F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[glad rag]

So are we seeing a paradigm shift here from a totally stealth aircraft to a more run of the mill attack aircraft that can jam considering [by definition] how can it remain as a stealth aircraft if it has to "emit" to survive hostile intent??

Then again they already shine like beacons in IR/UV so perhaps we're half way there anyway...

[Lonewolf_50]

LowObservable, one does not "shrug" when one discusses maintaining the industrial base. That is a national security imperative here in the US. The concern that we might have to rely on 'others' for critical capability in the case of, or in time of, war extends to more than oil and energy. If you can't build and restore your own hardware that are what you need to fight, you can't fight effectively. That line of thought has been with us for decades. it isn't the MIC problem that Eisenhower was talking about.

Once you close a shipyard, for example, do you have any idea how freaking hard it is to open a new one? Once you shut down a production line -- for example CH-46 -- do you have any idea how expensive it is to restart it and retool it?

Why do you think the UK just went to P-8 instead of making new and better Nimrods? Part of the decision was what it costs to re-establish your industrial capability. (I think the other reasons include production runs and lack economies of scale).

I repeat (this was part of formal training) maintenance of the defense industrial base is a strategic imperative for the US. Just how that will be done has a whole lot of answers, not all of which agree with one another. To assert that this is apathy and an excuse for justifying the boogey man known as the MIC is quite simply wrong.

Fifty years ago, we had multiple ship yards to support Naval ship building and overhaul. We have closed a few. You can't keep them open if the skills and crafts are not sustained through continued work. It doesn't stay "warm" as it needs to. You can't turn this on and off.

[KenV]

When warship programs are justified because they sustain the shipbuilding base; when people shrug their shoulders and say "whatevs" about the value of the V-22 or F-35B, because they believe that Marine influence is such that they will be bought anyway; when you can't touch bases or depots that eat a disproportionate amount of the budget; these are all cases where the MICC is manifest.

Agreed. And that had been going on since at least the late 19th century. Eisenhower was not so much concerned with existence of the military industrial complex so much as he was concerned that it would spread beyond the realm of military acquisition and into the heart of the nation, including the commercial/civilian economy, social/domestic politics and even its spiritual underpinnings. And yes, nuclear arsenals were a large part of that since weapons and weapon systems could potentially hold entire cities hostage.

Two guys who laid the foundations of US nuclear power in particular really really worried Eisenhower. Curtis LeMay's and Hyman Rickover's personal influence and in particular their tremendous political influence while wearing a military uniform and without holding an elected public office were the antithesis of a civilian controlled military. Truman was able to slap down McArthur, but neither Truman nor Eisenhower were able to control or reign in either LeMay or Rickover. Unlike McArthur they kept a low public profile but amassed huge power and influence that in some ways exceeded that of the Office of the President. Johnson eventually reigned in LeMay but largely only because LeMay got into the public spotlight due to his public views on Vietnam.

Rickover on the other hand stayed under the public radar and was never reigned in. He continued to run the Navy's nuclear program AND the civilian Atomic Energy commission. Presidents Johnson, Ford and Carter could not reign him in and generally feared him. It took Reagan to break "the Rickover Cult" in the US Navy by forcibly retiring him. But only after Rickover had served a record 63 years on active duty and was over 82 years old. It was this kind of power and influence that Eisenhower was so concerned about. No one related to the F-35 even approaches that kind of power and influence. Fortunately, neither LeMay nor Rickover were able to pass their power and influence on to those who came after them.

FWIW, in my Navy career I got to meet both Rickover and his replacement, Kinnaird McKee. I once even got to walk Adm McKee's dog. If memory serves, she was an Afghan hound.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by KenV

FWIW, in my Navy career I got to meet both Rickover and his replacement, Kinnaird McKee. I once even got to walk Adm McKee's dog. If memory serves, she was an Afghan hound.

I think your memory does serve, and I met them both as well (though McKee was Supe at the Boat School when I met him).

I can't say I cared for the interview with Admiral Rickover, as some of us were coerced into it. (Long story for another time, maybe). They tried that with only one class, and changed policy the following year.

[KenV]

I think your memory does serve, and I met them both as well (though McKee was Supe at the Boat School when I met him).

That's where I met him also. His wife was walking their dog in the Yard, I was there at the same time, our paths crossed, and before I knew it, I was walking the dog. I later met the Admiral after a Bore Us All (Forrestal) lecture. I forgot the occasion, but a group of us were invited to the Supe's quarters. I remember the meeting, but for the life of me cannot remember why we were there.

I can't say I cared for the interview with Admiral Rickover, as some of us were coerced into it. (Long story for another time, maybe). They tried that with only one class, and changed policy the following year.

Your's was apparently not the first class to be coerced. I was coerced. They told me that if I passed the interview, I would be a nuke. No choice, end of story. I made sure I did not pass. And on service selection night I selected Navy Air. Almost went Marine Air, but thought better of it.

BTW, are you ready for Army/Navy this Saturday? And have you seen the two great spirit spots on You Tube? They are excellent! How in the world did a mid get the 'dant, the 'supe, and the CNO to appear in a midshipman spirit video? Things have changed indeed. And in my opinion, for the better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svU2317XiPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0rAnmnlQ4U

[Willard Whyte]

C-17 production was capped at "forty and no more" unless Douglas got its act together. Not only did Douglas get its act together, but they turned the program into a "model acquisition program", and won two fairly rare back to back multi-year purchase orders.

Yah boo sucks. What's you're frikin point? On record as per my original post.

[Danny42C]

Still Small Voice: Do Not put all your eggs in One Basket.

"F-35 Cancelled - then what ?"

Up the creek without a paddle, that's what !

Danny42C.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by KenV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svU2317XiPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0rAnmnlQ4U

Will be pleased to enjoy the game, this weekend, thanks for the links.
I guess there will be no F-35 overflight for the game, eh?
(Hadn't realized that previous classes got the "deportation to Crystal City for a day" deal. All of the first class in my company who went there were volunteers).

@Danny: yeah, and even if it isn't cancelled, the eggs are all still in one basket in the out years.

[KenV]

(Hadn't realized that previous classes got the "deportation to Crystal City for a day" deal. All of the first class in my company who went there were volunteers).

It might have been a bit different for our class. We were encouraged (strongly) to "keep all our options open" and sign up for that all important Rickover interview. So I signed up. A year later we were informed that if we passed the interview, all your "options" closed and you were a nuke. Many of us tried to back out of the interview. To no avail. We were locked in. So if you had plans/aspirations other than being a nuke, the only option was to make sure you failed the interview. Given Rickover's volatile nature, that was not difficult. My interview lasted less than 30 seconds. And watching the four stripers running around like I-day plebes, I was very happy to get out of there.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by KenV

My interview lasted less than 30 seconds. And watching the four stripers running around like I-day plebes, I was very happy to get out of there.

Heh, I was given a bit of an arse chewing by the old man and got dismissed in about a minute. Also recall the strangeness of all them officers in civvy suits: weird, but that was the 70's for you. Weird in a lot of ways.

[KenV]

Just a "bomb truck?" Or something more?

LONDON – With plans to purchase just 37 aircraft, the Netherlands fleet
of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is likely to be one of the smallest anywhere in
the world. Yet the fighter’s introduction is seen as a catalyst for change, transforming not only the way the Netherlands thinks about air power, but also prompting cohesion with bilateral and trilateral discussions among other European operators.
“We need to be suitable to operate in a modern, agile, and ever-changing environment,” explains Gen. Alexander Schnitger, commander of the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF), in an Aviation Week interview.
He says the rapid change in the pace of technological development, the shifting security environment and the increasing role of cyber and information has evolved the modern battlefield, and his air arm needs to evolve to reflect it. The F-35 buy is just part of that.
“The trick is to build an air force around the ability to at least react proactively and engage in those areas,” Schnitger says.
Without such thinking, he says, the force could “run the continuous risk of using the F-35 as simply a one-on-one replacement for the F-16, and to use it as [a] bomb truck. But it can do so much more.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by KenV

Just a "bomb truck?" Or something more?

Until it's out there in a fight, for real, it's hard to know. As with any new platform, folding it into the larger fight can take some getting used to, and will. I recall how the F-18A (with shorter legs and shorter deck cycle time than F-14) took a while to get used to. The fleet did, but I well recall some of the frustration in the Coral Sea BG, Med, mid 80's, over keeping the grid up.

[LowObservable]

Considering the price it had ing well better be more than a bomb truck.

That said, I suspect the principal obstacle to exploiting its capabilities in the way that its advocates like to advertise will be communications.

[Courtney Mil]

I get your point, LO, but I suspect there is a tougher obstacle and that will be truly understanding what the capability is. As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems. And that doesn't just mean sticking it up as Red Air in an all US exercise against F-16s in that big container just north of Area 51 where its speed disadvantage is no longer a factor. Getting that part wrong will be potentially fatal to any tactical development.

That very sensitive data is also going to have to be communicated to partner nations without the usual NOFORN deadlock. A real version and a releasable version should make for interesting times.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

That very sensitive data is also going to have to be communicated to partner nations without the usual NOFORN deadlock. A real version and a releasable version should make for interesting times.

Got it in one, Courtney, an issue that I've been puzzling over since I began reading this thread.

I remember (over two decades ago) a bit of a thing where the US was selling the Aussies the Seahawk (S-70-B2) but there was a difference in the electronic library our ESM system had available compared to what was provided the Aussies (in terms of what's in the ESM library). I imagine that was a matter of ongoing dialogue between nations. I guess a similar dance was done, or is being done, since our friends in Oz chose to get 24 of the R models.

[a1bill]

LO

That said, I suspect the principal obstacle to exploiting its capabilities in the way that its advocates like to advertise will be communications.

you mean like the USAF, USN,USMC, UK, AUS and some other air force advocates? I haven't seen any statements saying otherwise and in fact it's FOC ability to communicate is given as a strength, I read some are still in development, but I would be happy to read any links you have.

CM

As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems

I guess they have the same data and testing ranges as they would have used for the F-22, I haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done. The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of.

I can't provide the link ( i looked) but I saw a f-22/f-33 pilot say, on youtube I think? that the f-35 has better RCS in the search bands than the f-22, this implies the f-22 has better targeting band RCS and supports statements that the F-35 is second to the f-22.

[Courtney Mil]

A1bill,

Thank you for your reply. I have to say I don't fully understand the terms you have used; perhaps you could explain a couple of things for me. Your second paragraph first.

Originally Posted by A1bill

I can't provide the link ( i looked) but I saw a f-22/f-33 pilot say, on youtube I think? that the f-35 has better RCS in the search bands than the f-22, this implies the f-22 has better targeting band RCS and supports statements that the F-35 is second to the f-22.

When you say "the f-35 has better RCS in the search bands than the f-22" does better mean smaller? What are the "search bands" - 9.5GHz or significantly lower? Detection and targeting can be done down to the 225MHz band (and lower, but the technology may not be usefully discussed in this context); are you stating that F-35 RCS is optimised throughout that entire spectrum?

Originally Posted by A1bill

I guess they have the same data and testing ranges as they would have used for the F-22, I haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done. The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the same range facilities are available to F-35; I assume you are referring to RCS measurement facilities?

You state that you "haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done." Why do you think you would see that? It is, after all, one of the most classified areas of the design.

You also state that "The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of." I'm very pleased to hear that as it was one of my major concerns, as you will have read in my previous post and several more over the years. Can you assure me that the stealth data has been fully evaluated over the entire sphere - all aspects and elevations - and over the full range of radar bands available to current air defence systems?

I'd also be very interested if you could tell me which partners have received disclosure and if there have been any caveats.

Thank you for your reassuring post. I look forward to your response.

[ORAC]

you mean like the USAF, USN,USMC, UK, AUS and some other air force advocates? I haven't seen any statements saying otherwise and in fact it's FOC ability to communicate is given as a strength....

Enough said.......

[a1bill]

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the same range facilities are available to F-35; I assume you are referring to RCS measurement facilities?
yes
You state that you "haven't seen the RCS and detectability of the F-22 questioned with what was done." Why do you think you would see that? It is, after all, one of the most classified areas of the design.
the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet, the ones saying they wonder about the f-35 rcs/stealth aren't also saying the same about the f-22, which seems odd to me, as both would have been tested
You also state that "The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of." I'm very pleased to hear that as it was one of my major concerns, as you will have read in my previous post and several more over the years. Can you assure me that the stealth data has been fully evaluated over the entire sphere - all aspects and elevations - and over the full range of radar bands available to current air defence systems?
I'm willing to guess that the testing done on the f-22 was also done on the f-35 and if one accepts the F-22 as stated, then one should also accept the f-35 as JPO stated that the f-35 has better RCS than anything except the f-22.

As to the bands, the pilot didn't say, what he did say was that "the f-35 had better RCS than the f-22" and then corrected himself saying "at least in the search bands" my guess is he was going say better 'stealth', which is being said
I'd also be very interested if you could tell me which partners have received disclosure and if there have been any caveats.
'FMS buyers don't get the RCS data till they place an actual order' is publicly said.

RAAF say they have embedded staff and receive relevant data, I assume RCS would be relevant data, I could probably google a quote or two from LM and such, they keep saying the share the data with the partners, although there was the 'for US nationals only' mix up

Thank you for your reassuring post. I look forward to your response.
your welcome, although I read that the f-22 is getting a new skin in the MLU, so current speculation may need to change

[Bevo]

Originally Posted by a1bill

the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet, the ones saying they wonder about the f-35 rcs/stealth aren't also saying the same about the f-22, which seems odd to me, as both would have been tested

Please be aware of the following information about signature measurements which is from a briefing I put together a few years ago. Note the first chart which is about single numbers referring to the signature of an aircraft.