F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Abraham Gubler]

I remeber reading somewhere that the F-35 will be twice as loud as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Yeah and if so it was wrong, both in the original data and the attempt to understand what a decibel is.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Yeah and if so it was wrong, both in the original data and the attempt to understand what a decibel is.

Ok how many dB does both the F-15 and the F-35 produce. Plus I remember the USAF itself saying the F-35 is twice as loud so are you saying the USAF is wrong and you know more about it than they do?

Check this link out: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/11/airforce_f35_noise_112108w/

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ok how many dB does both the F-15 and the F-35 produce. Plus I remember the USAF itself saying the F-35 is twice as loud so are you saying the USAF is wrong and you know more about it than they do?

You may have noticed that story in Air Force Times was written in November 2008. Things have changed since then. In particular a new more advanced study of F-35 noise that was conducted by the F-35 PO with the assistance of the Australian DSTO and is incorporated in the Dutch noise study. Plus the original methodology assumed similar take off profiles but the F-35 can take off without reheat significantly more often than legacy fighters like F-16, F-15E, etc.

There is also the way noise is actually heard. The quoted dB figures are important for the aircraft and occupants but the difference in that heard by someone standing 500m away is minimal. While decibels are a logarithmic function and its accurate to say that the noise is "doubled" when its only a few decibels higher (90m dB vs 83 bB) that doesn't mean anyone standing away from the aircraft is going to suffer "twice" as much noise related annoyance.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

You may have noticed that story in Air Force Times was written in November 2008. Things have changed since then. In particular a new more advanced study of F-35 noise that was conducted by the F-35 PO with the assistance of the Australian DSTO and is incorporated in the Dutch noise study. Plus the original methodology assumed similar take off profiles but the F-35 can take off without reheat significantly more often than legacy fighters like F-16, F-15E, etc.

What they changed again this is like the 5th time already. Can you give me a link of a more up to date article that I can use for reference.

 

[Sea Toby]

When I read the recent study, I deducted the Lightning II was one decibel higher than the Falcon 17 percent of the time during take offs with the usage of the afterburner, and 4 decibels lower 83 percent of the time during take offs without usage of its afterburner. The Falcon uses its afterburner everytime during take offs. The Lightning II is far less noisy around airports.

 

[FutureTank]

OPSSG, and did I ever say I had all the answers, or was right every time? I freely admit that I do not even have all the information. I probably don't even have enough information to truly speak about the program.

That was not my point though. I do know how military people think. I am not biased against them, or their modes of thinking. In fact they think that way as a matter of necessity of the environment they are expected to operate in IF called upon. But...

Ultimately a need for capability has to be justified and paid for. Once an officer hits a relatively responsible rank of say a captain he or she is quickly introduced to accounting principles whether they like it or not, particularly in this day and age. Cost saving is written all over current testing program for F-35 and this comes from open source, but US Defense documents even now (2008).

Did the US forces need the F-22/F-35 in 1994? All considered, probably not. It was fairly clear that after 1993 the US air forces were not going to be in a situation where they were going to be facing overwhelming enemy numbers in the air (despite suggestion of one recent analysis), but there was a national defense strategy, and that had the Navy and USMC at its sharp end, and there is only so much 70-80 aircraft can do in the middle of nowhere, so the USAF made a political (within Pentagon) decision. In hind sight the political decision was made for it on the Capital Hill anyway because of the "peace dividend", so 'the writing was on the wall' in 1994.

Speaking for countries like Australia (a special case) the decision was a no-brainer. Its position in the World and the fact that F-18 airframes get old with every mission meant that it had to have something as a replacement, and that something was not going to come from Russia. However, the capacity to pay for aircraft which are built with excessive capabilities for the needs is called 'an overkill'. Overkills are usually over-cost and over-time. Of course the military like overkills

On the other hand, not selling to F-35 operators the F-22 they are meant to work with is a 'bias' that I am not alone in expressing. That is not the subject of the discussion, but the two programs are intricately interconnected not only in development, but in deployment when that happens. Getting F-35s without the F-22s is like going camping, without the caravan, its doable, but not pleasant.

However, true, I am not an engineer. No one cares for my opinion. That's not harsh. That's the truth. So what? The people who oversee the completion of the program are also civilians though. Ultimately the aircraft are built for the benefit of civilians. It seems to me that civilians have a right of comment. I just wish more of them got interested.

"Really, the JSF program is to design 3 fighters". Technically that's not right. The JSF's goal is to design an aircraft that is capable of satisfying the operational performance parameters of three, nay maybe a dozen different air forces, initially the USAF, USN and the USMC. However, it was intended to be as much a singel design as possible, to 90% as I quoted. It really reminds me though of the Russian folk tale about the pike, swan and crayfish being used to pull a wagon. I can appreciate that from the engineering point of view this must have been the hardest of challenges, so no wonder there are three versions of the F-35. How does one replace aircraft as diverse as the F-16, AV-8 and A-10 to mention only some?

In what way are military projects different to civilian projects?

"when the military project scope is insufficiently adventurous"?! Adventurous for what?! What were the capability specifications for the F-35? To fly undetected into anywhere on the planet, deposit a 5000lb ordnance onto the doorsteps of the enemy's bedroom, and return without a scratch? (sorry for sarcasm) Its a strike fighter after all. It is to engage surface and air targets within a radius from its base limited by the stores it carries in combat. The most sophisticated aircraft in the World still has to break off and head for home if its low on fuel or out of ammunition. The best flight of such aircraft will still think twice if engaging a full enemy squadron. Yes, I know you will say that I don't know the F-35 capabilities, and the difference between the 5th and 4th generation aircraft may be as much as three times in terms of capability when compared to those of the 4th and 3rd generation. Ok, but whom is it going to be used against? Iran? China? Venezuela?

"Can you name specific failures of this sort?" do you mean in the JSF program, or in general?

I think, and this is entirely a speculation, that what happened was that the F-35 was never before 1994 intended to replace the number of aircraft it eventually came to be considered for. As of 1993 it was a replacement for the F-16 and MAYBE F-18. Then the Cold War ended. This was not a program failure, but the program environment changed. Its not like there were no options though. Rather than designing a new aircraft, the F-16, F-18 and F-15 production lines could have been extended to keep manufacturing and remanufacturing aircraft into the next generation. One does not need to have a new aircraft every time there is a need to replace airframes due to age. As you said it yourself, the existing aircraft at the time, and probably still, are well capable of engaging the most recent Russian designs. However, I know that's not how the military think.

I have never participated in a military development project. I think I would go nutz if I was in one. Reading about how it takes x-number of years to build something, and x-number of years to fix it is bad enough. Mind you, many (most?) civilian projects are just as bad

"Please, the Wright brothers invented plane. If they carried a gun on the flight, would you call it a fighter?" No. Ground attack because they had air superiority (sorry again, but you kind of flew into that one )

"And you can stretch and port civilian analogies to everything?" I could be wrong, but I think this is possible for most things. It is particularly true of computer systems. The purely military applications in the F-35 were not created from scratch. It just seems to me that the length of development has been extraordinary given the program objectives. Is it going to be an extraordinary aircraft? May be, but is it worth it? This is academic anyway, but I can see the production numbers being severely affected by the global recession, and not only in the USA.

I'm not trying to prove that I'm right, or that I have some need to be heard. I just don't understand why people get defensive if their favourite program is criticised. Am I so threatening in what I said? Was what I said new?

Abraham now has me as a conspiracy theorist when he read my various 'clippings' to support what I said for an 'essay'. But, is that what I said? Quite simply I illustrated a continuity in this program that stretches back to the late 1980s, and includes even retired military personnel that are still actively involved at senior level. The 2002 start is just a denial that the program had a slew of legacy projects to be built on. Even so, that is still a decade before there are "full spectrum combat worthy squadrons" flying around. In the next couple of years there will be only operational integration testing and training that will likely be issuing a slew of change requirements or modification requests. So why is Abraham trying to ignore the 1994 contract signing or even earlier design, development and testing? The "Need to Be Right"? "Harshness in Tone"? "inherent Bias"?

Am I now in the "F-35 Hate Lobby"? I didn't know there was one

 

[OPSSG]

FutureTank, thanks for the marked change in tone.

This is not the only forum I read and participate in. I have read many misguided posts by Australian civilians on defence matters and often they don't realize that most former military are not impressed by those posts. Let me clearly tell you that I am not impressed by your post.

In what way are military projects different to civilian projects?

"when the military project scope is insufficiently adventurous"?! Adventurous for what?! What were the capability specifications for the F-35? To fly undetected into anywhere on the planet, deposit a 5000lb ordnance onto the doorsteps of the enemy's bedroom, and return without a scratch? (sorry for sarcasm) Its a strike fighter after all. It is to engage surface and air targets within a radius from its base limited by the stores it carries in combat. The most sophisticated aircraft in the World still has to break off and head for home if its low on fuel or out of ammunition. The best flight of such aircraft will still think twice if engaging a full enemy squadron. Yes, I know you will say that I don't know the F-35 capabilities, and the difference between the 5th and 4th generation aircraft may be as much as three times in terms of capability when compared to those of the 4th and 3rd generation. Ok, but whom is it going to be used against? Iran? China? Venezuela?

You are wrong and trying to make a valid point raised for your consideration not valid by analogous argument. The gulf of understanding between how I think and how you think is so wide, I am not sure if it is worth the effort to explain. :lul

Basically, you have misunderstood the purpose of some of my questions to you and have tried to debate with me. My points to you are thinking aids for civilians like you - to help bridge the gulf of understanding that exists in your mind and that of how the military would think.

Overkills are usually over-cost and over-time. Of course the military like overkills

Let's just put it this way, would you be able (or want the responsibility) to lead the ADF or a battalion of ADF soldiers if there is war? Part of the problem is you have information without the correct training to understand or process the information.

Do you understand what it means to fight at parity?

Reading your posts (and the way you think about achieving battlespace dominance), if you were my commander in war, the first thing I would do is shoot you and then take over command to protect the men assigned under your command from your incompetence.

I think I have said enough. Just reflect on your posts and don't make me come in and correct you line by line. It's not worth the effort and it would certainly derail this thread.

If you want to persist in your intended path, go right ahead, feel free to move forward into a free fire zone without proper fire support...:unknown

"Please, the Wright brothers invented plane. If they carried a gun on the flight, would you call it a fighter?" No. Ground attack because they had air superiority (sorry again, but you kind of flew into that one )

If you want to talk about strike, please post and explain what the ideas contained in the concepts listed below:

(i) What is a FSCL?
(ii) Why is the FAC often not needed above the FSCL in strike operations?;
(iii) What is the role of the FO in contrast to the role of FAC?
(iv) Explain the difference between CAS and battlefield interdiction.

Without clarity in these concepts, you will not understand how strike operations is conducted for the benefit of ground forces. Please start a new thread on this topic and show me that you have the basics to conduct a meaningful discussion. Otherwise you are just a misguided arm chair general.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham now has me as a conspiracy theorist when he read my various 'clippings' to support what I said for an 'essay'. But, is that what I said? Quite simply I illustrated a continuity in this program that stretches back to the late 1980s, and includes even retired military personnel that are still actively involved at senior level. The 2002 start is just a denial that the program had a slew of legacy projects to be built on. Even so, that is still a decade before there are "full spectrum combat worthy squadrons" flying around. In the next couple of years there will be only operational integration testing and training that will likely be issuing a slew of change requirements or modification requests. So why is Abraham trying to ignore the 1994 contract signing or even earlier design, development and testing? The "Need to Be Right"? "Harshness in Tone"? "inherent Bias"?

Its hardly an act of great investigation to find the trail between F-35 and CLF and JAST etc. or even to notice the demonstrator phase. But the actual F-35 as a very distinct aircraft to the X-35 or the X-32 or the JAST technology development program (which also spawned the Block II Super Hornet) did not start design and development until 2002.

Now if one wishes to remain ignorant of the very important milestones and in particular how they effected actual work as opposed to generation of the odd media story then you ignore this important differentiation. And continue to string together sentences, facts, biographies and so on all to support a point of view with no relation to reality. Since "Future Tank" - and I have little doubt as to who you actually are, we've crossed paths before - is clearly interested in furthering this point of view its unlikely no amount of reality will impinge upon it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ah right, I remember. I'm an idiot and therefore have no right to speak, and although I might be a smart-ass, you can be just openly abusive thanks to administrator role.

So lets see, because I don't work in the Defence environment, I know nothing.

That must be why Defence only employs project team members designated to work for them from birth, and not marred by the commercial sector 'civilian' work?

There are a few people in here who have been or are project managers on military projects. sometimes what we see in here about how we work comes as a revelation to us. thats the danger of making assumptions about how projects are managed - especially one that is very different from any other aircraft in design and development. The closest would be the A380 - and even that had taken a radically different approach. I used the Virginia as a supporting example because it also has relevance.

Whether people have a defence or industry background can be neither here nor there. I would use the classic excample of Goon and Kopp. One has not, and one has. Both are not ashamed of misrepresenting process or facts to colour and enhance their view of the world. Oddly enough, a lot of people in the non military world will believe them purely because they are naysayers and it's "normal" to accept that the Govt is run by incompetents or has a hidden agenda. But, would I believe Goon or someone who has over 6000 hours as an F-111 pilot and does know about the planes benefits and flaws, and do I trust another RAAF pilot (eg) who has been an aggressor trainer in very very complex contemporary fighting conditions. I'll go with the latter two thanks very much. One of the banes of Collins was that we could not counter the moronic commentary that abounded in the open press about the boat - even though we knew that some of it was just palpable nonsense. We don't have the luxury of being able to reply - and we get periodic DEFGRAMs reminding us about what we should and cannot say in an open environment. The media, or amateur enthusiasts can say whatever they like and present it as a truth because we can't or won't counter it. You would have to be a first class congenital idiot to think that some of the enthusiastic claims in here made about capability for some platforms are based on real material. Thats harsh but true. It is quite easy to start working out the "experts" or professionals in here (or on any forum). They caveat their comments and they stay out of giving too much detail.

I gave up trying to convert zealots long ago as its like arguing with an idiot - they're better at it than you and they'll always win in their own mind. Not that I'm suggesting that you're an idiot, but the presentation of your argument with such raw confidence and vigour when it contains only vague and misinterpreted "truths" starts to stick you in the camp of the combative zealots rather than someone who may be genuinely wanting to understand and approaches from mid-field.

As such I don't think you help your case in wanting to understand. The fact that some of us might be exposed to privileged info and cannot expand upon it in here it may be unfair to many and the fact that it's unusable in an open public environment makes it much harder (and thats where people like Abe who are not contained by clearance issues) can try and come in and inject some clarity. I would add that even Abe, with such privileged and "relatively" unfettered access is also bound by disclosure caveats - which would be incredibly hard to swallow for someone in his trade.

gf0012-aust, I didn't think I was 'combative' by the way. I'll be happy to be shown the wrongs of my statements, but I understand there is only so much that can sometimes be said in an open forum.

Am I twisting things again?

Cheers

See above.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, please accept my appologies if I have it wrong, but the manufacturer says that "Propulsion system support and maintainability are further enhanced by the F135's maintenance-focused design. It has approximately 40 percent fewer parts [than F119], which also improves reliability." To me this means that they share 60% of the technology.

Where in this does it suggest ANY commonality whatsoever? It does NOT say that F-135 shares "40 per cent of the technology" with F-119. It says absolutely NOTHING whatsoever about commonality between F-135 and F-119.

My computer probably has 40 percent fewer parts than the F-119 too. Does this suggest commonality?

As for your software defence, provide some evidence. Existence of "ported" software, in some non-specified scenarios proves absolutely nothing. Show me a piece of evidence this actually applies to F-35!

If you want to discuss defence issues, support your outlandish claims or don't bother making them, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[FutureTank]

Its hardly an act of great investigation to find the trail between F-35 and CLF and JAST etc. or even to notice the demonstrator phase. But the actual F-35 as a very distinct aircraft to the X-35 or the X-32 or the JAST technology development program (which also spawned the Block II Super Hornet) did not start design and development until 2002.

Now if one wishes to remain ignorant of the very important milestones and in particular how they effected actual work as opposed to generation of the odd media story then you ignore this important differentiation. And continue to string together sentences, facts, biographies and so on all to support a point of view with no relation to reality. Since "Future Tank" - and I have little doubt as to who you actually are, we've crossed paths before - is clearly interested in furthering this point of view its unlikely no amount of reality will impinge upon it.

And I never claimed that I had the inside scoop on the entire process of F-35 development.
However, tests are made, data collected, designs evaluated and none of that goes to waste. To suggest that a program started in 2002 from scratch is simply to misrepresent the entire process which is continuous until the type is retired for scrap.
I simply brought to the fore the evidence of this process, and how it extends to integrate military and industry participation intricately beyond what is usually seen in the media. You didn't think only journalists are capable of research? It didn't seem to me that you or anyone else wanted a history lesson or a regurgitation of the timeline in F-35 development.
I think that the contract authorising the JSF program in 1994 was a fairly significant milestone in the process.

So what, I'm supposed to say that you are right because you have that "Professional" written in the profile and you get to go to closed industry briefings? You have a fine talent for 'hair splitting' Abraham, but sometimes the global view is also useful.

 

[FutureTank]

Ok, lets see...

FutureTank, thanks for the marked change in tone.

This is not the only forum I read and participate in. I have read many misguided posts by Australian civilians on defence matters and often they don't realize that most former military are not impressed by those posts. Let me clearly tell you that I am not impressed by your post.

Having corrected civilians before, maybe you saved one of those responses to share with me?
If not, never mind...

You are wrong and trying to make a valid point raised for your consideration not valid by analogous argument. The gulf of understanding between how I think and how you think is so wide, I am not sure if it is worth the effort to explain. :lul

Ok, that's a fair point, I will see if I can come up with a valid analogous argument.
If you think its a gulf, fine...

Basically, you have misunderstood the purpose of some of my questions to you and have tried to debate with me. My points to you are thinking aids for civilians like you - to help bridge the gulf of understanding that exists in your mind and that of how the military would think.

Ok, I will re-read your points...

Let's just put it this way, would you be able (or want the responsibility) to lead the ADF or a battalion of ADF soldiers if there is war? Part of the problem is you have information without the correct training to understand or process the information.

Lead the ADF...no, I'm not ready to retire that soon
Lead a battalion....ok, but you mean a straight leg infantry battalion? Its no big deal so long as I get enough paper to write orders on (more civilian humour) Where did you get such a poor opinion of my "battlefield dominance" thinking?
Who do you think fought through most of the Second World War theatres? Civilians.

Do you understand what it means to fight at parity?

Yes, so I would never want to fight at parity. In combat there is no such thing as a "fair fight". But, there are many ways to ensure superiority even with numerical or technological parity, if that is what you are asking.

Reading your posts (and the way you think about achieving battlespace dominance), if you were my commander in war, the first thing I would do is shoot you and then take over command to protect the men assigned under your command from your incompetence.

Well, you have me at a disadvantage because I have no idea how you think about "achieving battlespace dominance". What's interesting is that I have NEVER thought about "achieving battlespace dominance". Mostly I think about winning. I also like to use one word where it suffices.
If you were under my command I would put you on point so you can show other civilians how its done

I think I have said enough. Just reflect on your posts and don't make me come in and correct you line by line. It's not worth the effort and it would certainly derail this thread.

ok, you can correct me a paragraph at a time (that's civilian humour)

If you want to talk about strike, please post and explain what the ideas contained in the concepts listed below:

(i) What is a FSCL?
(ii) Why is the FAC often not needed above the FSCL in strike operations?;
(iii) What is the role of the FO in contrast to the role of FAC?
(iv) Explain the difference between CAS and battlefield interdiction.

Without clarity in these concepts, you will not understand how strike operations is conducted for the benefit of ground forces. Please start a new thread on this topic and show me that you have the basics to conduct a meaningful discussion. Otherwise you are just a misguided arm chair general.[/QUOTE]

Oh, a test...I hate tests

(i) Fire Support Coordination Line (FSCL) Dwayne P. Hall, LTC, USA http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/97-071.pdf,

The current (1997) definition of the FSCL as found in JP 1-02:
Fire Support Coordination Line—a line established by the appropriate land or amphibious force commander to ensure coordination of fires not under the commander’s control but which may effect current tactical operations. The fire support coordination line is used to coordinate the fires of air, ground, or sea weapon systems using any type of ammunition against surface targets. The fire support coordination line must be coordinated with the appropriate tactical air commander and other supporting elements. Supporting elements may attack targets forward of the fire support coordination line without prior coordination with the land or amphibious force commander provided the attack will not produce adverse surface effects on or to the rear of the line. Attacks against surface targets behind this line must be coordinated with the appropriate land or amphibious force commander.

"The Air Force uses the FSCL as the separating line for interdiction." (ibid.p.15)

However, I think the 'Line' bit is entirely theoretic. The transition by the enemy from strategic staging to operational manoeuvre can take place (in a conventional conflict) over a distance of from 500km to as little as 5km behind FEBA. If the enemy formation should cross the FSCL which in 1997 the US Joint Command defined as Corps authority (as I understand) without having been interdicted, it will be in position to deliver an attack within the envelope where air units will require coordination with friendly ground units that may cost time and mission.

(ii) Considering you are in operational space for a FSCL strike operation the target is ostensibly a moving enemy formation, and should not be too hard to find based on the original strike tasking. In fact the absence of a FAC is highly advisable because as soon as a FAC is detected it will alert every enemy formation and unit in the area to the strike possibility. This was the case with the B-17s used as FAC during the Normandy breakout in 1944. In Vietnam the FAC often came in at the treetop level before going high so as not to alert the enemy of the approaching strike aircraft because invariably the VC/NVA would attempt to close assault friendly troops as soon as the FAC was detected.

(iii) I need more information. An FO is usually the artillery team that directs fires for the tactical command. However, armies also have ground air liaison officers attached to HQs (usually brigade and above) for specific operations where a close cooperation with air elements might be required. Of course the roles are different. An (air) FO does not control movement of strike aircraft in the target area but simply provides information as to the effectiveness of the air mission/operation, correcting the targeting. I didn't think ground air liaison observers are used any more. An airborne FAC is usually intimately involved in the operation planning, unless it is a mission handed over or created based on intelligence opportunity. I understand that in the USAF the A-10C pilots are often the airborne FACs. Who does that in Australia, the Hawks? F-35s would be a bit too fast for the job I would think.

(iv) CAS (Close Air Support) is the provision of dedicated and direct support from air elements to specific friendly ground troops. Battlefield Interdiction (BI) is the prevention of enemy units transitioning into the tactical zone of the friendly units. BI usually involves going out and looking for the enemy manoeuvring through the FSCL if I understand the American use of the term correctly.

How did I do?

 

[Sea Toby]

Future Tank I want to tell you a true story in the US Navy's history. After the Civil War of the early 1860s, the US Congress did not buy a new ship for twenty years, or in other words let the navy rot. And why not? The navy had many recently built ships, way more than what the navy required after the war. The American people, and its government, were intrested more in Manifest Destiny, the winning of the West from coast to coast. During that time the Army received the bulk of America's defense funding.

After twenty years, the nation's foreign policy got involved with a situation in the Samoan islands. To make a long story short, the three ships of the US Navy's entire Pacific fleet drugged their anchors during a typhoon in Apia harbor, resulting in sinking. Yes, this was back in the days of American isolationism. At the same time three German armored ships did the same. Furthermore, the lone British armored ship, the most powerful of all of the ships, survived the storm by riding the storm at sea before returning to enjoy the spoils of victory. Read about the Samoan debacle. Not long afterwards Mahan wrote his book, and America started building the armored battleships and cruisers which won the Spanish American war ten years later. We let our navy rot, wooden hulled square rigged steamers were no match to ironclads, or armored vessels.

To be blunt, if American could not go twenty years without building new ships during the nineteenth century, what makes you think we can go twenty years during the twentieth century without building new fighters? Without becoming obsolescent? Or the twenty first century?

Now reread your anti-military tirade you just posted. Eisenhower may have warned us about the military industrial complex, yes he did, but he did not advocate eliminating it either.

Most American don't know how America ended up with American Samoa. We did not buy it like Alaska, we did not annex it like Texas, and we did win it either from a war like the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Would you believe the British knowing fully that we and Germany needed a coaling station in the middle of the Pacific, would divide Samoa three ways so that we and Germany wouldn't mess with the rest of British Pacific possessions?

 

[OPSSG]

If you want to talk about strike, please post and explain what the ideas contained in the concepts listed below:

(i) What is a FSCL?
(ii) Why is the FAC often not needed above the FSCL in strike operations?;
(iii) What is the role of the FO in contrast to the role of FAC?
(iv) Explain the difference between CAS and battlefield interdiction.

Without clarity in these concepts, you will not understand how strike operations is conducted for the benefit of ground forces. Please start a new thread on this topic and show me that you have the basics to conduct a meaningful discussion. Otherwise you are just a misguided arm chair general.

Oh, a test...I hate tests
....

How did I do?

I have graded and given you an answer via PM to avoid derailing the thread.

Feel free to ask me further questions via PM if necessary.

 

[FutureTank]

sorry, posted to wrong place

 

[gf0012-aust]

As has been suggested. Off Topic comments should go to PM.

This is an aircraft specific thread.

I would add, that watching the thread derail due to philosophical differences on the cost model perceptions of everyone from here to Alpha Centauri is not going to happen either.

 

[FutureTank]

Future Tank I want to tell you a true story in the US Navy's history. After the Civil War of the early 1860s, the US Congress did not buy a new ship for twenty years, or in other words let the navy rot. And why not? The navy had many recently built ships, way more than what the navy required after the war. The American people, and its government, were intrested more in Manifest Destiny, the winning of the West from coast to coast. During that time the Army received the bulk of America's defense funding.

After twenty years, the nation's foreign policy got involved with a situation in the Samoan islands. To make a long story short, the three ships of the US Navy's entire Pacific fleet drugged their anchors during a typhoon in Apia harbor, resulting in sinking. Yes, this was back in the days of American isolationism. At the same time three German armored ships did the same. Furthermore, the lone British armored ship, the most powerful of all of the ships, survived the storm by riding the storm at sea before returning to enjoy the spoils of victory. Read about the Samoan debacle. Not long afterwards Mahan wrote his book, and America started building the armored battleships and cruisers which won the Spanish American war ten years later. We let our navy rot, wooden hulled square rigged steamers were no match to ironclads, or armored vessels.

To be blunt, if American could not go twenty years without building new ships during the nineteenth century, what makes you think we can go twenty years during the twentieth century without building new fighters? Without becoming obsolescent? Or the twenty first century?

Now reread your anti-military tirade you just posted. Eisenhower may have warned us about the military industrial complex, yes he did, but he did not advocate eliminating it either.

Most American don't know how America ended up with American Samoa. We did not buy it like Alaska, we did not annex it like Texas, and we did win it either from a war like the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Would you believe the British knowing fully that we and Germany needed a coaling station in the middle of the Pacific, would divide Samoa three ways so that we and Germany wouldn't mess with the rest of British Pacific possessions?

My few "anti"s do not extend to the military.

Are you saying the current F-16, F-18 and F-15 fleets are obsolescent?

cheers

 

[FutureTank]

Where in this does it suggest ANY commonality whatsoever? It does NOT say that F-135 shares "40 per cent of the technology" with F-119. It says absolutely NOTHING whatsoever about commonality between F-135 and F-119.

My computer probably has 40 percent fewer parts than the F-119 too. Does this suggest commonality?

As for your software defence, provide some evidence. Existence of "ported" software, in some non-specified scenarios proves absolutely nothing. Show me a piece of evidence this actually applies to F-35!

If you want to discuss defence issues, support your outlandish claims or don't bother making them, as far as I'm concerned.

It say that the F135 has 40% fewer parts. The totality of all F119 parts = 100%, so 100-40=60% Are parts technology or not?

What "software defence"?

In 1994 when the JSF program begun (at least according to Congress) there were 37 third generation computer languages used in the Department of Defence as a whole. This compares favourably with about 450+ in 1974 (actual number unknown) (see http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA294001&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) Ada 83 was dominant, but far from the only language used.
There is at least one set of JSF program C++ specifications I did find. Others probably abound. I will look, but don;t expect to find much. Even knowing which sub-project (never mind application) uses which language would constitute a security breach IMHO.

Even studies like this one http://www.modusoperandi.com/downloads/DataModelEvolutionJSF.pdf illustrate what I was saying on a single issue within the program information support. Surely you are aware of the work done by the Computer Sciences Corporation Australia Pty Ltd for the JSF Australian team alone? Each knowledge domain and technology application may use a different language depending on its origin or design. Clearly I can not give you specific examples, even if I had the access to classified information like that.

Cheers

 

[Feanor]

OPSG, so essentially we agree about the issues with procurement that currently exist? Hence why I made my comment that in regards to other programs, the F-35 can indeed be considered a choir boy, but that doesn't mean that the procurement system is perfect, or does not need major reform. By the way, benchmarking with other countries is one very good way of comparing, and in that sense the US is not all that bad. Russian procurement programs are experiencing similar if not greater cost over-runs, mainly due to inflation of prices for military goods. Euro programs also have a tendency to end up mismanaged. However the other important way of judging is by comparing the provided cost estimates from the contractor developing it to the actual costs that result. If we systematically see an underestimating of costs and associated technology risks, then we have a problem.

 

[FutureTank]

You would have to be a first class congenital idiot to think that some of the enthusiastic claims in here made about capability for some platforms are based on real material.

gf0012-aust, I make up my own mind about the platform capabilities. Enthusiasts are as bad as the critics, with truth usually found somewhere between.

Cheers