Will the F-35 replace the F-15 in the USAF?

[OPSSG]

The trouble is, I can't remember where I heard it...I know for sure it wasn't a doctrinal document, and now I have the sinking feeling it was some punter on another forum and somehow I ended up remembering the conversation wrong...

I should have fact-checked more carefully before posting.

The only reference I can ever remember to USAF aircraft flying a 2-ship was at one point in Bosnia (Scott O'Grady was flying in a two-ship when he was shot down). But CAP and no-fly zone enforcement are slightly different missions and so might merit different flight structures.

Thanks for the post in response.

You are again responding without reading the links provided. Please read the Air Force Basic Doctrine which explains the different types of doctrine: (i) Service Doctrine, (ii) Joint Doctrine, and (iii) Multinational Doctrine. This document further explains the difference between (i) Basic Doctrine, (ii) Operational Doctrine (which contains Tactics, Techniques and Procedures), and (iii) Tactical Doctrine (which describes the proper employment of specific air force assets). At what level are you talking at (keep in mind that doctrine also deals with method of employment)?

Please do not speak on USAF doctrine if you have not read the doctrine documents - in future. Remember to stay away from the use of the word 'doctrine' if you do not have the patience to read these documents (and understand how these individual doctrine documents are related to the whole big picture) - it's a sure way to cloud a discussion.

On a personal basis, you'll find that I rarely use the word doctrine in most discussions other than to point out to the other party that they need to read it if they are to use it as a concept. Sorry about being pedantic - loose use or wrong use of certain words with specific meanings lead to more confusion rather than clarity. Description of specific incidents without context can sometimes be very misleading. Keep in mind that there may have been other aircraft in the air at that moment but a two-ship formation was vectored to investigate a specific no fly violation. Most of the time we read accounts of war and books for entertainment and it is not safe to equate an account for our reading entertainment with doctrinal development - remember that some information is always withheld for opsec reasons. We need to take care of how we approach the issue and understand the context.

I end with saying, welcome to DT, have fun posting and I look forward to reading more of your posts.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Have you seen Lockheed Martin Vice President Steve O'Bryan's response to a media query and published below by Stephen Trimble?



I believe that's relevant info to your question.

Yes thank you for that.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

You are again responding without reading the links provided. Please read the Air Force Basic Doctrine which explains the different types of doctrine: (i) Service Doctrine, (ii) Joint Doctrine, and (iii) Multinational Doctrine. This document further explains the difference between (i) Basic Doctrine, (ii) Operational Doctrine (which contains Tactics, Techniques and Procedures), and (iii) Tactical Doctrine (which describes the proper employment of specific air force assets). At what level are you talking at (keep in mind that doctrine also deals with method of employment)?

Please do not speak on USAF doctrine if you have not read the doctrine documents - in future. Remember to stay away from the use of the word 'doctrine' if you do not have the patience to read these documents (and understand how these individual doctrine documents are related to the whole big picture) - it's a sure way to cloud a discussion.

On a personal basis, you'll find that I rarely use the word doctrine in most discussions other than to point out to the other party that they need to read it if they are to use it as a concept. Sorry about being pedantic - loose use or wrong use of certain words with specific meanings lead to more confusion rather than clarity. Description of specific incidents without context can sometimes be very misleading. Keep in mind that there may have been other aircraft in the air at that moment but a two-ship formation was vectored to investigate a specific no fly violation. Most of the time we read accounts of war and books for entertainment and it is not safe to equate an account for our reading entertainment with doctrinal development - remember that some information is always withheld for opsec reasons. We need to take care of how we approach the issue and understand the context.

I end with saying, welcome to DT, have fun posting and I look forward to reading more of your posts.

OPSSG, thank you very much for your frank and honest advice. I greatly appreciate your comments and I’ll keep them in mind in the future.

My most profound apologies if I have in any way confused or clouded this thread or any of the posters here. That was never my intention, but I fear my impulsiveness may have lowered the quality of this thread.

I’m currently having some trouble opening the documents you referred to (I think it might be an issue with Adobe Reader). I’ll try to figure out the problem, fix it, and read the files sometime over this next week. They seem like an excellent resource I appreciate your calling them to my attention.

I’m going to take a hiatus from DT for the next week or so to read up on relevant materials related to defense issues (I plan primarily use globalsecurity.org. If there are any other recommended sites, please let me know. If all goes as planned, this will give me a better understanding of the issues we discuss on this forum, which will in turn prevent me or at least limit me in making foolish or hasty mistakes.

In the future, I’ll also need to choose my words much more carefully and I plan to spend a half hour to an hour minimum of research before making any future posts.

Once again, thank you very much for your advice. I’ll do my utmost to keep it in mind in the future.

 

[Bonza]

OPSSG, thank you very much for your frank and honest advice. I greatly appreciate your comments and I’ll keep them in mind in the future.

My most profound apologies if I have in any way confused or clouded this thread or any of the posters here. That was never my intention, but I fear my impulsiveness may have lowered the quality of this thread.

I’m currently having some trouble opening the documents you referred to (I think it might be an issue with Adobe Reader). I’ll try to figure out the problem, fix it, and read the files sometime over this next week. They seem like an excellent resource I appreciate your calling them to my attention.

I’m going to take a hiatus from DT for the next week or so to read up on relevant materials related to defense issues (I plan primarily use globalsecurity.org. If there are any other recommended sites, please let me know. If all goes as planned, this will give me a better understanding of the issues we discuss on this forum, which will in turn prevent me or at least limit me in making foolish or hasty mistakes.

In the future, I’ll also need to choose my words much more carefully and I plan to spend a half hour to an hour minimum of research before making any future posts.

Once again, thank you very much for your advice. I’ll do my utmost to keep it in mind in the future.

I've enjoyed your posts thus far mate, so don't be gone too long.

As far as reading goes, in addition to sites like the one OPSSG linked and things like globalsecurity I found a lot to be gained out of going back through the forum archives and reading threads I found relevant or interesting. There's a few key posters in here (most of them mods) who have a lot of interesting stuff to say and if you comb through old threads you can find a lot of information and opinions. While this sort of reading doesn't have the same level of information density as reading actual military documentation, I did find it quite useful.

I'd also recommend reading the following, if you haven't already:

The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat

I found the essay at that link to be quite a good primer on air war.

I also found a documentary series called Battleplan to be very interesting, primarily because it doesn't focus too much on individual platforms the way a lot of docos do but instead goes through the various factors required in a certain type of warfare, and contrasts historical examples. For example the episode focusing on air power compares the air war over Iraq in 1991 with the Battle of Britain and lists a few common factors, and how each faction achieved or failed to achieve these things. Found it quite informative for understanding the emergence of integrated warfare and how warfare is conducted on a large scale. Pretty sure you can find episodes of it on youtube too.

 

[imispgh]

The F-35 has serious software problems

Link to article and False Claims Act lawsuit filing

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

 

[SpudmanWP]

Old news... no real problem known or alleged, just the possibility of future problems.

 

[imispgh]

Old news... no real problem known or alleged, just the possibility of future problems.

That is a misleading response. There were problems at the time the engineer was on the program. Do you know all of the lines of code involved and know they were all corrected? Do you know what the baseline architecture issues were and that they were corrected? If you believe they are corrected did you see them first hand? Or. . .are you just repeating hearsay?

 

[SpudmanWP]

I have read the lawsuit and many supporting documents.

There is no SPECIFIC software problem alleged, but rather what is being alleged is that there is not the correct amount of safety checks in place to make sure bugs do not get through.

 

[imispgh]

I have read the lawsuit and many supporting documents.

There is no SPECIFIC software problem alleged, but rather what is being alleged is that there is not the correct amount of safety checks in place to make sure bugs do not get through.

The checks were in place - hence SEER 1 etc. Lockheed gundecked them and then said they passed. If the code works why gundeck the checks you created and signed up for to show the architecture meets safety and other standards?

17. As it relates to this amended complaint it is important to note that lack of compliance to SEI and SEAL 1 standards is not merely alleged, it is a documented and admitted fact by Lockheed Martin. On two occasions; April 6, 2004 and July 28, 2004; the Lockheed Martin Software Management Team (SMT) determined that the FCA IPT software was not being developed in an SEI and SEAL 1 compliant manner.

27. While Relator’s primary focus herein has been upon the Defendant’s FCA
violations regarding the ongoing F-35 Program, Relator has also provided notice, not later
than March 2006, to the DOJ and its associated federal agents and attorneys in this case
about Defendants’ plant-wide failures to develop and test software products according to
required SEI and SEAL I, II and III, where required by contract with the U.S. Relator
disclosed, first internally to Defendant, that it was not performing its software development and testing obligations for any of its military contracts under the required SEI and SEAL standards.

“C.2.3 SEAL 1 This level of assurance is required for hazards that have a HRI that lies in the range 1 to 3. This range is sometimes referred to as ‘safety critical’. These hazards are normally under the full control of software. Failure of the software item leads directly to a hazard’s occurrence. Since the HRI lies in this range, there are additional activities required in order to ensure that there is the highest level of confidence that the safety goals have been achieved. “

 

[SpudmanWP]

If they did something wrong it will come out in the lawsuit and will be fined, as is appropriate.

 

[imispgh]

If they did something wrong it will come out in the lawsuit and will be fined, as is appropriate.

Appropriate for the FCA process yes. But it should never get that far. That process takes 6 to 10 years. How much money and damage is done in that timeframe?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Appropriate for the FCA process yes. But it should never get that far. That process takes 6 to 10 years. How much money and damage is done in that timeframe?

What do you mean by "should never get this far"?

If by that you mean the DoD should do a thorough review, I am sure they are.

 

[imispgh]

What do you mean by "should never get this far"?

If by that you mean the DoD should do a thorough review, I am sure they are.

Years go by by the time an FCA is filed (DoJ can take up to 3 years to investigate). And that is years after the original problem occurs. As such FCAs rarely fix the original problems. They simply try to recoup damages.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Like I said, I am sure that the DoD will not wait for the FCA process to complete before it does it's own investigation.

 

[imispgh]

Like I said, I am sure that the DoD will not wait for the FCA process to complete before it does it's own investigation.

But that's the point. DoD has known for years and is now waiting to see if it has to act.

 

[SpudmanWP]

But that's the point. DoD has known for years and is now waiting to see if it has to act.

Where do you get that the DoD is sitting on the sidelines and not looking into it themselves?

 

[zukster]

What you're proposing would be, by virtue of the platform's lack of survivability and the massed deployment required to be effective, attritional warfare. In an increasingly casualty-averse political climate (to say nothing of the immense cost of training combat pilots) I doubt such a model would ever be adopted.

Additionally these aircraft would be found lacking not only in terms of avionics and electronic systems, but would also suffer from inferior range, response time, service ceiling, payload, etc.

On the other hand, if a simple "spear thrower" type platform is what you're after, something to carry missiles and direct launches with data handed off from a sensor platform (as would most likely be the case with the AT-6), then I think you're rapidly headed into UCAV territory...

Actually Bonza you are not thinking outside the box. Let's say we develop new air to air missiles that have built-in sensors and are not reliant upon a plane's radar. The plane would now become just a carrier like the B-52 with ALCMs. And shear numbers would matter most.

 

[zukster]

Lets say this force is flying air superiority over a dense, and networked IADS that involves S-300 class systems, connected with dozens of division-level SAMs, tac-SAMs, and even SPAAG/SAM hybrids. The casualties you would be taking would lead to serious issues with pilot training, morale, unit coherency, etc. Not to say anything of enemy fighters.

Additionally don't forget for a powerful modern radar you need a large fighter, with a large powerplant. For IR sensors you also need more power. And without advanced sensors your missiles are blind. Without datalink you can't coordinate the actions of this armada in a modern battlespace. And given the logistical hurdles of keeping this armada supplied, a single successful air raid by high-altitude bombers on a central supply facility like a large fuel dump, could leave much of your airforce grounded.

Actually the prop aircraft could fly so low they could avoid most radar and surface to air missiles. My point is that the money is invested in planes and not missiles. If we diverted more money into missile technology we could make them more independent of the plane. Therefore shear numbers would dominate the air. Opposing fighters would not have enough missiles to shoot them all down.

 

[OPSSG]

How low is low - please state you proposed altitude? What about power transmission lines or even tall buildings?

Note that the above questions are rhetorical. NO REPLY is necessary.

Actually the prop aircraft could fly so low they could avoid most radar and surface to air missiles.

Really? There are specific air defence radars that operate as part of IADS that specifically deal with low flying aircraft. Even ship borne radars from destroyers can track an aircraft from take-off. And if an AWAC is in the air, there's no where to hide. BTW, there now clutter rejection algorithms to deal with this problem of low flying aircraft.

Air sovereignty patrols are now routine and the basis of this is radar detection and pattern analysis for deviation from filed flight plans. Your idea while creative is not grounded in an understanding of current systems and capabilities.

My point is that the money is invested in planes and not missiles. If we diverted more money into missile technology we could make them more independent of the plane.

Can you do some basic reading please? This is a thread on the F-35 replacing the F-15s - that means it has nothing to do what you are proposing. So, learn to stick to the topic and avoid a thread derail.

If you want to claim that pigs can fly go ahead. The onus is on you to provide proof of such (via reputable links, which you are not in the habit of doing) and not on other forum members to disabuse you of your notions.

Therefore shear numbers would dominate the air. Opposing fighters would not have enough missiles to shoot them all down.

Please, I might as well tell you that I've got my death star and I'll destroy your planet. Surrender to your imperial overlords now!

I hope you can take a joke or two.

 

[Marc 1]

Actually Bonza you are not thinking outside the box. Let's say we develop new air to air missiles that have built-in sensors and are not reliant upon a plane's radar. The plane would now become just a carrier like the B-52 with ALCMs. And shear numbers would matter most.

One wee small problem with your theory Zukster - are you going to be leading this swarm attack? Are your parents/family and loved ones happy to send you up to die in great numbers so that a few can get through? I hadn't heard that the US military was recruiting suicide pilots... What next - scrap the M1 Abrams and just deploy thousands of men armed with magnetic mines as your anti armour assets. Frogmen with small 'one way scuba tanks' (no need to decompress) to attack enemy submarines? (tactic - knock on the hatch, when they answer, the water will flood in a sink the sub).

There have been trillions of dollars spent since WW2 keeping US forces qualitatively superior to most adversaries (some would say too much particularly in the early 90's reliance on tech rather than Humint sources). Why just let that go now?

Your idea whilst outside the box would be political suicide for any leader to implement. How about a scenario where say Russia decides to attack US territory - how do you defend your country with a turboprop traineragainst an enemy that can do low level penetration at supersonic speeds? Or high level penetration (where your turboprop cannot even get to at over Mach 2?