What should the USAF buy?

[DarthAmerica]

DA is absolutely right. It is a matter of different doctrine, tactically and operationally. Russian doctrine often smacks of flooding the skies with fighters and missiles. Sooner or later, something is bound to hit an allied aircraft, or at least they hope. Add the complexity of long range missiles with both IR and RF seekers, trust me, it reslly complicates things for the defender. Should one defend against the IR or the RF missile? Sometimes the necessary defensive reactions are contradictory. It is difficult to design a tactical maneuver to defend against both type of missiles. Just think, RF missiles love plenty of radial closure while IR missiles love beam and stern aspect. Sometimes, the only defense is run while you can. But with the F-35 and F-22, I believe they are very much more survivable.

Cheers

Guppy

One thing I think happens when the discussions get too platform specific in the context of a conflict is doctrine and tactics are overlooked. In this case people rarely consider that to have massive numbers of missiles in the air you have to have very large numbers of firing platforms. The Soviets were going to flood the skies with AAMs and SAMs to achieve this and new they needed to outnumber western airforces to do so. Most nations if not all who use FSU weaponry don't have a fraction of those numbers available. Especially not against the USA and it's coalitions that always outnumber opponents in large scale conflicts. So it's really hard to make the case for air to air combat persistence being a priority these days when two pair of F-22 or F-35 may be carrying more AAMs than the opponent has relevant combat aircraft actually capable of fighting back not to mention qualified pilots!

People should Google the following airforces.

North Korea
Serbia
Syria
Iran

Just to get an example of the typical sizes and compositions of the air forces we usually tangle with these days. Factor in qualified pilots and OR rates and does anybody really see 14 AAMs as necessary?

I know...what about that day everybody is so sure is coming with PLAAF jets swarm the skies over Taiwan. Yeah, ok supose that happens by some amazing departure from reality. Look at what would be opposing them.

Look at Taiwan first to see their situation. Then look at Taiwan + at least 2 CVW + 2 to 4 AEF + a USMC force + Japanese Airforce and tell me what you think. I don't see any overwhelming need to arm a fighter with 14 AAM even if you thought it possible to actually have time to use them all. Even if you did, in real life, pilots don't watch their friends explode from missile fire and fight through it to the last man. Once a few jets in a formation start going down in an obviously no win situation pilots will run like the devil away from the fight regardless of what flag they are fighting for. Thats just human nature. Think about it...

You are this big bad Sukhoi pilot flying the lastest and greatest with 7 of your pals. You know there are threats out there somewhere but you only have a general idea and nothing precise enough to fire on. When suddenly your wingman is engaged and destroyed by a BVR weapon. Shortly after 2 more Sukhois are destroyed. Do you think the other 5 Sukhoi pilots are going to fight on unphased after seeing that?

...Anybody still don't understand or agree?


-DA

 

[stigmata]

In the case of Taiwan, i expect very large numbers of cruise missiles that needs to be shoot down. and hopefully i will still have a couple of missiles left to do anything to the waves of planes that will follow up. Saturation is what i'd do as a chinese commander.

edit, as a matter of fact, as a commander of any army i would order large number of cheap cruise missile decoys

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

gf is absolutely right. It is really not a simple affair. Would you beleive if I told you that it might even be necessary to change the flight control software? It is very easy to do a one time qualification of a 14 missile configuration but in a restrictive manner and probably for propoganda only. That means you cannot fire any of the missiles, limited maneuvering etc. In fact it will probably be only for inert missiles. To hang 14 missiles on the jet, the SOF (safety of flight) ground tests is already heinously complicated. Then think about the exponential numbers of possible missile configurations. Every possible combination must be considered and analysed. For example, if a software program causes all the missiles to fail to fire on one wing. There is then a multiple missile asymetry. What type of maneuvering limits should be imposed? Should the flight control software be modified to prevent inadvertent flight departure? If so, then the flight testing of the fight control software needs to be partially redone. It is definitely no mean feat.

AGAIN i agree its not "easy". But lets have a look at this in context. The stuff that is planned to be cleared at IOC:

• 426 galon wing tank
• Storm Shadow
• GBU-38
• JASSM
• MXU-648 Baggage Pod (?)
• AIM-120
• GBU-31
• GBU-32
• AIM-9X
• GBU-31 (BLU-109)
• BDU-57 training round
• Brimstone
• GBU-10
• GBU-24
• GBU-16
• MK-83
• MK-84
• MK-82
• GBU-12
• CBU-99
• CBU-103 WCMD
• SDB
• AIM-132 ASRAAM
• METEOR (?)

Thats external.

Is adding a dual rail launcher to that list (considering the technology is off the shelf) really going to be unachievable, considering similar tests have been done on a comparable platform (different absolutely, but comparable) with similar operational requirements (i.e. the same threat matrix)?

Now, if there is no genuine operational requirement, why would US DoD want to incur additional schedule risks, risk of cost overrun etc etc? So that congress can threaten to shut down the program? So that the allies need to totally relook their fighter replacement programs? This is one of the most important acquisition programs in modern times. US DoD cannot afford to dork up this one.

cheers

guppy

C'mon mate, thats a tad melodramatic. If the program is such a close run thing that adding an off the shelf double rail launcher to the list above is a serious risk to its viability then perhaps we were wrong to invest in it in the first place.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

One thing I think happens when the discussions get too platform specific in the context of a conflict is doctrine and tactics are overlooked. In this case people rarely consider that to have massive numbers of missiles in the air you have to have very large numbers of firing platforms. The Soviets were going to flood the skies with AAMs and SAMs to achieve this and new they needed to outnumber western airforces to do so. Most nations if not all who use FSU weaponry don't have a fraction of those numbers available. Especially not against the USA and it's coalitions that always outnumber opponents in large scale conflicts. So it's really hard to make the case for air to air combat persistence being a priority these days when two pair of F-22 or F-35 may be carrying more AAMs than the opponent has relevant combat aircraft actually capable of fighting back not to mention qualified pilots!

People should Google the following airforces.

North Korea
Serbia
Syria
Iran

Just to get an example of the typical sizes and compositions of the air forces we usually tangle with these days. Factor in qualified pilots and OR rates and does anybody really see 14 AAMs as necessary?

I know...what about that day everybody is so sure is coming with PLAAF jets swarm the skies over Taiwan. Yeah, ok supose that happens by some amazing departure from reality. Look at what would be opposing them.

Look at Taiwan first to see their situation. Then look at Taiwan + at least 2 CVW + 2 to 4 AEF + a USMC force + Japanese Airforce and tell me what you think. I don't see any overwhelming need to arm a fighter with 14 AAM even if you thought it possible to actually have time to use them all. Even if you did, in real life, pilots don't watch their friends explode from missile fire and fight through it to the last man. Once a few jets in a formation start going down in an obviously no win situation pilots will run like the devil away from the fight regardless of what flag they are fighting for. Thats just human nature. Think about it...

You are this big bad Sukhoi pilot flying the lastest and greatest with 7 of your pals. You know there are threats out there somewhere but you only have a general idea and nothing precise enough to fire on. When suddenly your wingman is engaged and destroyed by a BVR weapon. Shortly after 2 more Sukhois are destroyed. Do you think the other 5 Sukhoi pilots are going to fight on unphased after seeing that?

...Anybody still don't understand or agree?


-DA

Look I agree completely. I cant envisage any situation where you would actually need such a massive AAM load out, apart from the (extremely remote) possibility of the USN faceting a soviet style maritime strike package using saturation tactics (and then not even 14), or a nice photo shoot. All those missiles look real tuff!:nutkick

But reading back over the thread i don't actually think anyone was really advocating the need for a 14 AAM missile load out, just its viability. So you might be barking up the wrong tree on that one old mate!

 

[gf0012-aust]

AGAIN i agree its not "easy". But lets have a look at this in context. The stuff that is planned to be cleared at IOC:

• 426 galon wing tank
• Storm Shadow
• GBU-38
• JASSM
• MXU-648 Baggage Pod (?)
• AIM-120
• GBU-31
• GBU-32
• AIM-9X
• GBU-31 (BLU-109)
• BDU-57 training round
• Brimstone
• GBU-10
• GBU-24
• GBU-16
• MK-83
• MK-84
• MK-82
• GBU-12
• CBU-99
• CBU-103 WCMD
• SDB
• AIM-132 ASRAAM
• METEOR (?)

Thats external.

Is adding a dual rail launcher to that list (considering the technology is off the shelf) really going to be unachievable, considering similar tests have been done on a comparable platform (different absolutely, but comparable) with similar operational requirements (i.e. the same threat matrix)?

Tests done on other aircraft have got nothing to do with this aircraft. Testing is unique - its an engineering issue, every aircraft has different parameters that need to be signed off on. You cannot just extrapolate data from one platform to another. An object lesson is Collins (aerodynamics and fluid dynamics are close cousins).

You are seriously oversimplifying what is a complex task.

C'mon mate, thats a tad melodramatic. If the program is such a close run thing that adding an off the shelf double rail launcher to the list above is a serious risk to its viability then perhaps we were wrong to invest in it in the first place.

Platforms have not been certified for some weapons systems in the past due to handling and dismount issues - this is no different. None of it is a sure thing - that doesn't mean that money isn't spent trying to achieve it if it's an essential requirement for that platforms mission profile - but at some point, the merit of it will get questioned if its not cost effective and/or if there are other weapons that can be used to achieve a similar result dividend

So, he's not being melodramatic at all. Adding a multi rail launcher is a huge task - look at how long it too to develop one for the Hornet.

You don't seem to understand how involving this is and what is required. It's not like registering a car for a roadworthy.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Tests done on other aircraft have got nothing to do with this aircraft. Testing is unique - its an engineering issue, every aircraft has different parameters that need to be si'ned off on. You cannot just extrapolate data from one platform to another. An object lesson is Collins (aerodynamics and fluid dynamics are close cousins).

You are seriously oversimplifying what is a complex task.

Fine, it illustrates intent at least.

Platforms have not been certified for some weapons systems in the past due to handling and dismount issues - this is no different. None of it is a sure thing - that doesn't mean that money isn't spent trying to achieve it if it's an essential requirement for that platforms mission profile - but at some point, the merit of it will get questioned if its not cost effective and/or if there are other weapons that can be used to achieve a similar result dividend

So, he's not being melodramatic at all. Adding a multi rail launcher is a huge task - look at how long it too to develop one for the Hornet.

You don't seem to understand how involving this is and what is required. It's not like registering a car for a roadworthy.

Mate, again i understand that. But i'm questioning whether its achievable or not vs the operational requirement, and considering similar work has been done on other platforms the ability to carry larger AAM loads is obviously of some interest to the US DoD. I understand the complexity, but it has to be viewed in context; considering the mammoth task of clearing some 25 odd weapons, tanks & pods for external use, with each possible configuration for each weapon tested in every flight regime, all before IOC, adding a double launcher can not be a realistic threat to the program's viability. Again if it is, then perhaps we backed the wrong horse.

 

[DarthAmerica]

In the case of Taiwan, i expect very large numbers of cruise missiles that needs to be shoot down. and hopefully i will still have a couple of missiles left to do anything to the waves of planes that will follow up. Saturation is what i'd do as a chinese commander.

edit, as a matter of fact, as a commander of any army i would order large number of cheap cruise missile decoys

This is standard practice. Even in ODS the coalition sent decoy drones in with the first strikes. The USA is developing and deploying the MALD. So these are well understood concepts on both sides.

-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

Mate, again i understand that. But i'm questioning whether its achievable or not vs the operational requirement, and considering similar work has been done on other platforms the ability to carry larger AAM loads is obviously of some interest to the US DoD.

Whether its achieveable is just one factor in whether its worth doing. There may be other ways to achieve the same requirement using other systems, or even a shift in doctrine can realise a shift in achieving a delivery objective. The dual rail launcher only has merit if it's an absolute.

I understand the complexity, but it has to be viewed in context; considering the mammoth task of clearing some 25 odd weapons, tanks & pods for external use, with each possible configuration for each weapon tested in every flight regime, all before IOC, adding a double launcher can not be a realistic threat to the program's viability. Again if it is, then perhaps we backed the wrong horse.

Adding a dual launcher and getting certification for that launcher and a particular weapons mix will only effect certification for that particular combinations certification on that particular platform. It doesn't jeopardise the platform.

In australias case, I'd argue that having 14 dismounts is nice but not essential.

 

[Sintra]

AGAIN i agree its not "easy". But lets have a look at this in context. The stuff that is planned to be cleared at IOC:

• 426 galon wing tank
• Storm Shadow
• GBU-38
• JASSM
• MXU-648 Baggage Pod (?)
• AIM-120
• GBU-31
• GBU-32
• AIM-9X
• GBU-31 (BLU-109)
• BDU-57 training round
• Brimstone
• GBU-10
• GBU-24
• GBU-16
• MK-83
• MK-84
• MK-82
• GBU-12
• CBU-99
• CBU-103 WCMD
• SDB
• AIM-132 ASRAAM
• METEOR (?)

Thats external.

Is adding a dual rail launcher to that list (considering the technology is off the shelf) really going to be unachievable, considering similar tests have been done on a comparable platform (different absolutely, but comparable) with similar operational requirements (i.e. the same threat matrix)?



C'mon mate, thats a tad melodramatic. If the program is such a close run thing that adding an off the shelf double rail launcher to the list above is a serious risk to its viability then perhaps we were wrong to invest in it in the first place.

Ozzy

That list of external ordnance doesnt have a chance in hell of being cleared for IOC!
Actually you have just listed the entire "Weapons Carriage Requirements" ("Distribution Statement A: page 32) for the nine partners wich has a planed development spiral that goes WAY after IOC, including several itens that were "defunded" years ago and thrown to the "2018ish plus something" like the "426 galon wing tank" and the "AIM-9X".
For IOC (USMC version, theoretically in 2013, in reality somewhere around 2014/15) expect the AIM-120C/D, JDAM, "Iron Bombs", and, well that´s about it. For the near future forget the "dual rail launcher".

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ozzy

That list of external ordnance doesnt have a chance in hell of being cleared for IOC!
Actually you have just listed the entire "Weapons Carriage Requirements" ("Distribution Statement A: page 32) for the nine partners wich has a planed development spiral that goes WAY after IOC, including several itens that were "defunded" years ago and thrown to the "2018ish plus something" like the "426 galon wing tank" and the "AIM-9X".
For IOC (USMC version, theoretically in 2013, in reality somewhere around 2014/15) expect the AIM-120C/D, JDAM, "Iron Bombs", and, well that´s about it. For the near future forget the "dual rail launcher".

Cheers

Ok, ok, forget the frigging photo shoot!

Seriously how bad ass would that aircraft have looked with a 14AAM load-out?

Thats the exact list/page i was working off. I thought the requirement was for that lot to be ready at IOC or thereabouts (originally anyway). I'd be astonished if SDB & the WCMD (not to mention the Paveway series, although L-JDAM may take that over in the USAF inventory) was not cleared at or slightly after IOC or FOC.

In any case if anyone fund the integration of the double rail it will be the USN/USAF, rather than a partner nation IMHO.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

As I said before even without the dual rail launcher the F-35 can still carry a total of 10 AAMs using internal and external stations at IOC. Today the F/A-18 can carry 12 AAMs using the dual rail launcher. Do they need that many no but do they have the capability yes. The same goes for the F-35 it will have the capability to carry 14 AAMs but it is unlikely it will need to.

In response to Sintra's last post, the AIM-9X was not dropped, it just wont be carried internally but it will externally, it has something to do with the IR having to be in the air stream before launch or something. The WCMD, Iron bombs, and the 426 gallon fuel tank was though.

Also how long does it take just to clear weapons for carriage on a fighter? I mean come on that should not take years and years and years to certify! Its like the easiest job there is for the F-35 crew. If they wanted to they could certify all the internal and external weapons this year but they like to drag their feet as long as possible which is kinda dumb.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also how long does it take just to clear weapons for carriage on a fighter? I mean come on that should not take years and years and years to certify! Its like the easiest job there is for the F-35 crew. If they wanted to they could certify all the internal and external weapons this year but they like to drag their feet as long as possible which is kinda dumb.

Have you read any of the previous posts on whats required for certification?

BTW, the aircrew (pilot) do not certify the system. and it's NOT an easy job. I have no idea where you get this stuff, but it's not from anyone who's been involved with testing and certifying weapons systems.

 

[guppy]

...If they wanted to they could certify all the internal and external weapons this year but they like to drag their feet as long as possible which is kinda dumb.

Dude,

Do you know you just discredited entire teams of aeronautical engineers from the west coast all the way to europe, and oh, don't forget the Indians, Chinese, and of course Austrailians?

Guppy

 

[gf0012-aust]

Dude,

Do you know you just discredited entire teams of aeronautical engineers from the west coast all the way to europe, and oh, don't forget the Indians, Chinese, and of course Austrailians?

Guppy

apart from the insult, the fact is that engineers are obsessed with getting it "right".

at the process and project level, they've corrected a few things and saved my bacon a number of times. - unsung "heroes" in my book.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Also how long does it take just to clear weapons for carriage on a fighter? I mean come on that should not take years and years and years to certify! Its like the easiest job there is for the F-35 crew. If they wanted to they could certify all the internal and external weapons this year but they like to drag their feet as long as possible which is kinda dumb.

F-15,

I understand that you may not have experience with this sort of thing so allow me to make an analogy that should be easy to follow. I'll assume you are familiar with iPods. When you hook it up to a computer, every once and a while they add a new feature or software update. This is because when in development Apple knows of future features they want to include but for various reasons these are not immediately available. While you are waiting for your next download, teams of very skilled engineers are other personnel are coding and debugging the software. This is happening 8 or more hours a day continuously from the date of release until you get your download. Even when they are fairly certain they have good code for release time is taken to beta test the new version for bugs that may have been missed and to evaluate the UE. By time, I mean weeks to months AFTER coding is complete. Only then do you get your new code.

That is for a relatively simple mp3 player that doesn't have to fly with a living person inside and fire weapons that kill people with all the implications. So you can imagine how much more involved integrating an actual weapons is. Just one glitch or miscalculation could see an aircraft crash. It could be something very hard to spot in wind tunnels and simulation. The F-35 may work just fine in initial testing until it gets to M1.3-M1.4 and then they find out that under those exact speeds the aircraft experiences some problems that make it unsafe/unviable. Then it's back to the drawing board. Just like an iPod the F-35 has to pass a whole new battery of testing to check the issue and any modifications necessary to fix it.

Millions of dollars in contracts and entire teams of engineers are hired just to integrate even the simplest thing. It's someones project to manage through completion. Even after it's done it may require product support and so on. Again, just like the iPod but a lot more complicated due to the more extreme conditions.

-DA

 

[swerve]

apart from the insult, the fact is that engineers are obsessed with getting it "right".....

Yep, and when things fall apart, more often than not it's because a bean counter or politician has imposed a cheaper, inferior solution in place of what the engineers wanted.

I've just been pricing up & comparing specs & reviews of titanium bike frames, for my next toy. Funny thing is, from the reviews, & personal reports by buyers, they're all good (though not equally good). It's a product where the designers & makers have a pretty free rein, because customers are more interested in quality than price, the material itself being sufficiently expensive that there's no point trying to cut manufacturing cost too far.

The Chinese firms who make most of them have their own web presence in English (some will sell direct - custom-made), boasting about their highly-skilled, high-paid (by Chinese standards), highly-motivated craftsmen - and by all accounts, it's true. They take great pride in their work, & it shows.

Give anyone who makes or designs stuff, from anywhere, the opportunity to do their best work, & you're likely to get a good result.

 

[stigmata]

I'm quite curious to know what the price for MALD could be ?