F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
'NoHoverstop' I had read somewhere that the VACC Harrier only did SRVL approaches to CdeG in 2007 - I would have to go search for that quote though.
Oh and it's VAAC - Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced flight Control
*in the cases where this array was used the overshoot had to be a bit higher.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
In actual fact few naval aircraft are Full Mission Capable (FMC), most are partial mission capable (PMC).
The short version is that everything has to 100%, no outstanding work to be done (such as updates, etc.) to be considered FMC by the MESM. As an example and acft has dual GPS and dual INS with whatever scheme of cross loading and one of the four goes down. The acft is PMC. Another acft in the same squadron is the hangar queen, no INS or GPS working and only one radio that works in one band. The hangar queen is also PMC if it can take off and land safely in VMC.
The MESM codes aircraft A-Z. FMC-PMC-NMC.
The real question is how many, if any, missions were changed or dropped due availability.
S/F, FOG
In actual fact few naval aircraft are Full Mission Capable (FMC), most are partial mission capable (PMC).
The short version is that everything has to 100%, no outstanding work to be done (such as updates, etc.) to be considered FMC by the MESM. As an example and acft has dual GPS and dual INS with whatever scheme of cross loading and one of the four goes down. The acft is PMC. Another acft in the same squadron is the hangar queen, no INS or GPS working and only one radio that works in one band. The hangar queen is also PMC if it can take off and land safely in VMC.
The MESM codes aircraft A-Z. FMC-PMC-NMC.
The real question is how many, if any, missions were changed or dropped due availability.
S/F, FOG
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
'NoHoverStop' I agree with your summation & my misrembering. To be clear then: the VAAC Harrier did SRVL to touchdown aboard CdeG? Good point about the weather - the Bedford Array should help with that up to sea state 6? Are you able to say anything more about the CdeG SRVLs please?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
For 'FOG'....
Operations: Based upon historic readiness rates of 50-60%, and with 6 aircraft in Nellis, the majority of sorties were planned as a two ship. Four ship surge events on Tuesday and Wednesday nights were chosen based on OCA and SA mission sets. Planned vs executed sorties and hours are as follows:
Sorties, Planned / Executed: 70 / 67
Hours, Planned / Executed: 91 / 94.1
Readiness Execution Rate: 98.5%
1 sortie cancelled for maintenance (executed. tasking as a three ship)
2 sorties cancelled for weather (event cancelled for Thunderstorms / Icing in the NTTR)..."
&
"...Maintenance summary: Aircraft readiness exceeded the historical averages. Six aircraft were deployed to Nellis AFB. The squadron's seventh aircraft remained in Yuma with a persistent IPP problem that was discovered after completion of the Iwakuni modifications. The Average readiness rates for the three week of the exercise are listed below. Notably, these numbers only reflect the six aircraft deployed to Nellis AFB.
Ready Basic Aircraft (RBA) : 77%
Full Mission Capable (FMC) : 23%
Partial Mission Capable (PMC) : 53% ..."
Sorties, Planned / Executed: 70 / 67
Hours, Planned / Executed: 91 / 94.1
Readiness Execution Rate: 98.5%
1 sortie cancelled for maintenance (executed. tasking as a three ship)
2 sorties cancelled for weather (event cancelled for Thunderstorms / Icing in the NTTR)..."
&
"...Maintenance summary: Aircraft readiness exceeded the historical averages. Six aircraft were deployed to Nellis AFB. The squadron's seventh aircraft remained in Yuma with a persistent IPP problem that was discovered after completion of the Iwakuni modifications. The Average readiness rates for the three week of the exercise are listed below. Notably, these numbers only reflect the six aircraft deployed to Nellis AFB.
Ready Basic Aircraft (RBA) : 77%
Full Mission Capable (FMC) : 23%
Partial Mission Capable (PMC) : 53% ..."
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SpazSinBad,
Good numbers for maintenance. I’ve been out for a few years so wondering if definitions have changed as to what constitutes FMC, PMC, etc. I remember BC (before Clinton) that the acft had to able to launch w/in two hours of a notification to be eligible for a particular category. Then Clinton change (96/97?) allowed a down acft that could be made flyable if missing parts were made available in X days then with Y hours to repair plus whatever time required to do engine runs, etc. be reported as FMC/PMC, etc.
I would like a return to the old pre BC way, to include reporting SORTS. A return to the old way would cause a shock to the whole military system but give a much more accurate assessment of readiness. The other advantage in that none (or very few) of the current AD are familiar with the old system necessitating inviting fat old guys in for a week or two of help.
S/F, FOG
Good numbers for maintenance. I’ve been out for a few years so wondering if definitions have changed as to what constitutes FMC, PMC, etc. I remember BC (before Clinton) that the acft had to able to launch w/in two hours of a notification to be eligible for a particular category. Then Clinton change (96/97?) allowed a down acft that could be made flyable if missing parts were made available in X days then with Y hours to repair plus whatever time required to do engine runs, etc. be reported as FMC/PMC, etc.
I would like a return to the old pre BC way, to include reporting SORTS. A return to the old way would cause a shock to the whole military system but give a much more accurate assessment of readiness. The other advantage in that none (or very few) of the current AD are familiar with the old system necessitating inviting fat old guys in for a week or two of help.
S/F, FOG
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I do recall a TACEVAL at Leuchars when, in the run up to a Survival Scramble we had an F4 check in on state as a "war goer". It was in a hangar on jacks, a single engine installed and the crew sitting on boxes. They claimed if needed the gear be be blown down and they'd get off on the one engine - better than the alternative.
The point being all figures are massaged to the absolute limit a squadron, then a wing etc can gat away with....
The point being all figures are massaged to the absolute limit a squadron, then a wing etc can gat away with....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Podcast: View from the Cockpit – What the F-35 Can Do 11 Mar 2017
Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Video: Podcast: View from the Cockpit ? What the F-35 Can Do | Podcast content from Aviation Week
Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology
"Aviation Week Editors Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick talk with Marine Lt. Col. David Berke. The team at Aviation Week has reported on the F-35 program for years from a programmatic and technical perspective. But Berke, who has flown the F-22, the F-35 and the F-18, tells them why the F-35 is a superior aircraft."
He spent the whole time talking about situational awareness with about 10 seconds on stealth being the way to give you that information sooner than your opponent would get it. So one question that I wonder about is whether a UCAV would be a cheaper way to "spice up your legacy aircraft" rather than an F-35 by giving them the information they need.
Another thing that I wonder about is: hasn't the Gripen had this sort of thing for ages?
Another thing that I wonder about is: hasn't the Gripen had this sort of thing for ages?
"Aviation Week Editors Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick talk with Marine Lt. Col. David Berke. The team at Aviation Week has reported on the F-35 program for years from a programmatic and technical perspective. But Berke, who has flown the F-22, the F-35 and the F-18, tells them why the F-35 is a superior aircraft."
Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Video: Podcast: View from the Cockpit ? What the F-35 Can Do | Podcast content from Aviation Week
How true. Love it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
7. David 'Chip' Berke: 5th Gen Experience Published on May 11, 2015
"In April 2015 Centre for Military Studies and the Williams Foundation hosted a symposium on "Integrating Innovative Airpower" in Copenhagen. The symposium was attended by international scholars, military practitioners, and representatives from the defense industry."
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moore's Law and the passage of time
As I heard that interview, what was being said was "This is a great machine as it has up to date systems that make life easier for us". It was recognised that in Desert Storm the Hornet was the cutting edge, being able to communicate and do multiple roles.
I am sure that we all now benefit from fast WiFi, think MALD as opposed to 28.8k modems think Link 16. I am sure that what can be achieved with a present day PC / Tablet / Smart Phone would be totally foreign to someone in the late Twentieth Century.
Or put it another way if I was driving a 1997 Volkswagen Mk3 Golf GTI and then jumped into a Mk7.5 Golf GTI, I am sure I would singing its praises, as it is a far more competent vehicle.
I do not know what systems there are at the core of the Raptor but thinking that the first flight was in 1997 when the fastest Intel processor was the Pentium ll with a clock speed of 300 MHz whilst now a 7th generation Inter Core i7 has a base frequency of 3.6 GHz, it is not surprising that the F35 is seen as a game changer. As it would be a game changer using a modern SmartPhone when you are used to a 1997 Nokia.
We all use the cloud and the internet to work and communicate, that is what the F35 is doing basically.
So the point of this post is "Is it the F35 that is a ground breaking, game changing system in it's totality, or is it the advances in the sensor systems technologies and the integration of these that leads to give a materially improved situational awareness, in the way the information is collected, displayed locally and communicated that is the game changer?"
If it is the later, the situational awareness, there is no implicit reason that this technology cannot be installed on legacy aircraft, as I see it, there is obviously cost to consider.
I am sure that we all now benefit from fast WiFi, think MALD as opposed to 28.8k modems think Link 16. I am sure that what can be achieved with a present day PC / Tablet / Smart Phone would be totally foreign to someone in the late Twentieth Century.
Or put it another way if I was driving a 1997 Volkswagen Mk3 Golf GTI and then jumped into a Mk7.5 Golf GTI, I am sure I would singing its praises, as it is a far more competent vehicle.
I do not know what systems there are at the core of the Raptor but thinking that the first flight was in 1997 when the fastest Intel processor was the Pentium ll with a clock speed of 300 MHz whilst now a 7th generation Inter Core i7 has a base frequency of 3.6 GHz, it is not surprising that the F35 is seen as a game changer. As it would be a game changer using a modern SmartPhone when you are used to a 1997 Nokia.
We all use the cloud and the internet to work and communicate, that is what the F35 is doing basically.
So the point of this post is "Is it the F35 that is a ground breaking, game changing system in it's totality, or is it the advances in the sensor systems technologies and the integration of these that leads to give a materially improved situational awareness, in the way the information is collected, displayed locally and communicated that is the game changer?"
If it is the later, the situational awareness, there is no implicit reason that this technology cannot be installed on legacy aircraft, as I see it, there is obviously cost to consider.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Here comes the advances Super Hornet. Only question now is how many will be procured to displace how many F-35C squadrons.
Controversy, cost and Trump: The F-35 Program in the eyes of its Chief Officer
One of the key players behind project, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, has tried to set the record straight at a conference in Australia.....
The second portion of the task, said Lt Gen Bogdan, is largely focused on the US Navy.
"The US Navy has always had a plan to use both the super-hornet and the F-35 C together on their large deck carriers. They have always said that both the Super Hornet and the C model would be complementary to each other. That hasn't changed," Lt Gen Bogdan said. "The question that was asked, and the specific answer we're trying to give the new administration is, ‘What is the right mix of F-35 C's and advanced Super Hornets on large deck carriers now and in the future?’ And that investigation is ongoing."
Lt Gen Bogdan was quick to state that this question should not be of concern for Australia. "I think the subtle piece that's important here, especially for Australia is that, that investigation and that set of questioning, and that tasking is nothing to do with A models or B models," Lt Gen Bogdan said. "There is absolutely no intention at this point in time, to change the programme of record on the A model or the B model. This was a unique question about the C model, about the mix of aeroplanes on an aircraft carrier, and about the advanced super-hornet and the F-35 C.
"So, from that perspective those are very reasonable questions that the new administration asked, and we're setting out to answer them – neither question has been answered yet.........."
Controversy, cost and Trump: The F-35 Program in the eyes of its Chief Officer
One of the key players behind project, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, has tried to set the record straight at a conference in Australia.....
The second portion of the task, said Lt Gen Bogdan, is largely focused on the US Navy.
"The US Navy has always had a plan to use both the super-hornet and the F-35 C together on their large deck carriers. They have always said that both the Super Hornet and the C model would be complementary to each other. That hasn't changed," Lt Gen Bogdan said. "The question that was asked, and the specific answer we're trying to give the new administration is, ‘What is the right mix of F-35 C's and advanced Super Hornets on large deck carriers now and in the future?’ And that investigation is ongoing."
Lt Gen Bogdan was quick to state that this question should not be of concern for Australia. "I think the subtle piece that's important here, especially for Australia is that, that investigation and that set of questioning, and that tasking is nothing to do with A models or B models," Lt Gen Bogdan said. "There is absolutely no intention at this point in time, to change the programme of record on the A model or the B model. This was a unique question about the C model, about the mix of aeroplanes on an aircraft carrier, and about the advanced super-hornet and the F-35 C.
"So, from that perspective those are very reasonable questions that the new administration asked, and we're setting out to answer them – neither question has been answered yet.........."
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philip. To answer your question, there's nothing to stop the processing and sensors being integrated on legacy aircraft (other than appetite and money)... but, good luck getting them into the fight for the sensors to be of real practical use; they'll be picked off by Dd-SAMs at range.
Like a 3-legged milking stool, stealth is an essential leg in the capability. Without it the capability collapses. Sensor fusion and networking are the others, as Chip says.
Like a 3-legged milking stool, stealth is an essential leg in the capability. Without it the capability collapses. Sensor fusion and networking are the others, as Chip says.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philip. To answer your question, there's nothing to stop the processing and sensors being integrated on legacy aircraft (other than appetite and money)... but, good luck getting them into the fight for the sensors to be of real practical use; they'll be picked off by Dd-SAMs at range.
Like a 3-legged milking stool, stealth is an essential leg in the capability. Without it the capability collapses. Sensor fusion and networking are the others, as Chip says.
Like a 3-legged milking stool, stealth is an essential leg in the capability. Without it the capability collapses. Sensor fusion and networking are the others, as Chip says.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Berke's airplane flew as fast as he talks it would blow the doors off a MiG-25.
If he doesn't stop saying "really really" all the time, someone might think he's auditioning for the Spice Girls' comeback tour.
Marines are brave, we get that, and will go wherever they are ordered (as if other services might not?), but that's not the point. If the risk assessment says "if we send in the MEU without the fighter and AEW cover provided by the CSG, there's a probability of 0.x that one of the amphibs will eat an ASCM or two", that order's not going to be issued above a certain very small value of x.
Accepting the principle repeated endlessly by yea-sayers on this thread - that you're qualified only to discuss airplanes you've flown - Berke isn't qualified to compare F-35 with its contemporaries (and note that he doesn't try) and his experience other than F-22 and F-35 is on 1970s-technology aircraft. So - although MSOCS' point has some validity - this doesn't say too much about the value of the F-35 vs. Rafale or JAS 39E.
Apps. Apps are great. Will the system accept apps - user-created or third-party - and when?
Also, as a couple of people note, he talks about LO a little and STOVL hardly at all, and dismisses the F-35's (supposed) kinematic disadvantages as not the way things are done these days. Which is a shame, because it's the combination of supersonic/high-g, LO and STOVL that has cost tens of billions and multiple years of delay to do.
If he doesn't stop saying "really really" all the time, someone might think he's auditioning for the Spice Girls' comeback tour.
Marines are brave, we get that, and will go wherever they are ordered (as if other services might not?), but that's not the point. If the risk assessment says "if we send in the MEU without the fighter and AEW cover provided by the CSG, there's a probability of 0.x that one of the amphibs will eat an ASCM or two", that order's not going to be issued above a certain very small value of x.
Accepting the principle repeated endlessly by yea-sayers on this thread - that you're qualified only to discuss airplanes you've flown - Berke isn't qualified to compare F-35 with its contemporaries (and note that he doesn't try) and his experience other than F-22 and F-35 is on 1970s-technology aircraft. So - although MSOCS' point has some validity - this doesn't say too much about the value of the F-35 vs. Rafale or JAS 39E.
Apps. Apps are great. Will the system accept apps - user-created or third-party - and when?
Also, as a couple of people note, he talks about LO a little and STOVL hardly at all, and dismisses the F-35's (supposed) kinematic disadvantages as not the way things are done these days. Which is a shame, because it's the combination of supersonic/high-g, LO and STOVL that has cost tens of billions and multiple years of delay to do.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Stealth aircraft are designed to avoid detection using a variety of technologies that reduce reflection/emission of radar, infrared, visible light, radio-frequency (RF) spectrum, and audio, collectively known as stealth technology."
Thermal imaging might even 'see' an F-35's pilot for a fleeting moment at extremely close range but it wouldn't do any good. He/she and their aircraft have already moved on at Mach 1+ having seen and zapped (or ignored) you long before you saw them.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that half of the point of improved situational awareness was that this enabled longer range targeting of weapons, assuming that the weapons are cleared for use.
So is the discussion about the difference in sensor range to that of the SAMs?
Why would it be thought to be a good idea to use a dumb gravity bomb on a defended target, putting the F35 in danger when a standoff weapon could be used, or indeed a number of stand off weapons could be simultaneously targeted from a number of similar or dissimilar platforms.
Again is it the stealth that is the game changer or is it the sensor accuracy and integration to improve situational awareness and thus targeting accuracy for advanced standoff weapons?
This brings of course the concept of the arsenal plane being fed coordinates from a stealth plane, implicitly the range of the attacking munition must be greater than the defending one for this concept to work.
So is the discussion about the difference in sensor range to that of the SAMs?
Why would it be thought to be a good idea to use a dumb gravity bomb on a defended target, putting the F35 in danger when a standoff weapon could be used, or indeed a number of stand off weapons could be simultaneously targeted from a number of similar or dissimilar platforms.
Again is it the stealth that is the game changer or is it the sensor accuracy and integration to improve situational awareness and thus targeting accuracy for advanced standoff weapons?
This brings of course the concept of the arsenal plane being fed coordinates from a stealth plane, implicitly the range of the attacking munition must be greater than the defending one for this concept to work.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low observability isn't claimed to be the same as invisibility.
It's not?
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."
Setting the Record Straight on F-35 - Sep 19, 2008
To be fair, you have half a point. Thermal imaging as such is a close-range threat. Its close cousin, infrared search and track, is another kettle of fish, particularly if you insist on being supersonic. The ideal gas equation is a
.
It's not?
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."
Setting the Record Straight on F-35 - Sep 19, 2008
To be fair, you have half a point. Thermal imaging as such is a close-range threat. Its close cousin, infrared search and track, is another kettle of fish, particularly if you insist on being supersonic. The ideal gas equation is a
.