F-35 Program - General Discussion

[gf0012-aust]

damn, these are the types of conferences that I really miss attending

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/15/f-...230426561&mc_cid=73645129f3&mc_eid=d7b25005c6

 

[John Fedup]

The link mentions Canada as an attendee. WTF, isn't about time a message is to Canada to $hit or get off the pot wrt to F-35!

 

[t68]

The link mentions Canada as an attendee. WTF, isn't about time a message is to Canada to $hit or get off the pot wrt to F-35!

I think it's a matter of keeping them in the loop, hopefully that will filter back to those in the know. It's a wonder the UK didn't turn up as I expect them to show the flag as part of FPDA member which I do hope that they will become more active participant again.

 

[Ranger25]

I think it's a matter of keeping them in the loop, hopefully that will filter back to those in the know. It's a wonder the UK didn't turn up as I expect them to show the flag as part of FPDA member which I do hope that they will become more active participant again.

Correct. The article mentions them as a participant in the JSF, not necessarily the PACAF


Good news the In theatre teams are already thinking about new Joint strategies both offensive and defense for their network centric approaches.

 

[south]

Re Asraam/9X. The two weapons are fundamentally different, but both fulfil their design aims well. The Asraam was designed to be fast with long legs. The 9X to turn. The Aim-9X is compromised in kinematics to an extent by utilising the same size frame as the first aim9's. As a result it has a smaller motor than the Asraam, with slightly smaller legs as a result. It is also optimised for turning as demonstrated by the thrust vectoring (which typically reduces some of the thrust). They are obviously competitors in a sense - but beyond being IR they are substantially different.

 

[Boagrius]

Re Asraam/9X. The two weapons are fundamentally different, but both fulfil their design aims well. The Asraam was designed to be fast with long legs. The 9X to turn. The Aim-9X is compromised in kinematics to an extent by utilising the same size frame as the first aim9's. As a result it has a smaller motor than the Asraam, with slightly smaller legs as a result. It is also optimised for turning as demonstrated by the thrust vectoring (which typically reduces some of the thrust). They are obviously competitors in a sense - but beyond being IR they are substantially different.

FWIW was aware of the above, just surprised that the 9X was anecdotally preferred by the RAAF. Would have assumed that they'd try to get most/all of their work done prior to the merge, which is where the ASRAAM should theoretically shine. Even in the post-merge/up close I would have thought the nose authority of the Hornet would give it an ample ability to get an ASRAAM shot off in the phonebooth against most adversaries.

 

[cdxbow]

F35 for Taiwan

It is being reported that Taiwan is requesting to purchase F35A & B's, along with a swag of other advanced weaponry, they clearly haven't been paying attention to Mr Kopp, Mr Sprey or Russia Today. See Ministry plans to obtain stealth fighter jets - Taipei Times Mr Trump is going to ruffle a few PRC feathers if he allows the sale

 

[south]

FWIW was aware of the above, just surprised that the 9X was anecdotally preferred by the RAAF. Would have assumed that they'd try to get most/all of their work done prior to the merge, which is where the ASRAAM should theoretically shine. Even in the post-merge/up close I would have thought the nose authority of the Hornet would give it an ample ability to get an ASRAAM shot off in the phonebooth against most adversaries.

I believe the decision to stick with only the 9X is as much of a decision to remain in lockstep with the US (which is why it was bought in the first place with the F's) though the 9X Block II sounds pretty nice.

 

[the road runner]

JSF uses a different RCS application of sig mgt material concept, so is inherently easier to maintain

I read an article a while ago that stated JSF "stealth(LO)," becomes better as it ages.. Is this really the case?

If i recall right the claim was made by a LM executive

Edit .. That's the article

https://www.wired.com/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier/

 

[Boagrius]

I believe the decision to stick with only the 9X is as much of a decision to remain in lockstep with the US (which is why it was bought in the first place with the F's) though the 9X Block II sounds pretty nice.

Makes sense. As I said earlier it will be interesting to see what becomes of SACM. Perhaps it will combine the best of both worlds (+ internal carriage)?

 

[Vanshilar]

I read an article a while ago that stated JSF "stealth(LO)," becomes better as it ages.. Is this really the case?

If i recall right the claim was made by a LM executive

Yes, the claim is that since the skin will (slightly) become smoother over time through use (i.e. through air friction I assume), the RCS will slightly decrease. On the other hand, it's not really something that you're going to bank a mission on ("we have to use our 20-year-old F-35's, our new F-35's aren't stealthy enough yet!"), so it's just one of those minor technical oddities about the plane.

 

[Vanshilar]

Perhaps the situational awareness the F-35 brings to the game over the Mk-1 eyeball that many A-10 target identifications were reliant on, may reduce the number of blue on blue tragedies in the future. It isn't just that the A-10 was vulnerable in all but the most permissive environments, the difficulty the type had in deconflicting friendlies was also an issue.

This is actually an interesting question. People who talk up the A-10 tend to say that it's better because the gun has a smaller dispersion compared with precision bombs for danger-close CAS situations. But to what extent are blue-on-blue incidents due to misidentifying a target as opposed to intending to hit an enemy but some of the weapon fire hits friendlies instead?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I read an article a while ago that stated JSF "stealth(LO)," becomes better as it ages.. Is this really the case?

If i recall right the claim was made by a LM executive

Edit .. That's the article

https://www.wired.com/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier/

It's a David Axe article - he's one of the least balanced of the commentariat...

All I know from what I would regard as credible sources (they've got decent strike rates) is that the LO surface tech on JSF is a bonded element, so it has none of the inherent problems that came with F117 and to some extent F22

depending on the chemistry there is no reason to doubt that each flight continually cures the surfaces - SR71's had similar characteristics

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is actually an interesting question. People who talk up the A-10 tend to say that it's better because the gun has a smaller dispersion compared with precision bombs for danger-close CAS situations. But to what extent are blue-on-blue incidents due to misidentifying a target as opposed to intending to hit an enemy but some of the weapon fire hits friendlies instead?

I'm betting that if the call is to get guns or PGM in for danger close that the preference will be PGM (the reality being they don't care what brings. they just want it bought along)

we already have numerous instances of danger close CAS requests where stuff on target has been dropped by heavies (b1's and the like) from far far away (to paraphrase shrek) - measure in 10's of metres. the delivery platform can lob without fear of favour, no need to suddenly divert on approach etc...

I'm all for guns etc... but some of the religion that comes attached to A-10 defence of the platform borders on nonsensical

especially as the USAF and USN have doing CAS danger close both manned and unmanned with PGMs for nigh on 30 years. the sensors have improved immeasurably since then

bear in mind that danger close means delivery of PGM to the co-ords called by the JTAC or talking head on the ground - whereas to all intents and purposes, the
A-10 is conducting freefire on an eyeball call..

again, not dimissing the merits of the A-10, but there is some reality that needs to be attached to analysing its merits relative to the threats of the day and the limits of what can be done today. it needs deconflicted space, its needs to own the battlespace so that its relatively unimpeded, and if not then it has to be escorted in

the main issue for CAS is always going to be around what level of confidence can be applied to getting "weapons on target" and minimising blue on blue. PGMs generate much higher levels of confidence and less concerns about attached risk

 

[south]

I'm betting that if the call is to get guns or PGM in for danger close that the preference will be PGM (the reality being they don't care what brings. they just want it bought along)

Completely situation dependent. Guns do have a smaller Risk Estimate Distance than bombs and may also be easier to satisfy ROE / CDE. The rounds are also significantly cheaper than most PGM's. As you said though - the dudes on the ground aren't going to quibble regardless...

we already have numerous instances of danger close CAS requests where stuff on target has been dropped by heavies (b1's and the like) from far far away (to paraphrase shrek) - measure in 10's of metres. the delivery platform can lob without fear of favour, no need to suddenly divert on approach etc...

I'm all for guns etc... but some of the religion that comes attached to A-10 defence of the platform borders on nonsensical

especially as the USAF and USN have doing CAS danger close both manned and unmanned with PGMs for nigh on 30 years. the sensors have improved immeasurably since then

bear in mind that danger close means delivery of PGM to the co-ords called by the JTAC or talking head on the ground - whereas to all intents and purposes, the
A-10 is conducting freefire on an eyeball call..

Mate you are mixing apples and oranges. There are essentially two types of attacks in CAS. BOT (Bomb on Target) and BOT (Bomb on Coordinate). For BOT the aircrew need to be able to see the target (obvs) and the aircrew alone are responsible for where the weapon goes. For BOC you do not - the coords are supplied by the JTAC - but this is only suitable for a IAM/GPS guided munition. Additionally if you rely solely on this then you tie your capability to a JTAC that can provide appropriate quality coordinates. Danger Close only implies that the friendlies are inside the Risk Estimate Distance for the weapon. To discount the A10 as conducting freeform attacks on an eyeball misunderstands the capes of the type significantly. The A10C is perfectly capable of carrying out the same BOC attacks you describe as a B1B. The main difference as you have rightly pointed out previously is obviously in load out and endurance.

again, not dimissing the merits of the A-10, but there is some reality that needs to be attached to analysing its merits relative to the threats of the day and the limits of what can be done today. it needs deconflicted space, its needs to own the battlespace so that its relatively unimpeded, and if not then it has to be escorted in

Same for all platforms unless you are talking Opposed CAS. There aren't many air forces that would train routinely for opposed CAS, and I cannot recall the last time that a significant amount of opposed CAS was conducted by anybody. I.e. a B52 / B1 will not be conducting opposed CAS either or will require the same SEAD / Air to air protection.

the main issue for CAS is always going to be around what level of confidence can be applied to getting "weapons on target" and minimising blue on blue. PGMs generate much higher levels of confidence and less concerns about attached risk

I agree with the confidence statement. But you are confusing PGM's versus Dumb Bombs versus a gun. If a platform is not carrying PGM's these days they are not in the fight. But that alone should not rule out the A10C - it carries the same stuff that the strat and tactical platforms do, as well as the gun. It is as much about having the different tools to crack the different nuts. And in CAS there are many different nuts that pop up, but you don't have the luxury to flex your load out airborne.

Gents IMHO with the A-10C it is still a viable platform, and will be for a number of years, indeed it is doing sterling work in OIR every day. A capes brief for the type can be found herehttp://media.jrn.com/documents/A-10C_Capes_Nov_13.pdf Not withstanding the fact that the JSF is significantly more capable in other mission sets, I would be interested in the Cost per flight hour of a JSF vs A10C... It wouldn't surprise me that given the relatively large fleets that the USAF run, and given the amount of CAS that they have been flying in the last 14 years (since 2003) that the A-10C is still economically viable, instead of burning through the hours on the brand new toy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Completely situation dependent. Guns do have a smaller Risk Estimate Distance than bombs and may also be easier to satisfy ROE / CDE. The rounds are also significantly cheaper than most PGM's.

Mate you are mixing apples and oranges. There are essentially two types of attacks in CAS. BOT (Bomb on Target) and BOT (Bomb on Coordinate). For BOT the aircrew need to be able to see the target (obvs) and the aircrew alone are responsible for where the weapon goes. For BOC you do not - the coords are supplied by the JTAC - but this is only suitable for a IAM/GPS guided munition. Danger Close only implies that the friendlies are inside the Risk Estimate Distance for the weapon. The A10C is perfectly capable of carrying out the same BOC attacks you describe as a B1B. The main difference as you have rightly pointed out previously is obviously in load out and endurance.

Same for all platforms unless you are talking Opposed CAS. There aren't many air forces that would train for opposed CAS, and I cannot recall the last time that a significant amount of opposed CAS was conducted by anybody. I.e. a B52 / B1 will not be conducting opposed CAS either or will require the same SEAD / Air to air protection.

I agree with the confidence statement. But you are confusing PGM's versus Dumb Bombs versus a gun. If a platform is not carrying PGM's these days they are not in the fight. But that alone should not rule out the A10C - it carries the same stuff that the strat and tactical platforms do, as well as the gun. It is as much about having the different tools to crack the different nuts. And in CAS there are many different nuts that pop up, but you don't have the luxury to flex your load out airborne.

Gents IMHO with the A-10C it is still a viable platform, and will be for a number of years, indeed it is doing sterling work in OIR every day. A capes brief for the type can be found herehttp://media.jrn.com/documents/A-10C_Capes_Nov_13.pdf Not withstanding the fact that the JSF is significantly more capable in different mission sets, I would be interested in the Cost per flight hour of a JSF vs A10c... It wouldn't surprise me that given the relatively large fleets that the USAF run, and given the amount of CAS that they have been flying in the last 14 years (since 2003) that the A-10C is still economically viable, instead of burning through the hours on the brand new toy.

I was condensing context so as to not complicate things too much - but you've said it much more succinctly anyway. ta for that.

maybe we should paste your response into a sticky for summarising CAS....

one of the other defpros in here is USAF, so he might pop up re maint costs as he would be aware due to prev jobs

 

[cdxbow]

News Corp are at it again http://news.google.com.au/news/url?...sfy&st=1&at=dt0&eid=/m/033yz&ise=true&insrc=1
Do they do it just as click bait or is there more? I sometimes wonder if Mr Murdoch has shares in Boeing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

AT op-ed The US Air Force's (USAF) 461st Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) has recently completed testing of Paveway IV precision-guided bomb aboard a US Marine Corps short takeoff / vertical landing variant of F-35B Lightning II.

USAF completes testing of Paveway IV bomb aboard F-35B Lightning II - Airforce Technology

 

[gf0012-aust]

News Corp are at it again http://news.google.com.au/news/url?...sfy&st=1&at=dt0&eid=/m/033yz&ise=true&insrc=1
Do they do it just as click bait or is there more? I sometimes wonder if Mr Murdoch has shares in Boeing.

geniuses. can't tell the difference between a weapons system issue and a platform issue

with context, you could shove that on an F15 or an SU-37 and realise the same effect.

zip to do with JSF

 

[gf0012-aust]

this obviously means that the JSF program is failing....

Lockheed to Move F-16 Production to South Carolina - Defense One