in the internal bay and can't see the target, it can't lock onto and track it.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 23:24
  #6763 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
Yes it is one of the many things the expensive electric hat is for, but if the missile is in the internal bay and can't see the target, it can't lock onto and track it.
True, but isn't that the idea of a HOBS missile? The target doesn't have to be within the missile seeker's FOV, the pilot cues the missile toward the target until after launch, where after the missile's own seeker takes up the job once it's out of the weapons bay?

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 00:50
  #6764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
I believe that LeMay introduced the ORI as CINCSAC. No golderned press releases. You knew it was on when the boss's C-135 showed up on finals.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 01:00
  #6765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 759
LO - Ships and submarines have an ORI after OST (Operational Sea Training). It is a planned event and I assume the same applies to a newly commissioned squadron of a/c.

Are you thinking of TACEVALs (Tactical Evaluations) which I remember from RAF Germany and were conducted without warning?
FODPlod is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 01:20
  #6766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
I'm thinking of SAC ORIs. Not familiar with others.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 01:49
  #6767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Wow. Given the name of this site is "Professional Pilots Rumor Network" I would have thought more understood that "LOAL" stood for Lock On AFTER Launch.

(BTW, to one poster, "HOBS" stands for High Off BoreSight. That just means it can take a shot at very high angles off centerline by using an HMCS. Still has to lock on before launch. Yes, a missile can be both; the AIM-9X Block II for example.)
sferrin is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:06
  #6768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by sferrin View Post
Wow. Given the name of this site is "Professional Pilots Rumor Network" I would have thought more understood that "LOAL" stood for Lock On AFTER Launch.

(BTW, to one poster, "HOBS" stands for High Off BoreSight. That just means it can take a shot at very high angles off centerline by using an HMCS. Still has to lock on before launch. Yes, a missile can be both; the AIM-9X Block II for example.)
Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..

Welcome to the forum btw.....
glad rag is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:13
  #6769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
I am not quite sure when, if at all, anyone used the term LOAL in this thread. Not in the last couple of years.

HOBS and LOAL are related. The more you get into HOBS, the more challenging LOAL gets, particularly at shorter ranges. The F-22, T-50 and J-20 devote a lot of weight and volume to covering the HOBS envelope while staying LOBL. Pit bulls and gunny sacks, even with datalinks.

Last edited by LowObservable; 14th Jul 2015 at 02:39.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 03:14
  #6770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Post #6766 right up the page.
sferrin is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 03:19
  #6771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
"Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..

Welcome to the forum btw....."

I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "Lock On" eh? "Septics"? Is that anything like "Limey"or "Pome"? Apparently I'm not up to your educational standards.
sferrin is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 04:30
  #6772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
sferring - thanks for making a genuinely valid contribution but don't expect many on here to either attempt to understand or acknowledge the point you are making.

Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..
gr, that chip on your shoulder must be getting heavy by now....
MSOCS is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 05:11
  #6773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
As mostly a spectator, I have seen the signs on other forums. It's going to take a lot of effort, now that various re-inforcements have arrived with their entrenched opinions, to refrain from battle.

A stain has appeared on the aircraft's record, some say it's fatal, some say it means nothing at all. Surely anyone without an entrenched opinion must think the answer lies uncomfortably in the middle? Why perform a test if the results don't matter? On the other hand why plod on with something hopeless?
t43562 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 10:20
  #6774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "Lock On" eh?
Let's put it this way, if you get pressed by a bandit and I press him, but you decide to take an over the shoulder LOAL shot with me in your frustum, we'd have a chat you wouldn't like after and IF I make it back.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 10:45
  #6775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Originally Posted by sferrin
Post #6766 right up the page.
I mentioned neither HOBS nor LOAL, I implied target obscuration.

Here are the issues (and welcome any updates as to where the Programme is going with these). I am deliberately talking about a generic, advanced IR mx, NOT a specific model, for obvious reasons, and taking LO's points a little further.

HOBS is, as I have said many times before, nothing new. It's simply a matter of cuing the missile seeker to a position defined by a sensor - not just the electric hat, but radar, IRST, etc. The target does need to be within the seeker gimbal limits, not obscured by fuselage or wing and needs to be able to be kept in the mx fov during fly-out. However, it is also important to know what the seeker is tracking, most importantly the bad guy in your nine o'clock or your wingman just beyond him, for example - the electric hat is very good at that.

LOAL is altogether different. This popped into the public's imagination when folk started talking about the "over-the-shoulder" shot, which is such a complex subject it would probably need a thread all of its own. Anyway, you can tell the mx where to look for its intended target and you can tell it what the target is doing at launch. You can't tell the mx what the target does after launch, you can't tell the mx what else might be in the (expanding) uncertainty box and you can't easily determine what the mx has targeted when and if it finds something to go after. Some of these issues COULD be overcome by command datalink, but that now stops your generic, advanced IR missile being fire and forget and adds a load of complexities to your office, not to mention additional emissions from your stealth bomber.

Would I like my wingman shooting a LOAL mx into my furball? Erm, not really, thank you.

A couple of thoughts on such a mx in a generic stealth bomber's internal weapons bay. First, as we're discussing, it can't see out. Second, we're trying to launch a forward-firing weapon from an ejector; no reason that shouldn't be made to work, but something's going to need a very significant modification and a sod of a lot of clearance work - especially if your generic advanced IR mx doesn't have any wings. I think the trapeze plan has been dropped?

EDIT: just seen that you made the same point whilst I was typing, Nitro.

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 14th Jul 2015 at 11:03.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:06
  #6776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Really KenV?

You should tell the USN who accept that the F-35 is not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defences without a F-18G EW escort.

With which they cannot share enemy threat data without turning on their L16 and exposing themselves to threats such as the DWL002.

Hmmmm.

1. So much for keeping the responses "professional" and avoiding the personal jabs. Sigh.

2. USN does NOT accept that the F-35 is "not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defenses." That is a false characterization. All versions of the F-35 are sufficiently stealthy in all aspects without an EW escort. In addition, the F-35 has an excellent self-jamming capability. USN has Growlers because the majority of its fighters for the foreseeable future will NOT be all aspect stealthy and will require an escort jammer.

Separately, USAF is relying more on stealth than USN and relying more on F-35's self-jamming capability that they feel no need for an escort jammer. Apparently so does the Royal Navy, which owns no escort jammer and has no plans to acquire one.
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:18
  #6777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
And your citing of the F-35's "stellar" performance in "every other part of the dogfight regime" is of course completely unsupported by data. As far as most of the world is concerned, it's marketing puffery.
Isn't that interesting. My view is that "the data" indicates the F-35 has stellar performance and the characterizations of "abysmal" performance are "completely unsupported by data." As for "most of the world", may I respectfully inquire why so much of the world is buying the F-35? Do people really believe that nations make such decisions based on "marketing puffery" and not on hard data, including reams of classified data?
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:27
  #6778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
I think the trapeze plan has been dropped?
I believe you're right CM so the points made, valid as they may mostly be, are kinda moot anyway! I'm not sure why we are discussing LOAL of an IR rocket from inside a bay. Doesn't mean HOBS and LOAL aren't valid though - agree with some of the CFoF issues you and NITRO bring up. All a bit nasty if the rocket isn't properly cued or updated.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:39
  #6779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Oh, yes, of course, MSOCS. You're right that all my last few posts are specifically about IR from the weapons bay because I was responding to a point about exactly that. Sorry I can't tell you which post; I can't even remember where I left my car keys let alone a post from more than a couple of days ago!

External carriage should be the same as any bomber. I think they've already done some of the carriage trials and I would expect the appropriate clearances to come at the appropriate time.

That said, my points about HOBS and LOAL still apply, it's just that (mostly) you don't need to rely on LOAL to launch from a wing or fuselage station, which (apart from stealth considerations) is a good thing.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:40
  #6780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
So the F-35 doesn't need the Aim 9X at all. There is some cost savings! Which they've already identified btw.
May I respectfully point out that a point of a high off-bore sight weapon like the AIM 9X is to avoid the knife fight in the phone booth. The pilot looks, cues, and fires and then the missile does the maneuvering and closing with the target instead of the whole airplane.

It didn't look like it was immensely dangerous for the F-16.
May I ask how one comes to this conclusion? How many actual close-in dogfights has the F-16 engaged in over its life time? Being optimized (in the 70s!) for the close-in daytime, good weather dogfight and actually fighting that way are two very different things.

When carrying the Aim 9X the F-35 couldn't sneak up on the F-16 either.
May I ask how one comes to this conclusion? The F-35's stealth and its array of passive sensors make it more capable of "sneaking up" than just about any other fighter. (The F-22 possibly being excepted.)

Unless it carries it internally. But that precious space is limited. This is the contradiction in the design that is being pointed out.
It is only a "contradiction" if the user decides to use the F-35 primarily as a stealthy air-to-air platform. One more time, it is designed primarily as a penetrating air-to-ground platform with an excellent air-to-air capability. And stellar in long range air-to-air. And loaded up with external stores which compromises its stealth, F-35 is damn good, generally on par with a Super Hornet, which no one calls a slouch, much less "abysmal".
KenV is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.