ASRAAM Config Change For F-35

[gf0012-aust]

This may be the case for the USAF (and to an extent for everyone) but any user who will be utilizeing the platform in the day one air superiority role to achieve battlespace wide air dominance will need 6 AAM's on the first day. I dare say so will the USN. Therefore 4 internal AAM's is rather limited.

Air Superiority is not primary. Decapitation of SEAD/DEAD/Comms is. That means packaged discretionary strikes.

The biggles events don't happen in sophisticated modern combat.

Everyone learnt that lesson and panicked on fast tracking their own RMA after 1991

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Air Superiority is not primary. Decapitation of SEAD/DEAD/Comms is. That means packaged discretionary strikes.

The biggles events don't happen in sophisticated modern combat.

Everyone learnt that lesson and panicked on fast tracking their own RMA after 1991

Sure thing, but said decom packages need to be protected from intact fighter threats, therefore Air superiority is still definatly relevent. Maybe not in the "Fulda gap" style of the 80's with 2 huge air forces struggleing to achieve air superiority from parity, but strike packages need to be protected from airborne threats and the battlespace does need to be sanitised before your strike capability can be fully brought to bear. Any IADS worth its name has both airborne and missile baced elements, so air superiority should be comperble (well in most cases less due to the threat) in importance to SEAD/DEAD elements. That being said nations/organizatgions utilizing the F-35 in the air superiority role on the first day of the war will be greatfull to get the extra AAM capability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The whole point of decap/discombob of the IADS and comms by conducting pre strike is to render not only the ADS but also their air deaf dumb and blind as much as possible.

thats why planners do things like initiate pre strike corridors and why air superiority assets are kept out until thats achieved.

killing red air is more than just air vs air

 

[kato]

Maybe not in the "Fulda gap" style of the 80's with 2 huge air forces struggleing to achieve air superiority from parity, but strike packages need to be protected from airborne threats and the battlespace does need to be sanitised before your strike capability can be fully brought to bear. Any IADS worth its name has both airborne and missile baced elements, so air superiority should be comperble (well in most cases less due to the threat) in importance to SEAD/DEAD elements.

Going straight offtopic, the primary point (airforce-wise) in the Fulda Gap scenario wasn't the ~12 fighter squadrons stationed on each side, but the far more numerous strike squadrons (just Germany alone had 20!) vs ultra-dense air-defense systems.

Within the FRG, the line of defense was a belt of Nike and Hawk launchers, with four US and four British squadrons stationed "above" that, and two German squadrons each on either end of the missile belt protecting the "flanks".

The primary role of at least half the US and British fighter squadrons would have been to escort German, British and US nuclear-armed strike aircraft stationed close to them against the twelve GDR and Soviet fighter squadrons.

"Real" air superiority would have been next to un-achievable, for either side.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The whole point of decap/discombob of the IADS and comms by conducting pre strike is to render not only the ADS but also their air deaf dumb and blind as much as possible.

thats why planners do things like initiate pre strike corridors and why air superiority assets are kept out until thats achieved.

killing red air is more than just air vs air

I'm not disputeing that, however i'm sure you cant send in the assets you need to effectively decapitate the IADS in the face of an air threat without air cover at the package level. Unless you can acheive complete decapitation by EW and Stand off weapons that can be launched outside the enemy fighter threat envilope? Even in the current tedhnological environment i'm sure you still need maned platforms entering the enemies airspace in the initail moves.

In any case this assumes you will be fighting offenceively. Air superiority will still be vital for securing your own airspace (notably in Australia considering the difference and lack of ground based missile defence).

Going straight offtopic, the primary point (airforce-wise) in the Fulda Gap scenario wasn't the ~12 fighter squadrons stationed on each side, but the far more numerous strike squadrons (just Germany alone had 20!) vs ultra-dense air-defense systems.

Within the FRG, the line of defense was a belt of Nike and Hawk launchers, with four US and four British squadrons stationed "above" that, and two German squadrons each on either end of the missile belt protecting the "flanks".

The primary role of at least half the US and British fighter squadrons would have been to escort German, British and US nuclear-armed strike aircraft stationed close to them against the twelve GDR and Soviet fighter squadrons.

Clearly the ground based elemnt of the IADS was primary on both sides, and in the nuclear battlefield saturateing you enemeis IADS with nuclear armed tactical strikers was clearly going to be more effective than achieveing air superiority before bringing your full strike weight to bear, simply because of the damage a single platform can do. However Air superiority assets were still vital to the upper layer of your IADS and to maximize the chances of your own strike elements.

In any case were they the numbers perminantly stationed in the theater at the time or planned numbers? One would have thought once the situation escilated extra fighter squadrons could have been brought in across the Atlanitc and from mainland Russia quite easilly and quickly? Both the USAF and SovAF would have many more surpluss fighter assets in other theaters.

"Real" air superiority would have been next to un-achievable, for either side.

I would think air dominance would be unachievable in real terms, but a level of air superiority should have been achievable, specially if one side pre-empted sucsesfully.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not disputeing that, however i'm sure you cant send in the assets you need to effectively decapitate the IADS in the face of an air threat without air cover at the package level.

study the opening of 1991. its the reference for killing IADS and achieving air superiority.

Unless you can acheive complete decapitation by EW and Stand off weapons that can be launched outside the enemy fighter threat envilope?

see above. you degrade the red teams comms to the point where you have mastery. its not about mastering air space. its about dominating battlespace

Even in the current tedhnological environment i'm sure you still need maned platforms entering the enemies airspace in the initail moves.

again, track down the USAF reports about 1991. They'll be in af.mil etc.....

the first manned aircraft that entered the battlespace were not air superiority assets.

 

[Totoro]

True, one has to use all of the assets available to the most of their ability, perhaps using them in novel ways that the enemy is not prepared to deal against - just like the iraqis were not expecting those low flying appaches to be the first to cross the border, going after the early warning radar network. Such a move was possible in Iraq in 1991, partly cause of the state of Iraqi defense system, party because such a move was never done before and was completely unexpected. PErhaps in a new, but similar situation, such a move would not be possible. PErhaps commando groups could be used instead. Perhaps lighting fast motorized groups could be used instead. Or nothing would work, (due to enemy defences, geography etc) and more conventional first strike means would have to be utilized. There is no one rule to follow, each situation brings different challenges and different opportunities.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

study the opening of 1991. its the reference for killing IADS and achieving air superiority.

again, track down the USAF reports about 1991. They'll be in af.mil etc.....

I'll have a poke around, its awfully late to start researching.

see above. you degrade the red teams comms to the point where you have mastery. its not about mastering air space. its about dominating battlespace

the first manned aircraft that entered the battlespace were not air superiority assets.

I think your misunderstanding my point. I'm not disputing what your saying, my point is that you still need air superiority/escort at the package level while there is some sort of an air threat as you go about decaping the bad guy's IADS. Coalition strike packages had air cover in Desert Storm did they not?

 

[gf0012-aust]

my point is that you still need air superiority/escort at the package level while there is some sort of an air threat as you go about decaping the bad guy's IADS. Coalition strike packages had air cover in Desert Storm did they not?

no they didn't. air support of strike was kept out of the strike corridor and did not escort the strikers.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

no they didn't. air support of strike was kept out of the strike corridor and did not escort the strikers.

But was air cover operational in the battlespace (or even the vacinity) at the same time? I find it hard to beleive that coalition strike packages went into hit their targets without air superiority assets in the battlespace in the face of a credible air threat that would have been operational at the time. It seems compleatly unrealstic to me that air superiority elements would not be included in strike packages (loosely) or even used when tackleing an IADS with an air element.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But was air cover operational in the battlespace (or even the vacinity) at the same time? I find it hard to beleive that coalition strike packages went into hit their targets without air superiority assets in the battlespace in the face of a credible air threat that would have been operational at the time. It seems compleatly unrealstic to me that air superiority elements would not be included in strike packages (loosely) or even used when tackleing an IADS with an air element.

No they weren't. Any air packages would potentially have alerted the enemy of a mission.

There were no escorts for the H hour strikers. Thats why they had sanitised corridors so that there was no possibility to compromise the strike missions - and to make air ID easier for other sensor systems

The whole idea of striking mission critical areas was to reduce their capacity to co-ord or deploy air. Existing air was seduced.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

No they weren't. Any air packages would potentially have alerted the enemy of a mission.

There were no escorts for the H hour strikers. Thats why they had sanitised corridors so that there was no possibility to compromise the strike missions - and to make air ID easier for other sensor systems

The whole idea of striking mission critical areas was to reduce their capacity to co-ord or deploy air. Existing air was seduced.

Ok i get what your saying. Were the initial packages VLO by any chance (perhapse low level stuff too)?

Anyway we have digressed. My original point was the additional AAM capability should be both usefull and welcomed by the user, because there is still a place for air superiority elements in the battlespace, and whilst they may not be decisive anymore (in comparison to strike and EW elements) dismissing the capability is premature IMO.

Anyhoo its a hideous hour and i'm off to bed.

 

[Totoro]

Ozzy, the inital packages were low flying apache helicopters.

 

[kato]

In any case were they the numbers perminantly stationed in the theater at the time or planned numbers?

Permanently stationed, i.e. the ones available for immediate response.

Stationing in Germany went roughly like this in the late 80s:

(North Flank Package) - one wing of each: fighter, recon, strike, CAS (all German)
(South Flank Package) - one wing of each: fighter, recon, strike, CAS (all German)

(South Flank Extra) - one wing nuclear strike (German)
(North Flank Extra) - two wings maritime strike/patrol (German)

Center Group (behind SAM belt):

• Germany: one wing strike
• RAFG: three to four wings strike, one wing each fighter (F-4) and CAS (Harrier)
• USAFE: two wings fighter, one wing SEAD, one wing strike

(calc for RAFG = 2-3 sqns per "wing")

Although this includes some squadrons that were e.g. semi-permanently deployed to other USAFE bases, but still officially attached to units in Germany.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

This isn't a priority of the USAF or LM because they will have dedicated air superiority assets of the like of the F-22A, therefore missile payload of their F-35A's isn't a priority, which is why this comparibly minor problem hasnt been adressed yet.



I believe there will be a real push from non USAF users and the USN for the 6xAAM capability, but again as i said earlier there are plenty of other, more complex and difficult problems to sort out. I have no doubt this capability will be operational by 2015.

What makes you say that? How can you say export nations will have F-35s that carry more missiles than U.S. F-35s? It does not work that way, American F-35s will be the first to get the 6 missile capability before export nations do. You can't seriously expect the Americans to allow export nations to have better F-35s then they do, the same goes today with the F-15s and F-16s. As for the F-22 they are only going to get 183 F-22s, there is no way the USAF can achieve air superiority with that small of a number, I don't see any point for the USAF to beg for 200 more F-22s ether as that will most likely never happen, they will just be better off upgrading their F-35s to carry 6 missiles instead of 4.

 

[Grand Danois]

What export nations? There are none yet. It works by requirement, btw. If the US doesn't need 6 AAMs internally, then they won't have it. If partner nations do need 6 AAMs internally, then they will.

As easy as that.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

What export nations? There are none yet. It works by requirement, btw. If the US doesn't need 6 AAMs internally, then they won't have it. If partner nations do need 6 AAMs internally, then they will.

As easy as that.

What source do you have? The U.S. does need a 6 AAM internal requirement for the F-35 for air superiority missions, the Pentagon says they want the F-35 to replace some of the F-15s so you going to want 6 internal AAMs. The U.S. will have it before export nations do...end of story! All this talk of the U.S. F-35s only being used as bomb trucks and only 183 F-22s can do everything well only export nations have F-35s with 6 internal AAMs is getting old. As I said the USAF and USN will be the first ones to get it, the F-35B has smaller weapons bays so it is unclear if it will get 6 internal AAMs but it should still have at least 4.

I find it ridiculous that people say export nations will have more capable F-35s then America will, it does not work that way. Americans have always liked to be ahead in the game when it comes to military equipment and not fall behind....just like during the Cold War with the arms race, though I'm not saying America is in a arms race with their allies but America always wants the best, just like they don't want to export the F-22.

 

[Grand Danois]

What source do you have? The U.S. does need a 6 AAM internal requirement for the F-35 for air superiority missions, the Pentagon says they want the F-35 to replace some of the F-15s so you going to want 6 internal AAMs. The U.S. will have it before export nations do...end of story! All this talk of the U.S. F-35s only being used as bomb trucks and only 183 F-22s can do everything well only export nations have F-35s with 6 internal AAMs is getting old. As I said the USAF and USN will be the first ones to get it, the F-35B has smaller weapons bays so it is unclear if it will get 6 internal AAMs but it should still have at least 4.

Did I say anything that needed a source? No. There are no export customers. If the USAF define a req for it, they will have it, if they don't, they don't. There is no "USAF/USN first and best" logic in this.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Did I say anything that needed a source? No. There are no export customers. If the USAF define a req for it, they will have it, if they don't, they don't. There is no "USAF/USN first and best" logic in this.

What do you mean no export customers? What about the U.K.?

What about Israel?

What about Australia?

What about all of the other nations planning to but the F-35? There will be export nations with the F-35.

If the USAF/USN don't have a requirement for 6 internal AAMs then LM will not even bother to think about adding it to export nations ether and the whole 6 internal AAM thing will just fade into the past. But the chances are that the USAF and USN will want 6 internal AAMs especially if only 183 F-22s are built and the Super Hornet does not have stealth(but still a great aircraft and I love it).
Plus 6 internal AAMs just looks cool, I mean who does not want it?nfloorl:

 

[Grand Danois]

These are partner nations - not export customers. It's a huge difference.

If they have need for 6 internal aams they will get it.

Israel could be an export customer.

What do you mean no export customers? What about the U.K.?

What about Israel?

What about Australia?

What about all of the other nations planning to but the F-35? There will be export nations with the F-35.

If the USAF/USN don't have a requirement for 6 internal AAMs then LM will not even bother to think about adding it to export nations ether and the whole 6 internal AAM thing will just fade into the past. But the chances are that the USAF and USN will want 6 internal AAMs especially if only 183 F-22s are built and the Super Hornet does not have stealth(but still a great aircraft and I love it).
Plus 6 internal AAMs just looks cool, I mean who does not want it?nfloorl: