F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[fretburner]

I was actually thinking Super Hornet vs F-35B.

It seems cheaper to have a mix of SHs and Bs, versus an all-B or B/C mix. For example, how much weapons can the -B carry internally and externally versus the SH? IIRC, the max takeoff weight of the -B is lower than the SH, and an even lower bring back weight. I'm not sure about "endurance" as well (not sure if that's the right term) for CAS missions, i.e. how long can the -B loiter with an equivalent weapons payload as the SH?

 

[colay]

I was actually thinking Super Hornet vs F-35B.

It seems cheaper to have a mix of SHs and Bs, versus an all-B or B/C mix. For example, how much weapons can the -B carry internally and externally versus the SH? IIRC, the max takeoff weight of the -B is lower than the SH, and an even lower bring back weight. I'm not sure about "endurance" as well (not sure if that's the right term) for CAS missions, i.e. how long can the -B loiter with an equivalent weapons payload as the SH?

One thing is sure, a F-35B can carry a lot more ordnance off a LHD/LHA than a SuperHornet. The only way the latter can get on/off is slung from a crane

 

[SpudmanWP]

You’re forgetting the primary reason for Naval F-35s, that being “Deep Strike” in denied airspace.

The F-35B cannot go “Deep” or carry a 2k internal load and the SH cannot go into denied airspace.

While it may be cheaper to fly one SH compared to one F-35C, planners look at what it costs to complete a mission as a whole. Any mission that the SH can do, the F-35C can do with less airframes. The F-35 requires less IFR, escort, decoy, AWACS, ISR, or EW assets.

Think of it this way, a typical 4-ship F-35 strike would require 6-8 Strike SH, 2-4 escort s, 2-4 decoys, 2 Growlers, multiple buddy tankers or a dedicated IFR platform, AESA support, etc. Not so cheap now, is it?

On the capabilities, here is a graph that shows the stats.

View attachment 5883

 

[ADMk2]

I was actually thinking Super Hornet vs F-35B.

It seems cheaper to have a mix of SHs and Bs, versus an all-B or B/C mix. For example, how much weapons can the -B carry internally and externally versus the SH? IIRC, the max takeoff weight of the -B is lower than the SH, and an even lower bring back weight. I'm not sure about "endurance" as well (not sure if that's the right term) for CAS missions, i.e. how long can the -B loiter with an equivalent weapons payload as the SH?

You're talking apples and oranges here. F-35B won't be bringing anything back to a USN carrier and a Super Hornet won't be bringing anything back to an LHD and never the twain shall meet...

The F-35C that USN and USMC will operate will operate from carriers or land bases, so if the USMC were to acquire Super Hornet, it would most likely be at the expense of the -C model.

If the USMC weren't required to provide carrier aircraft, they wouldn't be buying either the -C or the Super Hornet, so if you want to save money, cancel that requirement and let the USN try to fill out it's carrier airwings...

It will be cheaper to buy 80-100 less fighters overall than the operate some ratio of mixed fleets. When operating from conventional runways under operational conditions that permit the carriage of external stores, the range / ordnance capability of the -B won't be significantly different to any other fighter in theatre, bringback won't be an issue (it's only an issue for STOVL operations).

Range? Well that depends on so many different factors it's hardly worth pondering. An un-refuelled F-35B's range conducting CTOL operations won't be hugely smaller than an un-refuelled Super Hornet, put it that way.

The F-35B will be bought by the USMC regardless of whatever else you want to equip Marine Airwings with, unless the aircraft or project is cancelled, so I don't see much in the way of savings to be had by running mixed fleets.

 

[ADMk2]

You’re forgetting the primary reason for Naval F-35s, that being “Deep Strike” in denied airspace.

The F-35B cannot go “Deep” or carry a 2k internal load and the SH cannot go into denied airspace.

That depends on availability of refuelling assets and the geographic nature of the operations, just as it does with any tactical fighter.

Yeah it can't carry 2k weapons. Many targets do not require more than a 500lbs weapon anyway. Most definitely don't require more than 1k weapons...

 

[SpudmanWP]

While refueling assets may help with the shorter range of the B (but increased teh overall cost of the op), there is no getting around the 2k requirement.

The 2k requirement is VERY important for USN operations. Originally, the 2k limit was for the C only as the A/B were 1k. Without the 2k ability, you do not get bunker-busters, JSOW, or JSM. That leaves you with only the 500lb Paveway as your sole precision weapon as the specs for the 1k LJDAM has not been released as to whether it fit the B. The 500lb Paveway is woefully inadequate when it comes to bunker-busting, bridge-busting, runway cratering, etc, etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

While refueling assets may help with the shorter range of the B (but increased teh overall cost of the op), there is no getting around the 2k requirement.

The 2k requirement is VERY important for USN operations. Originally, the 2k limit was for the C only as the A/B were 1k. Without the 2k ability, you do not get bunker-busters, JSOW, or JSM. That leaves you with only the 500lb Paveway as your sole precision weapon as the specs for the 1k LJDAM has not been released as to whether it fit the B. The 500lb Paveway is woefully inadequate when it comes to bunker-busting, bridge-busting, runway cratering, etc, etc.

the issue with that 2k "ceiling" is that its implies that weapons carriage load is a defining indicator

over the years thats not the case (eg SDB developments as an example)

the same end state argument used to be used for effectiveness of naval gun fire at battleship range

the argument should be more about effectiveness and yield at impact

that doesn't negate the obvious issue that if you carry more you can kill more, but if you carry more accurate PGM'd and/or directed munitions and can have a closer CEP and higher yield at termination, then your chances of killing the target naturally go up

I'm pretty sure someone in here will trot out the stats about weapons effectiveness over the last 50 years as an example - I would if I had it handy but I'm disorganised compared to some others in here. /grin

the same logic about effectiveness can be applied to artillery, naval gun fire, mortars, naval gun fire and ground launched precision munitions.

its the "ray white" effect. smarter, faster , better.....

 

[ADMk2]

While refueling assets may help with the shorter range of the B (but increased teh overall cost of the op), there is no getting around the 2k requirement.

The 2k requirement is VERY important for USN operations. Originally, the 2k limit was for the C only as the A/B were 1k. Without the 2k ability, you do not get bunker-busters, JSOW, or JSM. That leaves you with only the 500lb Paveway as your sole precision weapon as the specs for the 1k LJDAM has not been released as to whether it fit the B. The 500lb Paveway is woefully inadequate when it comes to bunker-busting, bridge-busting, runway cratering, etc, etc.

Bunkers are usually fixed targets I imagine and these are perfectly well targetted by "vanilla" JDAM variants. I don't believe they necessarily require the laser guidance system as well?

The GBU-32 1k JDAM can be fitted with the BLU-110 penetrator warhead manufactured by General Dynamics and is on the integration list for F-35B.

Penetrator Warhead - General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems

These won't be perfect for every deep bunker, but then I doubt anyone truly expects the USMC to do the bulk of bunker busting missions.

 

[RobWilliams]

These won't be perfect for every deep bunker, but then I doubt anyone truly expects the USMC to do the bulk of bunker busting missions.

That's what the USAF is for

It becomes more of a problem for countries like the UK (+ Italy, i'd presume) who'd rely on the B for first day operations.

For the UK we've got PWIII - not sure on specific types however - which'll eventually be an external job for the F35B, initially it'll just be PWIV.

EDIT: Nice article from FlightGlobal about initial external fitting checks of the JSM to the F35

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-joint-strike-missile-makes-f-35-debut-383362/

Kongsberg's developmental Joint Strike Missile (JSM) has been attached to a Lockheed Martin F-35 for the first time at the airframer's Fort Worth, Texas facility.

Installed on 27 February as part of a "fit check" using one of the stealthy fighter's external weapons pylons, the munition will undergo a further test later this year to verify that it is also able to be carried within the F-35's internal weapons bay.

Lockheed will conduct similar external trials on all three variants of the fighter, while internal fit checks of the JSM will be confined to the conventional take-off and landing F-35A ordered by Norway, says Norwegian F-35 programme director Anders Melheim.

That's fair enough I suppose, as of right now aren't Norway the sole customer of the JSM?

 

[ADMk2]

That's what the USAF is for

It becomes more of a problem for countries like the UK (+ Italy, i'd presume) who'd rely on the B for first day operations.

For the UK we've got PWIII - not sure on specific types however - which'll eventually be an external job for the F35B, initially it'll just be PWIV.

Italy has JDAM in their inventory, so I guess it won't be such a huge issue for them, plus they are getting the -A model for their Airforce so overall they'll be fine.

Yeah the RAF/RN won't have a large penetrating weapon that can be carried internally, unless they adopt (JDAM and BLU-111) so they won't be any different in that regard to now. They'll have a 500lbs penetrator I'd imagine and as you say, the USAF and USN will likely be conducting the bulk of those missions in wartime.

Any operations the RAF/RN are conducting that the USAF / USN aren't involved with is probably not going to present such a high end air threat that their F-35B's won't be able to carry external 2K weapons anyway.

 

[colay]

That's what the USAF is for

It becomes more of a problem for countries like the UK (+ Italy, i'd presume) who'd rely on the B for first day operations.

For the UK we've got PWIII - not sure on specific types however - which'll eventually be an external job for the F35B, initially it'll just be PWIV.

EDIT: Nice article from FlightGlobal about initial external fitting checks of the JSM to the F35

PICTURE: Joint Strike Missile makes F-35 debut



That's fair enough I suppose, as of right now aren't Norway the sole customer of the JSM?

The RAAF has been studying JSM for possible use with it's F-35 fleet.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/8FE6042C-C380-11DE-91170050568C22C9

ADD EDIT:

Interestingly enough, LM has found that Turkey's SOM cruise missile fits in the F-35 weapons bay with fins folded so JSM is going to have early competition.

 

[ADMk2]

The RAAF has been studying JSM for possible use with it's F-35 fleet.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/8FE6042C-C380-11DE-91170050568C22C9

ADD EDIT:

Interestingly enough, LM has found that Turkey's SOM cruise missile fits in the F-35 weapons bay with fins folded so JSM is going to have early competition.

We'll be looking closely at JASSM-ER and the LRASM anti-ship variant too, undoubtedly.

With an 800-1000k standoff range, I'm not sure that internal carriage of such a weapon is really all that important...

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Long_Range_Anti-Ship_Missile_(LRASM).aspx

JSOW C1 has moving maritime attack capability as well. With JSOW-ER also being worked on, JSM will have plenty of competition even on early Blocks for JSF it seems...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usa-issues-jsow-block-iii-production-contracts-05338/

 

[fretburner]

You're talking apples and oranges here. F-35B won't be bringing anything back to a USN carrier and a Super Hornet won't be bringing anything back to an LHD and never the twain shall meet...

I understand that.

The F-35C that USN and USMC will operate will operate from carriers or land bases, so if the USMC were to acquire Super Hornet, it would most likely be at the expense of the -C model.

Yes, this was what I was referring to.

First, the USMC wants an all-F-35B fleet. So Why did they NOT want a mix of F-35Bs and F/A-18 E/Fs right from the start?

Now, they have sort of agreed to NOT go with an all-F-35B fleet and do a mix of F-35B and F-35Cs. So again, why NOT go with the F/A-18 E/Fs?

If the USMC weren't required to provide carrier aircraft, they wouldn't be buying either the -C or the Super Hornet, so if you want to save money, cancel that requirement and let the USN try to fill out it's carrier airwings...

It will be cheaper to buy 80-100 less fighters overall than the operate some ratio of mixed fleets. When operating from conventional runways under operational conditions that permit the carriage of external stores, the range / ordnance capability of the -B won't be significantly different to any other fighter in theatre, bringback won't be an issue (it's only an issue for STOVL operations).

I guess this would be the answer, i.e. cancel the requirement, if you really want to save on cost.

Thanks!

 

[SpudmanWP]

Now, they have sort of agreed to NOT go with an all-F-35B fleet and do a mix of F-35B and F-35Cs. So again, why NOT go with the F/A-18 E/Fs?

Simple, the F-35C beats the F-18 in EVERY category save initial procurement cost. It beats in in range, speed, weapons capability, SA, survivability, etc, etc.

The problem is that politicians think short-term and military planners look long term.

In today’s battlefield, the F-18 is viable. But that’s today. What is it going to like 30-40 years from now? It would be the same as sticking with the F-4/5 in the 1970s instead of taking the leap to the F-15/16.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

With an 800-1000k standoff range, I'm not sure that internal carriage of such a weapon is really all that important...

When the RAAF did an initial study into the NSM carriage on the F-35 they found that internal carriage was an extremely good thing to have. Since with it the aircraft had the full LO capability which enabled it to be able to do a range of things other anti-ship aircraft hadn’t been able to do before and after missile launch. Realistically there are only a few scenarios where a ‘crow flies’ range of over 100km is ever going to be used (and most of them are surface launched) because of the difficulty of targeting and that long-time of flight allows for target displacement. I would imagine the most useful thing of that range in anti-ship operations would be allowing clover leaf pattern missile flights and loitering so a single aircraft can fire a bunch of missiles at the same time that would simultaneously approach the target from different directions. Though of course the ‘real’ requirement for all that range is loitering endurance while using the imaging seeker to find targets like the IMI Delilah is used to hunt for Hezbollah missile launchers in the 2006 Lebanon War.

 

[fretburner]

Simple, the F-35C beats the F-18 in EVERY category save initial procurement cost. It beats in in range, speed, weapons capability, SA, survivability, etc, etc.

I understand that. However, if it's good enough for the USN, why is it not good enough for the USMC? I don't think the USMC will ever go and attack a country like Russia or China - both having jets which can potentially outmatch the Super Hornets - on their own. They would have their own F-35Bs supported by USN and USAF fighters. Even the USAF will still be keeping their F-15Es!

In my opinion, the USMC is really NOT really thinking about cost cutting... Which is fine, only if the USG had an unlimited budget. Besides, they can probably re-allocate their fighter "savings" to a replacement of their AAV since the EFV has been cancelled. I wonder if the sequestration will ever change their minds. We'll see...

 

[SpudmanWP]

The USN is forcing the F-35C on the USMC as they originally only wanted the B. They are not buying the F-18 E/F because of the obvious reason of Carrier USMC pilots will fly against the same targets as Carrier USN pilots. Why cripple yourself by having a 4th gen asset?

 

[ADMk2]

First, the USMC wants an all-F-35B fleet. So Why did they NOT want a mix of F-35Bs and F/A-18 E/Fs right from the start?

1. They were worried that any F/A-18E/F purchase would impact on their F-35B numbers.

2. They understand the capability of both the F-35 and F/A-18E/F better than any of us do and they're not interested in F/A-18E/F capability, when F-35 is available...

Now, they have sort of agreed to NOT go with an all-F-35B fleet and do a mix of F-35B and F-35Cs. So again, why NOT go with the F/A-18 E/Fs?

F-35C has been forced upon them. They haven't chosen it. They are part of the Department of Navy afterall and not everything is up to them.

The F/A-18E/F is about 65% of the capability of the F-35C at 95% of the cost. That's a pretty big reason right there as to why they aren't interested in Super Hornet...

 

[Air Force Brat]

1. They were worried that any F/A-18E/F purchase would impact on their F-35B numbers.

2. They understand the capability of both the F-35 and F/A-18E/F better than any of us do and they're not interested in F/A-18E/F capability, when F-35 is available...



F-35C has been forced upon them. They haven't chosen it. They are part of the Department of Navy afterall and not everything is up to them.

The F/A-18E/F is about 65% of the capability of the F-35C at 95% of the cost. That's a pretty big reason right there as to why they aren't interested in Super Hornet...

I think that you and Spud are exactly right here, the Marine's would loose their carrier slots without the C, so they are going with the C as opposed to the F/A-18E/F which is still a very fine airplane, but ultimately their mission will likely take them into contested airspace and they know the C is much more survivable in that airspace that the fourth gen F-18.
They well know the cost of maintaining two aging platforms, having flown the Harrier well past its prime and the Hornet is getting long in the tooth as well. Having two very similar airframes and avionics suites with a "warranty" and full airframe life ahead of them, will save lots of maintenance headaches as the F-35 will have full factory support and will remain in production for many years to come, and the various upgrades which will soon be coming down the pike, the Marine airmen and maintainers will be very happy, and the F-35 is a modular airplane even though technologically very complex.
I also like the C, and I believe the Marines will love the C, and they will make it work, I'm very certain this will be the right decision for the Marines. Cheers Brat

 

[PO2GRV]

score another point for Winslow Wheeler

found this gem at foreignpolicy.com Error Report - By Winslow Wheeler | Foreign Policy titled Error Report

essentially mister Wheeler feels that the GAO is now "in on it" with the F-35 either out of malignancy in the office or out of incompetence

some quotes

In short, DOD appears to have an unseen hand in influencing the text of GAO reports, and the management guidance as perceived by the GAO staff is to accept the DOD guidance to reduce as much as possible any areas of disagreement. The differences may only be subtle in a final GAO report, or they could appear in the form of strangely unsubstantiated assertions and conclusions -- the sort of vapid statements that appear in GAO's new F-35 report.

. . .

With a love letter like that*** from DOD to the agency that is supposed to be Congress's watchdog, it is time to worry how far self-interested interventions have penetrated a respected and heretofore sacrosanct agency. All may not be so well with the F-35 -- or with GAO.

*** Referring to a one page letter from the DoD praising the GAOs responsiveness and accounting of the F35 program

My first reading of it calls to mind a kind of paranoia. Like a paranoid refusing to let go of his delusion as it loses more and more rationale, or trying to find a monster in every shadow like the worst conspiracy theorist

thoughts?