F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, try not to forget that Red Flag has tested Allied Tactics, Training and Procedures since its inception. These TTPs have then been validated or invalidated in many real conflicts, post-Vietnam.
There is a correlation between what you describe as just LVC and how effective that will be in a future battle scenario. Is it 100%? Absolutely not. Would I take the RF kill ratio, strip out the false contributors and apply military experience to assess capability? Yes, and I'm confident that's been done and compared with modelling and real test results.
There is a correlation between what you describe as just LVC and how effective that will be in a future battle scenario. Is it 100%? Absolutely not. Would I take the RF kill ratio, strip out the false contributors and apply military experience to assess capability? Yes, and I'm confident that's been done and compared with modelling and real test results.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS,
You are absolutely right, but we are talking about different things. No doubt about great value of LVC, and I am its consistent and long-term advocate (and at this "campus" since this term was born). Moreover, what you called correlation is actually a monotonic function (thus, the correlation is indeed 100%). The more you train in such a way, the better you would behave in a real situation, no matter what would be the win/loss ratio.
I am only challenging numbers because the entire adversary system contains thousands of parameters and hundreds of links, and in the West just a few dozens are known (of old MiG, Su, S-200/300 and some other already obsolete systems that Eastern European countries were happy to deliver to new "landlords"). "Validation" in local conflicts against some stand-alone systems and poorly trained military is quite questionable.
You are absolutely right, but we are talking about different things. No doubt about great value of LVC, and I am its consistent and long-term advocate (and at this "campus" since this term was born). Moreover, what you called correlation is actually a monotonic function (thus, the correlation is indeed 100%). The more you train in such a way, the better you would behave in a real situation, no matter what would be the win/loss ratio.
I am only challenging numbers because the entire adversary system contains thousands of parameters and hundreds of links, and in the West just a few dozens are known (of old MiG, Su, S-200/300 and some other already obsolete systems that Eastern European countries were happy to deliver to new "landlords"). "Validation" in local conflicts against some stand-alone systems and poorly trained military is quite questionable.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Some more Red Flag (to a bull**** artist) goodness:
Red Flag may affect whether F-35s deploy overseas this year
______________________
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/f...-every-flight/
______________________
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...d-flag-434174/
"...After about two weeks at Red Flag, the joint strike fighter brought down 15 aggressor aircraft for every one F-35A defeated. Its kill ratio has improved since then, but the data has not been finalized as of yet, he said. For a fighter jet in an air superiority role, a kill ratio that exceeds 10-to-1 is considered “very good,” [Brig. Gen. Scott] Pleus said. The F-35 also fared well in air-to-ground missions...."
&
"...From a maintenance perspective, the F-35A achieved a mission capable rate of about 90 percent during Red Flag. The issues encountered by maintainers were mostly one-off problems, like a broken generator, and did not reveal any systemic flaws of the aircraft, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, of the 388th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron...."
&
"...From a maintenance perspective, the F-35A achieved a mission capable rate of about 90 percent during Red Flag. The issues encountered by maintainers were mostly one-off problems, like a broken generator, and did not reveal any systemic flaws of the aircraft, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, of the 388th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron...."
______________________
"...Although they don’t have an updated figure, the pilots told us that the F-35 kill ratio was higher than the 15-1 figure they initially reported. While F-35A pilots continue to say that their success against Integrated Air Defense Systems and ability to bomb targets is at least as important as their ability to kill enemy fighters, the fact is that the kill ratio is a simple baseline against which the plane can be judged."
______________________
"...With the inclusion of the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Link 16, the F-35 was able to share one threat picture across 70 aircraft, Lt Col Dave DeAngelis, commander of the 419th operations group says. Where threats were communicated via radio on legacy aircraft, MADL saves time by communicating with the F-35’s wingman, he says....
...The service does not yet have a tally of F-35s hit by integrated air defenses or surface to air missiles, but the action report with those details should release in about a month, the USAF adds.
“The F-35 mission was to get in undetected and hit targets, so we weren’t there specifically for air to air role,” Lt Col George Watkins, commander, 34th fighter squadron says. “Our ratio has gotten better but I don’t have the final numbers. We saw an improvement in our pilot’s proficiency throughout Red Flag and that number was just F-35 kills and depth.
Since its last Red Flag exercise at Nellis two weeks prior, the USAF turned up the heat on its F-35As with more advanced SAMs. The service also leveraged some blue forces to fly on the red side to increase threat numbers, Lt Col John Wagemann, director of operations for 414th combat training squadron says. At its peak, more than 20 red aircraft flew against blue forces, he says....
...the [USAF] service is making Red Flag more challenging for blue forces by improvising. Once red forces were killed during the Red Flag event at Hill, those same aircraft returned “alive” to the fight later, Wagemann says.”
...The service does not yet have a tally of F-35s hit by integrated air defenses or surface to air missiles, but the action report with those details should release in about a month, the USAF adds.
“The F-35 mission was to get in undetected and hit targets, so we weren’t there specifically for air to air role,” Lt Col George Watkins, commander, 34th fighter squadron says. “Our ratio has gotten better but I don’t have the final numbers. We saw an improvement in our pilot’s proficiency throughout Red Flag and that number was just F-35 kills and depth.
Since its last Red Flag exercise at Nellis two weeks prior, the USAF turned up the heat on its F-35As with more advanced SAMs. The service also leveraged some blue forces to fly on the red side to increase threat numbers, Lt Col John Wagemann, director of operations for 414th combat training squadron says. At its peak, more than 20 red aircraft flew against blue forces, he says....
...the [USAF] service is making Red Flag more challenging for blue forces by improvising. Once red forces were killed during the Red Flag event at Hill, those same aircraft returned “alive” to the fight later, Wagemann says.”
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 15th Feb 2017 at 01:41. Reason: add breakadafence & fliteglobular
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USMC meanwhile continues to press ahead with it’s F-35B program with two USMC going from initial training straight to the new machine.
The USMC AV-8B has been considered only for more experienced/capable pilots after trying to put ‘nuggets’ onto the machine and seeing a sharp rise in accidents.
It would seem that there is confidence that this will not be the case with the F-35.
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/223082...b-lightning-ii
The USMC AV-8B has been considered only for more experienced/capable pilots after trying to put ‘nuggets’ onto the machine and seeing a sharp rise in accidents.
It would seem that there is confidence that this will not be the case with the F-35.
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/223082...b-lightning-ii
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.janes.com/article/67679/usaf-seeks-interim-500-lb-bomb-with-moving-target-capability-for-f-35?utm_campaign=%5BPMP%5D_PC5308_Jane%27s%20360%2015.02.2017 _KP_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
"USAF seeks interim 500 lb bomb with moving target capability for F-35"
The short timeline is interesting: "The first contract is expected to be awarded in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017, with deliveries of the initial order to begin no later than six months after the contract date."
Maybe an operational deployment is on the cards?
"USAF seeks interim 500 lb bomb with moving target capability for F-35"
The short timeline is interesting: "The first contract is expected to be awarded in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017, with deliveries of the initial order to begin no later than six months after the contract date."
Maybe an operational deployment is on the cards?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
FWIW reporters are twittering 'bout Red Flag: https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/s...54757045694464
Originally Posted by ORAC
US Air Force: Removal of F-35 pilot weight restrictions eyed for April
...until I realised that the title wasn't "Removal of F-35 pilot weight eyed for April" as I first read it!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Typhoid infects F-35 in Babel Fish III: RAF demos F-35B and Typhoon interoperability | IHS Jane's 360
Wow - the bravo is quite a bit more expensive, compared to $148m for the A model.
$251m flyaway cost.
Guess the RAAF really won't be getting them anytime soon, even in their dreams.
$251m flyaway cost.
Guess the RAAF really won't be getting them anytime soon, even in their dreams.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expecting flak but here's my general understanding and then a question.
The F-35 is touted as being able to fly almost unrestricted within an IADS, hoovering up information and then sharing it with the team. It can use its radar and other sensors to then attack various systems. It has a warload but much has been made of its abilities outside of the kinetic in the traditional form.
Can someone please explain for the benefit of a truckie who slept through a lot of the EWO course why this role can't predominantly be carried out by a non fighter aircraft? If the F-35 is borderline invisible and does much of its work through non traditional non kinetic means why use a fighter design? Why not use something not limited by "fighter" design requirements that would easily be more stealthy and more persistent.
To be clear I'm not advocating not having a stealthy fighter, just asking why we need so many fighters in what is effectively a non fighter role?
The F-35 is touted as being able to fly almost unrestricted within an IADS, hoovering up information and then sharing it with the team. It can use its radar and other sensors to then attack various systems. It has a warload but much has been made of its abilities outside of the kinetic in the traditional form.
Can someone please explain for the benefit of a truckie who slept through a lot of the EWO course why this role can't predominantly be carried out by a non fighter aircraft? If the F-35 is borderline invisible and does much of its work through non traditional non kinetic means why use a fighter design? Why not use something not limited by "fighter" design requirements that would easily be more stealthy and more persistent.
To be clear I'm not advocating not having a stealthy fighter, just asking why we need so many fighters in what is effectively a non fighter role?
The F-35 isn't borderline invisible, it can still be detected by lower frequency radars and, by day, optical trackers and contrast trackers - the opposing force will know what is coming. But its LO capabilities degrade targeting radars, increases its JtoS ratio for EA and provide a good host to sensitive ESM systems and weapons for direct attack. Off board sensors, speed and manoeuvre provide the rest.
Can this be done by a larger aircraft - clearly yes and the US has the B-2. Its increase in size provides a better capability against low frequency search radars, so the opposing force is less likely to know what is coming, but it trades away speed and manoeuvre, but increases loiter and weapons carried. Rather more expensive per copy though.
A larger platform has some advantages, but will not operate from tactical locations or ships. For an adversary grappling with an F-35 will be a challenge, even with a reasonable picture of where it is. Add in the potential complications provided by the B-2, F-22, stand-off and stand-in jamming, EA, stand-off weapons and decoys it will be a nightmare to deal with.
With the F-35 once the IADS door is kicked in it will become a tactical bomb-truck that can protect itself.
Can this be done by a larger aircraft - clearly yes and the US has the B-2. Its increase in size provides a better capability against low frequency search radars, so the opposing force is less likely to know what is coming, but it trades away speed and manoeuvre, but increases loiter and weapons carried. Rather more expensive per copy though.
A larger platform has some advantages, but will not operate from tactical locations or ships. For an adversary grappling with an F-35 will be a challenge, even with a reasonable picture of where it is. Add in the potential complications provided by the B-2, F-22, stand-off and stand-in jamming, EA, stand-off weapons and decoys it will be a nightmare to deal with.
With the F-35 once the IADS door is kicked in it will become a tactical bomb-truck that can protect itself.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
More a question about USAF AAR rules - but also on F-35 fuel consumption, though they do deflect it to the probe being left out - WTF? 9 tankers for 10 fighters and 6 night stops?
How Often Does The F-35 Need To Refuel? | Defense content from Aviation Week
A recent, lengthy journey by U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs traveling from Arizona to Japan has sparked a quiet debate within the Pentagon about how often the stealthy fighter needs to refuel during ocean crossings. It took seven days for 10 U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to fly from Yuma to their new home at Iwakuni, Japan, a flight that on a commercial airliner normally takes less than 24 hr.
Many factors contribute to the time it takes a military fighter to get from point A to point B: weather, terrain and pilot fatigue, to name just a few. But on this particular voyage, the U.S. Air Force’s conservative refueling model required the Marine Corps aircraft to refuel with accompanying tankers a grand total of 250 times, a number the Marine Corps’ top aviator says is far too high for an efficient ocean-crossing.
“The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”. While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.
An often overlooked piece of the air logistics puzzle is tanker refueling, a critical enabler for operations around the world. Fighters are thirsty aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception, said Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns. During the Jan. 18-25 crossing to Iwakuni, nine tankers flew with the 10 F-35Bs, transferring a total of 766,000 lb. of fuel over 250 aerial refuelings, or 25 per F-35, according to Karns...........
It comes as no surprise to Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus that the Marine Corps jets needed to refuel so many times during the crossing to Iwakuni. The Air Force sets up ocean crossings assuming the worst-case scenario, so that if any aircraft is not able to get fuel at any given time during the journey—whether due to weather or a technical malfunction—the entire group has enough gas to land safely, Pleus explained. For instance, the F-35Bs flew with their refueling probes out during the entire voyage, which significantly increases drag on the aircraft, to simulate a scenario in which the operator is not able to retract the probe.
“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.” Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted...........
How Often Does The F-35 Need To Refuel? | Defense content from Aviation Week
A recent, lengthy journey by U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs traveling from Arizona to Japan has sparked a quiet debate within the Pentagon about how often the stealthy fighter needs to refuel during ocean crossings. It took seven days for 10 U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to fly from Yuma to their new home at Iwakuni, Japan, a flight that on a commercial airliner normally takes less than 24 hr.
Many factors contribute to the time it takes a military fighter to get from point A to point B: weather, terrain and pilot fatigue, to name just a few. But on this particular voyage, the U.S. Air Force’s conservative refueling model required the Marine Corps aircraft to refuel with accompanying tankers a grand total of 250 times, a number the Marine Corps’ top aviator says is far too high for an efficient ocean-crossing.
“The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”. While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.
An often overlooked piece of the air logistics puzzle is tanker refueling, a critical enabler for operations around the world. Fighters are thirsty aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception, said Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns. During the Jan. 18-25 crossing to Iwakuni, nine tankers flew with the 10 F-35Bs, transferring a total of 766,000 lb. of fuel over 250 aerial refuelings, or 25 per F-35, according to Karns...........
It comes as no surprise to Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus that the Marine Corps jets needed to refuel so many times during the crossing to Iwakuni. The Air Force sets up ocean crossings assuming the worst-case scenario, so that if any aircraft is not able to get fuel at any given time during the journey—whether due to weather or a technical malfunction—the entire group has enough gas to land safely, Pleus explained. For instance, the F-35Bs flew with their refueling probes out during the entire voyage, which significantly increases drag on the aircraft, to simulate a scenario in which the operator is not able to retract the probe.
“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.” Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted...........
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
The reporter is disingenuous stating it took seven days. Sure but not all the ten F-35Bs flew across at the same time - they went in small groups at different times. Details are not known but they did stop in Alaska taking the northern 'coronet' route due weather.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JON DAVIS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES ON F-35 LIGHTNING II PROGRAM 16 FEBRUARY 2017
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS...J-20170216.pdf (100Kb)
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JON DAVIS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES ON F-35 LIGHTNING II PROGRAM 16 FEBRUARY 2017
"...While VMFA-121’s movement was not the first time TACAIR aircraft have been re-deployed across the Pacific, it is noteworthy that for the duration of the transit, all aircraft remained operational and in an “up” status. That is not usually the case with large movements like this for a brand new aircraft. Additionally, this redeployment provided valuable lessons-learned as we move forward with the program. For instance, the northern route we took was meant to reduce the number of times the aircraft were required to plug for air-to-air refueling. We have since learned that the fuel models are overly-conservative. Our movement generated data that will be used by the JPO to increase the model’s accuracy. In the end it will benefit all three variants of the F-35 to be leveraged by the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy...."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
P'raps we'll know more about ARF & suchlike after the Down Under Trans Pacific Pair make it soon - to AVALON:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/js...-check-part-1/ 17 Feb 2017
"...Getting the pair of highly advanced, ‘fifth generation’ jets to the Avalon Air Show will itself be a comprehensive demonstration of aviation logistics. They’ll be flown to Australia by Aussie pilots and frequently topped up along the way by a RAAF KC-30 air-to-air refuelling tanker...."
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Production Orders
Anyone know if we have ordered anymore beyond the 4 test cabs?
Looking at Lockheed data, seems UK has 4 in LDIP8, 3 in 9 and 3 in 10. As LRIP 9 deliveries start in Q1 of this year, does that mean there are now 8 in total?
I read that the government approved 10, so that aligns. Just never seen and PR on orders or deliveries.
Be good to see this is actually progressing. Guess though the RAF doesn't PR in each new Typhoon delivery, just when squadrons stand up.
Looking at Lockheed data, seems UK has 4 in LDIP8, 3 in 9 and 3 in 10. As LRIP 9 deliveries start in Q1 of this year, does that mean there are now 8 in total?
I read that the government approved 10, so that aligns. Just never seen and PR on orders or deliveries.
Be good to see this is actually progressing. Guess though the RAF doesn't PR in each new Typhoon delivery, just when squadrons stand up.
Janes has some interesting news about the RAF's initial Release to Service for the F-35B.
UK awards F-35B initial Release to Service | IHS Jane's 360
Possibly churlish to mention it, but let's hope they've got a proper Safety Case for all the necessary components, and, indeed, for the whole 5th Generation Thing. It wouldn't do to Release something to Service without those, would it.... Oh wait....
airsound
PS Remember the Mull of Kintyre, anyone? Or the Reds ejection seat accident? Or....?
UK awards F-35B initial Release to Service | IHS Jane's 360
Possibly churlish to mention it, but let's hope they've got a proper Safety Case for all the necessary components, and, indeed, for the whole 5th Generation Thing. It wouldn't do to Release something to Service without those, would it.... Oh wait....
airsound
PS Remember the Mull of Kintyre, anyone? Or the Reds ejection seat accident? Or....?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Quick fix to F-35C catapult problem being investigated next week.
https://news.usni.org/2017/02/16/f-3...blem-next-week
https://news.usni.org/2017/02/16/f-3...blem-next-week