F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
I did sit in on a conference where Lockheed proposed the idea of a sort of FMS 'lease', where the aircraft would be kept on US bases, controlled and loaded by the USAF, and all sorties to be approved by the USAF, under USAF tasking.
One of those moments when it's hard to resist putting up your hand and saying "Two questions: What are you smoking, and did you bring enough for everyone?"
One of those moments when it's hard to resist putting up your hand and saying "Two questions: What are you smoking, and did you bring enough for everyone?"
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.”
...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.”
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
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?
Are you thinking of TACEVALs (Tactical Evaluations) which I remember from RAF Germany and were conducted without warning?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
(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.)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
(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.)
Welcome to the forum btw.....
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
gr, that chip on your shoulder must be getting heavy by now....
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..
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "Lock On" eh?
Originally Posted by sferrin
Post #6766 right up the page.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.