Currently the USN is, but essentially.. after the fighter mafia's YF-17 and YF-16.. both types evolved quite differently.. the F/A-18 was from its inherent outset a multirole fighter.. by contrast the initial F-16 was more more geared for Air combat as top cover than pounding the ground. Sure.. currently one can say that both fighters perform similar roles today. But the F/A-18 was refined to a very different fighting regime.. i.e its strengths lie not in the 250-450 knot air combat bracket but at slower speeds. The F-16 is focused on the sustained E fight...
F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.
- Thread starter Lankan Ranger
- Start date
Currently the USN is, but essentially.. after the fighter mafia's YF-17 and YF-16.. both types evolved quite differently.. the F/A-18 was from its inherent outset a multirole fighter.. by contrast the initial F-16 was more more geared for Air combat as top cover than pounding the ground. Sure.. currently one can say that both fighters perform similar roles today. But the F/A-18 was refined to a very different fighting regime.. i.e its strengths lie not in the 250-450 knot air combat bracket but at slower speeds. The F-16 is focused on the sustained E fight...
I think the bigger issue was not export restrictions... but price..and not just for users aborad .. for the USAF itself in a way.
The problem with all these comparisons is that everybody is thinking of fighting the last war.. i.e. GW1 or AF..
Technology has moved along a lot more since then.. the GW-1 era AIM-9M is still a very deadly missile.. back then if fired within envelope it meant a certain kill. It did still need the fighter to move within its firing parameters. Today, the AIM-9x with JHCMS makes even the rather lambasted F/A-18E deadly within visual range..because its no longer how fast the aircraft can turn but how fast can the pilots head turn to what the aircraft tells him about the threat.Missiles have come a lot farther than thought; today, missiles literally see the target...and physical countermeasures are rapidly losing their effectiveness.
Just as the F-16 was designed in the 1970s to fight conflicts that could happen 30 years into the future.. the F-35 is designed with the same ideals. Most pilots train for ACM today.. but they also know that chances are high that if they engage in prolonged (1.5 min+) engagements.. they will die.. if not sooner. The introduction of the very manoeuvrable dogfight missile with the helmet sight has meant that most enemies will get a missile shot off at you regardless of where you are flying relative to them. The F-35 is already geared for that from its inception.
With the BVR arena.. it will always be who gets to see the other and fire first.. not who has the longest range radar and longest range missile. That too is F-35 territory..not just via its relative LO ...but by its other onboard and offboard sensors.
Now lets come to speed.. Air combat.. has VERY RARELY exceeded Mach 1.2. the F-16 was capable of mach 2.. but only in a clean configuration and never used for it. The earlier aircraft had high speeds for interception purposes.. but they rarely ever used them because at those speeds you drain your fuel tank fast which leaves very little useful air combat time.
So when there is NO need for a particular speed.. and most combat operations rarely go above a particular speed.. why introduce expensive design constraints to get it?
Lets move on the usual vs reference.. the PAK-FA will kill the F-35..
Ok, lets say the PAK-FA does have the LO and sensor capability to actually get within the F-35's comfort zone(and the entire fighting nets comfort zone) and kill it. Questions arise.. is the F-35 going to be fighting alone.. lets say it is:
The F-35 is not just the F-35(unless by some dumb planning or bad luck it is sent alone as an asset).. lets say its a two ship.
Then it is NOT one F-35 that is looking for the PAK-FAs.. it is two. Two aircraft with what is still currently the most sophisticated radar ever put on a fighter..along with an unprecedented IR/EW secondary sensor system. Add to that these aircraft are currently also equipped with the most advanced data link around(MADL).. so both pilots see exactly what the other sees.. each aircraft enhances the others information.
Now, when the PAK-FA is finally supposed to enter active service, the F-35 is also supposed to have the AIM-120D operational.. lets say for posterity's sake that the PAK-FA has a comparable missile. The F-35 is already very LO... we do not know what the Final RCS of the PAK-FA will be.. and by the looks of it.. it does not look like they are trying only get close to the F-35.
Both aircraft have jamming systems.. both probably have LPI.. The F-35 is a smaller aircraft.. and as gambit explained already.. More powerful radars arent always the smartest move. So chances are , the PAK-FA when it picks up the F-35 is going to also be within the F-35s sensor net. Even if the F-35's radar is guessing...its EOTS...its DAS.. etc will know something is up and the pilot will be alerted...and if LM is to be believed.. then targeting data will already be in the process of being generated based on that limited data.
In simple words... it will not be a cake walk for the PAK-FA to kill the F-35.. it is likely that within the engagement.. the PAK-FAs might go down as well.
BUT, that is not how the F-35 is going to fight.. it will fight with offboard sensors.. it will fight with other platforms that may acts as offboard weapon platforms.. it will fight with the F-22 as well.
The question most people get to ask when speaking of how the rafale, or EF or others got to best the raptor in mock combat.. is how would these aircraft actually manage to get close to a VLO platform armed with long range A2A missiles that it can launch without the other aircraft getting a hint of what is happening...and manage to kill it?
When the F-15 first came out with the AIM-120.. they were already the most feared fighter in the world..
Now, there is a platform that you cannot see on radar.. and is very difficult to see through infrared as well..that is armed with an even better version of the AIM-120.... in simple words.. you will die.
Then add to it, the actual number of 5th gen platforms that are really out there? where do the majority of them lie? where are the rest in terms of fielding something similar?
Sure, both the Russians and the Chinese seem to be soldiering through with fairly good platforms.. but what else is there to support them? ...and how many of them. The Chinese do seem to be ahead of the Russians in terms of getting their platforms and ideas on the right track.. because they seemed to have figured it out early on that what the Americans are going looks right.. so it is best to emulate whatever ideas they have in what we are doing...
But even with a faster tracked program.. both the Russians and the Chinese will not have their first "operational" 5th Gen before 2018.. and no meaningful numbers until 2025.. by that time.. the US forces should be in the design process for their 6th Generation fighter...
The only thing...that will have the US struggling against its potential enemies is itself. It could be ignorance of an asymmetric threat.. as in Vietnam.. or perhaps the economy.. .or if all Americans.. regardless of where they were born or where they immigrated from.. lose their interests in Science and Technology.. The latter is a very remote possibility.. and the only hope potential adversaries have.
Ok, lets say the PAK-FA does have the LO and sensor capability to actually get within the F-35's comfort zone(and the entire fighting nets comfort zone) and kill it. Questions arise.. is the F-35 going to be fighting alone.. lets say it is:
The F-35 is not just the F-35(unless by some dumb planning or bad luck it is sent alone as an asset).. lets say its a two ship.
Then it is NOT one F-35 that is looking for the PAK-FAs.. it is two. Two aircraft with what is still currently the most sophisticated radar ever put on a fighter..along with an unprecedented IR/EW secondary sensor system. Add to that these aircraft are currently also equipped with the most advanced data link around(MADL).. so both pilots see exactly what the other sees.. each aircraft enhances the others information.
Now, when the PAK-FA is finally supposed to enter active service, the F-35 is also supposed to have the AIM-120D operational.. lets say for posterity's sake that the PAK-FA has a comparable missile. The F-35 is already very LO... we do not know what the Final RCS of the PAK-FA will be.. and by the looks of it.. it does not look like they are trying only get close to the F-35.
Both aircraft have jamming systems.. both probably have LPI.. The F-35 is a smaller aircraft.. and as gambit explained already.. More powerful radars arent always the smartest move. So chances are , the PAK-FA when it picks up the F-35 is going to also be within the F-35s sensor net. Even if the F-35's radar is guessing...its EOTS...its DAS.. etc will know something is up and the pilot will be alerted...and if LM is to be believed.. then targeting data will already be in the process of being generated based on that limited data.
In simple words... it will not be a cake walk for the PAK-FA to kill the F-35.. it is likely that within the engagement.. the PAK-FAs might go down as well.
BUT, that is not how the F-35 is going to fight.. it will fight with offboard sensors.. it will fight with other platforms that may acts as offboard weapon platforms.. it will fight with the F-22 as well.
The question most people get to ask when speaking of how the rafale, or EF or others got to best the raptor in mock combat.. is how would these aircraft actually manage to get close to a VLO platform armed with long range A2A missiles that it can launch without the other aircraft getting a hint of what is happening...and manage to kill it?
When the F-15 first came out with the AIM-120.. they were already the most feared fighter in the world..
Now, there is a platform that you cannot see on radar.. and is very difficult to see through infrared as well..that is armed with an even better version of the AIM-120.... in simple words.. you will die.
Then add to it, the actual number of 5th gen platforms that are really out there? where do the majority of them lie? where are the rest in terms of fielding something similar?
Sure, both the Russians and the Chinese seem to be soldiering through with fairly good platforms.. but what else is there to support them? ...and how many of them. The Chinese do seem to be ahead of the Russians in terms of getting their platforms and ideas on the right track.. because they seemed to have figured it out early on that what the Americans are going looks right.. so it is best to emulate whatever ideas they have in what we are doing...
But even with a faster tracked program.. both the Russians and the Chinese will not have their first "operational" 5th Gen before 2018.. and no meaningful numbers until 2025.. by that time.. the US forces should be in the design process for their 6th Generation fighter...
The only thing...that will have the US struggling against its potential enemies is itself. It could be ignorance of an asymmetric threat.. as in Vietnam.. or perhaps the economy.. .or if all Americans.. regardless of where they were born or where they immigrated from.. lose their interests in Science and Technology.. The latter is a very remote possibility.. and the only hope potential adversaries have.
airmarshal
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 9,361
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1415
2/17/2014
Navy F-35C Prepares for Ship Trials, Faces Headwinds
By Sandra I. Erwin
Naval aviators plan to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from an aircraft carrier at sea this fall. Pilots who have operated the aircraft say they are cautiously optimistic about its future despite a string of technical setbacks.
During carrier tests scheduled for October, officials will have an opportunity to examine the performance of the airplane following a recent redesign of the arresting hook that catches the airplane when it lands on the carrier deck. Aviation commanders also hope the tests will provide early answers to questions about the role of the F-35C as part of an air wing.
The F-35C faces several more years of tests before it is ready to join carrier air wings. Whereas the Marine Corps is determined to start operations with its vertical-takeoff F-35B as early as 2016, the Navy is in less of a hurry. At the earliest, the Navy has said the F-35C would be operational in 2019, although that goal appears to be in flux.
“We are only half way through the initial development plan,” says Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, a test pilot with 150 hours in the cockpit of the F-35C and B.
Flight tests are planned through 2017, and operational-level trials would begin later. The $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter program includes three variants: one for the Air Force, one for the Marine Corps and one for the Navy.
The priorities for the Navy’s F-35C are to finish software development and to fix glitches in the helmet-mounted displays, Burks says during a recent industry conference in San Diego. Then the Navy will have to decide how to incorporate the F-35C into an already crowded air wing.
“There will be some challenges integrating the F-35 on the carrier. Most have been identified,” he says. A carrier air wing typically has anywhere from 44 to 54 fighter jets. The Navy expects that for the foreseeable future, most of the fighters in the air wing will be Super Hornets, and that the F-35C will have a niche role as an airborne intelligence nerve center.
The F-35C will be predominantly an “information collector and distributor in the air wing,” says Burks. As the Navy’s only “stealth” aircraft that can fly undetected by radar, it will be prepared to “go alone into highly contested areas,” he adds. But most of the time it will serve as the hub of a “network centric” air wing.
“It may not matter what weapon we have on board,” Burks says. F-35 pilots will pass information over the network that would allow other aircraft to engage targets. “I may pull the trigger in the cockpit but the weapon may come from a different platform,” he explains.
Routine aircraft operations and maintenance aboard the carrier will change dramatically when the F-35C joins the fleet, says Burks. The high-tech materials that give the F-35 stealth properties require special care. “There will have to be a paradigm shift … in the grimy flight deck environment,” he says. “Maintainers are going to have to come into the 21st century when it comes to maintaining these technologies,” says Burks. “No longer can we allow our aircraft to get grubby and grimy from wear and tear, and wash them once a month. They will require daily support, the effort of the entire squadron, especially on cruise,” he says. “That's different from the current mindset when we let the airplanes get dirty because of the operational environment.” In test squadrons, aircraft are kept indoors and in hangars, so maintenance problems at sea have yet to be experienced.
Another issue will be coping with louder than usual engines. “It is a very noisy jet,” Burks says of the F-35C. “We are looking at having to use noise-cancellation headsets for maintainers” and other operators.
The Pentagon’s Director of Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore says in his 2014 annual report that engine noise is a “potential risk to personnel on the flight deck and one level below the flight deck.” Projected noise levels one level below the flight deck will require at least single hearing protection, he says. On most carriers this is a berthing area, but on the new carrier CVN-78 this is a mission planning space, Gilmore says. “Personnel wearing hearing protection in mission planning areas will find it difficult to perform their duties.”
A more significant concern is the performance of the redesigned tail hook, which has been tested six times so far. “It's a bit early to say we have definitely nailed this problem,” says Burks. “The tail hook has been a major issue for the development of this airplane. It was unexpected until it was discovered in 2011.” The first problem was not being able to catch the arresting wire. There was also a structural flaw that caused excessive stress to the bulkhead where the tail hook attaches to the airframe. The redesign took a year and a half. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. has so far delivered one F-35C with the new tail hook at the Navy’s test site at Patuxent River, Md.
Gilmore says the arresting hook system “remains an integration risk as the JSF development schedule leaves no time for new discoveries.” He cautions about the “potential for gouging of the flight deck after a missed cable engagement due to an increase in weight of 139 pounds and the potential for sparking from the tail hook across the flight deck because of the increased weight and sharper geometry of the redesigned hook.”
One of the most anticipated features of the F-35C is an automated landing system called “delta flight path” that would take the pressure off aviators to nail landings on moving ships. “The delta flight path for the F-35C will make carrier landing so easy,” Burks says. “It will be a new era of carrier aviation. … Night landings will not be the number one task to focus on.” The system has been tested ashore but has yet to be tried at sea.
The glitches of the $500,000 F-35 pilot helmet have been well documented, but problems have yet to be fixed. Having a helmet-mounted display is central to how air warfare will be conduced with the F-35 because it eliminates the heads-up display in the cockpit, and everything is projected on the visor of the helmet.
“When it gets to the fleet and it's working right, it will provide a great capability,” says Burks. It would allow for a smooth transition from day to night, with no need for night vision goggles. The pilot would have a 360-degree view of his surroundings from the cameras around the aircraft. The helmet, though, has been plagued by the jitters. When the display is fixed to the aircraft, it is easy for the human eye to compensate for head motion. “It so happens now that your head is bobbing around when you're pulling G's, it's not quite as easy to stabilize the symbology on the visor,” he says. “We've been through many fixes.” The contractor built a tiny electronic device to sense aircraft vibration and buffeting. “It turns on filters in different regimes of flight to filter out the noise we're seeing in the display,” says Burks.
The redesigned helmet is now undergoing tests. The helmet’s night camera also will require major changes. “It continues to be a show stopper at night,” he says. One problem is that it leaks light at night when the pilot is trying to dim the display down. “You get a lot of leakage of light in the optics around the eyes. It's distracting,” says Burks. He predicts the transition from cockpit to helmet-mounted displays will be hard for most pilots. “It took me about 50 flying hours to adjust.”
William Gigliotti, F-35 test pilot at Lockheed Martin Corp., says glitches are to be expected in any major weapon development. During a panel discussion at the Navy’s West 2014 conference in San Diego, Gigliotti suggests that “nits” in the F-35 program get blown out of proportion. “It's the most scrutinized program around,” he says. “We can't afford to hide anything.”
Being in the middle of the flight test program, he says, “our job is to stress the aircraft, find problems and fix them.”
He says Lockheed engineers have come up with novel ideas for how to maintain sensitive stealth aircraft at sea. “When we go to the carrier this year, we have to see the normal wear and tear.”
A potential weakness of the F-35 is not the aircraft but its weapons, Gigliotti says. He worries about future conflicts where U.S. aviators may have to engage in dogfights against well-equipped enemies. “We have air-to-air missiles. But it's important we acknowledge that in the United States we need a new AIM 120,” he says referring to the newest air-to-air weapon used by the U.S. military. “We need a longer range air-to-air weapon. … As an industry, we need to get active in supplying a longer and more kinematic air-to-air weapon,” Gigliotti says. “That is a current limitation under some scenarios. … It is the Achilles’ heel across the U.S. Fighter fleet. We need better kinematics.”
The Pentagon plans to buy nearly 100 F-35s of the three variants by 2018. When the program’s schedule collapsed in 2009 and its costs started to soar, Pentagon officials halted development and directed all branches of the military to beef up the testing program to ensure problems were fixed before more airframes were produced.
The projected price tag of $391.2 billion for an eventual fleet of 2,443 F-35s is a 68 percent increase from the estimate in 2001. The officer in charge of the F-35, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, says in a 60 Minutes interview that the price tag of at least $115 million per aircraft is too high, but the Pentagon intends to stick with the plan. “I don’t see any scenario where we’re walking back away from this program.”
2/17/2014
Navy F-35C Prepares for Ship Trials, Faces Headwinds
By Sandra I. Erwin
Naval aviators plan to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from an aircraft carrier at sea this fall. Pilots who have operated the aircraft say they are cautiously optimistic about its future despite a string of technical setbacks.During carrier tests scheduled for October, officials will have an opportunity to examine the performance of the airplane following a recent redesign of the arresting hook that catches the airplane when it lands on the carrier deck. Aviation commanders also hope the tests will provide early answers to questions about the role of the F-35C as part of an air wing.
The F-35C faces several more years of tests before it is ready to join carrier air wings. Whereas the Marine Corps is determined to start operations with its vertical-takeoff F-35B as early as 2016, the Navy is in less of a hurry. At the earliest, the Navy has said the F-35C would be operational in 2019, although that goal appears to be in flux.
“We are only half way through the initial development plan,” says Navy Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, a test pilot with 150 hours in the cockpit of the F-35C and B.
Flight tests are planned through 2017, and operational-level trials would begin later. The $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter program includes three variants: one for the Air Force, one for the Marine Corps and one for the Navy.
The priorities for the Navy’s F-35C are to finish software development and to fix glitches in the helmet-mounted displays, Burks says during a recent industry conference in San Diego. Then the Navy will have to decide how to incorporate the F-35C into an already crowded air wing.
“There will be some challenges integrating the F-35 on the carrier. Most have been identified,” he says. A carrier air wing typically has anywhere from 44 to 54 fighter jets. The Navy expects that for the foreseeable future, most of the fighters in the air wing will be Super Hornets, and that the F-35C will have a niche role as an airborne intelligence nerve center.
The F-35C will be predominantly an “information collector and distributor in the air wing,” says Burks. As the Navy’s only “stealth” aircraft that can fly undetected by radar, it will be prepared to “go alone into highly contested areas,” he adds. But most of the time it will serve as the hub of a “network centric” air wing.
“It may not matter what weapon we have on board,” Burks says. F-35 pilots will pass information over the network that would allow other aircraft to engage targets. “I may pull the trigger in the cockpit but the weapon may come from a different platform,” he explains.
Routine aircraft operations and maintenance aboard the carrier will change dramatically when the F-35C joins the fleet, says Burks. The high-tech materials that give the F-35 stealth properties require special care. “There will have to be a paradigm shift … in the grimy flight deck environment,” he says. “Maintainers are going to have to come into the 21st century when it comes to maintaining these technologies,” says Burks. “No longer can we allow our aircraft to get grubby and grimy from wear and tear, and wash them once a month. They will require daily support, the effort of the entire squadron, especially on cruise,” he says. “That's different from the current mindset when we let the airplanes get dirty because of the operational environment.” In test squadrons, aircraft are kept indoors and in hangars, so maintenance problems at sea have yet to be experienced.
Another issue will be coping with louder than usual engines. “It is a very noisy jet,” Burks says of the F-35C. “We are looking at having to use noise-cancellation headsets for maintainers” and other operators.
The Pentagon’s Director of Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore says in his 2014 annual report that engine noise is a “potential risk to personnel on the flight deck and one level below the flight deck.” Projected noise levels one level below the flight deck will require at least single hearing protection, he says. On most carriers this is a berthing area, but on the new carrier CVN-78 this is a mission planning space, Gilmore says. “Personnel wearing hearing protection in mission planning areas will find it difficult to perform their duties.”
A more significant concern is the performance of the redesigned tail hook, which has been tested six times so far. “It's a bit early to say we have definitely nailed this problem,” says Burks. “The tail hook has been a major issue for the development of this airplane. It was unexpected until it was discovered in 2011.” The first problem was not being able to catch the arresting wire. There was also a structural flaw that caused excessive stress to the bulkhead where the tail hook attaches to the airframe. The redesign took a year and a half. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. has so far delivered one F-35C with the new tail hook at the Navy’s test site at Patuxent River, Md.
Gilmore says the arresting hook system “remains an integration risk as the JSF development schedule leaves no time for new discoveries.” He cautions about the “potential for gouging of the flight deck after a missed cable engagement due to an increase in weight of 139 pounds and the potential for sparking from the tail hook across the flight deck because of the increased weight and sharper geometry of the redesigned hook.”
One of the most anticipated features of the F-35C is an automated landing system called “delta flight path” that would take the pressure off aviators to nail landings on moving ships. “The delta flight path for the F-35C will make carrier landing so easy,” Burks says. “It will be a new era of carrier aviation. … Night landings will not be the number one task to focus on.” The system has been tested ashore but has yet to be tried at sea.
The glitches of the $500,000 F-35 pilot helmet have been well documented, but problems have yet to be fixed. Having a helmet-mounted display is central to how air warfare will be conduced with the F-35 because it eliminates the heads-up display in the cockpit, and everything is projected on the visor of the helmet.
“When it gets to the fleet and it's working right, it will provide a great capability,” says Burks. It would allow for a smooth transition from day to night, with no need for night vision goggles. The pilot would have a 360-degree view of his surroundings from the cameras around the aircraft. The helmet, though, has been plagued by the jitters. When the display is fixed to the aircraft, it is easy for the human eye to compensate for head motion. “It so happens now that your head is bobbing around when you're pulling G's, it's not quite as easy to stabilize the symbology on the visor,” he says. “We've been through many fixes.” The contractor built a tiny electronic device to sense aircraft vibration and buffeting. “It turns on filters in different regimes of flight to filter out the noise we're seeing in the display,” says Burks.
The redesigned helmet is now undergoing tests. The helmet’s night camera also will require major changes. “It continues to be a show stopper at night,” he says. One problem is that it leaks light at night when the pilot is trying to dim the display down. “You get a lot of leakage of light in the optics around the eyes. It's distracting,” says Burks. He predicts the transition from cockpit to helmet-mounted displays will be hard for most pilots. “It took me about 50 flying hours to adjust.”
William Gigliotti, F-35 test pilot at Lockheed Martin Corp., says glitches are to be expected in any major weapon development. During a panel discussion at the Navy’s West 2014 conference in San Diego, Gigliotti suggests that “nits” in the F-35 program get blown out of proportion. “It's the most scrutinized program around,” he says. “We can't afford to hide anything.”
Being in the middle of the flight test program, he says, “our job is to stress the aircraft, find problems and fix them.”
He says Lockheed engineers have come up with novel ideas for how to maintain sensitive stealth aircraft at sea. “When we go to the carrier this year, we have to see the normal wear and tear.”
A potential weakness of the F-35 is not the aircraft but its weapons, Gigliotti says. He worries about future conflicts where U.S. aviators may have to engage in dogfights against well-equipped enemies. “We have air-to-air missiles. But it's important we acknowledge that in the United States we need a new AIM 120,” he says referring to the newest air-to-air weapon used by the U.S. military. “We need a longer range air-to-air weapon. … As an industry, we need to get active in supplying a longer and more kinematic air-to-air weapon,” Gigliotti says. “That is a current limitation under some scenarios. … It is the Achilles’ heel across the U.S. Fighter fleet. We need better kinematics.”
The Pentagon plans to buy nearly 100 F-35s of the three variants by 2018. When the program’s schedule collapsed in 2009 and its costs started to soar, Pentagon officials halted development and directed all branches of the military to beef up the testing program to ensure problems were fixed before more airframes were produced.
The projected price tag of $391.2 billion for an eventual fleet of 2,443 F-35s is a 68 percent increase from the estimate in 2001. The officer in charge of the F-35, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, says in a 60 Minutes interview that the price tag of at least $115 million per aircraft is too high, but the Pentagon intends to stick with the plan. “I don’t see any scenario where we’re walking back away from this program.”
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
I think it doesn't take too much imagination to see that the skies are only getting more and more deadly for fighter pilots. Stealth is just delaying the inevitable.
I think we can expect a screen of stealth drone swarms protecting pilots in the US military's future. And those pilots will eventually be replaced since it will simply be too dangerous (especially when laser weapons become mainstream)
Last edited:
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
True...But given the fact that we tried to turn the F-14 into a mini-bomber of sort, it is usage that settles the matter. Right now, all 3 fighters (F-15, F-16, and F-18) are deployed as utility combat fighters. If the tactical situation require any one's respective strength, the local air commander will assign the mission accordingly to that strength. For the USN, we cannot afford to sail with 5 or 6 different platforms any more. At the national level, other countries are doing the same: each cannot afford to field a multitude of different platforms any more. The F-18 and a few European competitors are being advertised as utility fighters out of financial necessity.
Chak Bamu
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5,361
- Reaction score
- 69
- Country
- Location
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Pietrucha.pdf?source=GovD
This is a PDF document, and I can not copy-and-paste it. It is also a few pages long, but still a very interesting read.
The article questions the indispensability of F-35 and presents an alternative view and Force structure plan for USAF uptil 2023.
@gambit , sir I would really like to know your views on this article, if you could find time to read through. I have read it, but I can not say whether or not the analysis is sound, simply because I do not know enough to feel entitled to an opinion in this regard. All I can say is that the arguments are compelling.
@Oscar @Aeronaut , I would like to know your views as well.
Thanks in advance.
This is a PDF document, and I can not copy-and-paste it. It is also a few pages long, but still a very interesting read.
The article questions the indispensability of F-35 and presents an alternative view and Force structure plan for USAF uptil 2023.
@gambit , sir I would really like to know your views on this article, if you could find time to read through. I have read it, but I can not say whether or not the analysis is sound, simply because I do not know enough to feel entitled to an opinion in this regard. All I can say is that the arguments are compelling.
@Oscar @Aeronaut , I would like to know your views as well.
Thanks in advance.
darsheel114
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2013
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Awsum Machine
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Awsum Machine
Why does it show it dropping a US BLU-108 cluster munition???
Look at the footage at 1:21 of the above video and then at 33 seconds in this video below
Another video explaining how it works
CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Basically...What Colonel Pietrucha said is that US airpower, specifically the USAF, should focus more on current generation technology (not platforms) and less on low radar observable, aka 'stealth', platforms, which should be reserved to achieve air supremacy in order for 'non-stealth' platforms to support ground objectives -- IF finance is the main driver for force array.
Coming from a sensor specialist perspective, I have heard this argument before and I do have a high degree of agreement with it.
We cannot deny the reality that our current force array is indeed that while time and combat tested in terms of airpower philosophy, the same force array is also time and combat wearied in terms of platforms. What the colonel, and others that I have read and discussed about with my fellow Crows many years ago, is that we, meaning US airpower, should have more modern versions of the F-15 and F-16. Not incremental upgrade models of them, like blocks 60, 70, 80, etc...etc..., but newer and better designed fighters in the line of they were originally designed for. Then gradually retire the current crop to the National Guards and Reserve forces and for new pilots training purposes.
The key is this -- Absolutely uncontested air supremacy must be achieved by the 'stealth' platforms.
I said this before on this forum:
- Air dominance: The ability of an air force to compel other air forces, friends and foes, to rearray themselves into inferior postures in any contested airspace, be it territorial or anywhere else.
- Air superiority: The ability of an air force to achieve control of any contested airspace, repeatedly if necessary, and if there are any losses, those losses would pose statistically insignificant challenges to that goal of control.
- Air supremacy: He flies, he dies.
Right now, if US airpower challenges anyone's territorial airspace, even those of Russia and China, those air forces will rearray themselves into inferior, meaning defensive, postures, and they know it. Challenged, not yet entered. In Desert Storm, we went to dominance to supremacy literally overnight over Iraq's territorial airspace. It would not be as quick for more advanced foes like Russia or China and we will have to work hard to achieve air superiority over strategically important portions of their airspaces, but we can do it with the current F-15/F-16 mix.
Can we do it 50 yrs or even as soon as 20 yrs from now ? What Colonel Pietrucha and many others have been saying is: Not likely.
If you can afford it, you do not build a military based upon the lowest or even the middling of potential adversaries out there. You build based upon the most advanced potential foes, no matter how remote the probabilities of conflict against them. IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.
So instead of the F-35, US airpower could, and in the opinion of Colonel Pietrucha and others should, have build a larger F-22 fleet to assure the goal of air supremacy in any conflict, and gradually replace the current F-15 and F-16 fleet with 4.5 or 4.75 gen fighters that incorporate only mild 'stealth' capabilities. If the US Marines want V/STOL, give them a Harrier replacement, not the V/STOL version of the F-35. If the US Navy want a common platform to achieve multiple missions for worldwide deployment, give the Navy an F-18 replacement, not merely upgrade models, but a complete replacement.
People on this forum, and elsewhere, poohed poohed 'stealth' out of their own ignorance and nationalistic biases, not out of genuine technical knowledge and military experience. As a sensor specialist who personally seen on a radar scope what 'stealth' can do, I am all for the concept and its real world application. Even in limited scope with a dedicated platform like the F-22. Despite what Russian and Chinese propaganda may spew about their radars, US 'stealth' platforms WILL dominate, philosophically and physically, air combat doctrines and airspaces for at least another 50 yrs, the estimated useful life span of most fighters.
So either US airpower build a larger F-22 fleet to drive all contenders from any contested airspace, or commit to the F-35 so that when an F-35 pilot have to enter a contested airspace, he will at least have some EM protection to achieve his mission.
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Gambit I think you are overlooking a tech that probably made the Pentagon rethink their strategy on buying F22's in larger numbers - UCAV's (particularly stealth ones based on a B2ish design)
UAV tech was pretty crude when the F22 program was being hammered out. But as the F22 went into production the potential for UAV's started to become apparent...and I believe it made them rethink things.
Here you take the danger to the pilot out of the equation (no fatigue, no information overload, no casualties). While currently UAV's are remotely piloted they know full well they can be built to be autonomous.
UAV's can be built to fly incredibly high or suicidally low. Fly with erratic high G patterns like spirals (try and get a radar lock on that) A swarm of them would be a nightmare to any air defense system.
It's only a matter of time, energy, and money as to when this will happen. But it will happen.
Last edited:
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Engine Issues Halt F-35 Flights Over Weekend
Jun. 16, 2014 - 10:52AM |
By AARON MEHTA
WASHINGTON— Flights of the F-35 joint strike fighter were temporarily halted over the weekend in order to inspect an engine valve, the Pentagon said Monday.
Pentagon officials halted flights Friday in order to inspect the oil flow management valve fitting inside the F135 engines that power the fighter. However, the program office says most F-35s are back flying. The engines are manufactured by Pratt & Whitney.
The decision to inspect the valve was made following a Tuesday incident where a Marine piloting an F-35B model near the service’s Yuma, Arizona, base was forced to make an emergency landing after the plane began warning of oil loss. There were no injuries involved in the incident, but program officials ran an analysis of the situation and concluded the problem could be widespread enough that they required an analysis of the fleet.
That engine issue has been identified as a “supply line to engine bearings and a Rosan fitting that separated from the body of the [valve],” according to a Pentagon statement by program spokeswoman Kyra Hawn.
The statement also noted that the problem was found in three engines inspected at Yuma, but none at the other test sites flying the F-35.
“This one-time fleet-wide inspection takes approximately 90 minutes per engine,” Pratt spokesman Matthew Bates said, before adding that “nearly all” aircraft were back and flying by Saturday evening. Bates said the company anticipates concluding inspections by the end of Monday.
The decision to ground the fleet came just hours after top program officials told reporters during a conference call that the F-35 was largely moving forward as planned.
It’s a potential black eye right before a pivotal movement for the fighter — first flight over international soil at the Farnborough Air Show in July. Program supporters have hailed the plane’s appearance at the show as a milestone achievement that proves the program is on the right track; it could also serve as a way to entice more international customers to consider the plane.
However, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin says the company has not altered plans for flying at the air show.
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group, said this issue should not be seen as a larger indictment of the program as a whole.
“Glitches are a problem with a complicated program, and the F-35 certainly is no exception,” he said. “It’s far more complicated than most new programs. This is just one of many headaches.”
A Pratt & Whitney F135 engine undergoes altitude testing at the Arnold Engineering Development Center. An engine issue forced the fleet to pause flying over the weekend. (US Air Force)
Engine Issues Halt F-35 Flights Over Weekend | Defense News | defensenews.com
Jun. 16, 2014 - 10:52AM |
By AARON MEHTA
WASHINGTON— Flights of the F-35 joint strike fighter were temporarily halted over the weekend in order to inspect an engine valve, the Pentagon said Monday.
Pentagon officials halted flights Friday in order to inspect the oil flow management valve fitting inside the F135 engines that power the fighter. However, the program office says most F-35s are back flying. The engines are manufactured by Pratt & Whitney.
The decision to inspect the valve was made following a Tuesday incident where a Marine piloting an F-35B model near the service’s Yuma, Arizona, base was forced to make an emergency landing after the plane began warning of oil loss. There were no injuries involved in the incident, but program officials ran an analysis of the situation and concluded the problem could be widespread enough that they required an analysis of the fleet.
That engine issue has been identified as a “supply line to engine bearings and a Rosan fitting that separated from the body of the [valve],” according to a Pentagon statement by program spokeswoman Kyra Hawn.
The statement also noted that the problem was found in three engines inspected at Yuma, but none at the other test sites flying the F-35.
“This one-time fleet-wide inspection takes approximately 90 minutes per engine,” Pratt spokesman Matthew Bates said, before adding that “nearly all” aircraft were back and flying by Saturday evening. Bates said the company anticipates concluding inspections by the end of Monday.
The decision to ground the fleet came just hours after top program officials told reporters during a conference call that the F-35 was largely moving forward as planned.
It’s a potential black eye right before a pivotal movement for the fighter — first flight over international soil at the Farnborough Air Show in July. Program supporters have hailed the plane’s appearance at the show as a milestone achievement that proves the program is on the right track; it could also serve as a way to entice more international customers to consider the plane.
However, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin says the company has not altered plans for flying at the air show.
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group, said this issue should not be seen as a larger indictment of the program as a whole.
“Glitches are a problem with a complicated program, and the F-35 certainly is no exception,” he said. “It’s far more complicated than most new programs. This is just one of many headaches.”
A Pratt & Whitney F135 engine undergoes altitude testing at the Arnold Engineering Development Center. An engine issue forced the fleet to pause flying over the weekend. (US Air Force)
Engine Issues Halt F-35 Flights Over Weekend | Defense News | defensenews.com
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Hawaii-based F-22 Raptors Deploy to Malaysia
Jun 20, 2014 by William Cole
Six Hawaii-based F-22 Raptor fighters and more than 100 airmen participating in an exercise in Malaysia are making history as part of the first Raptor deployment to Southeast Asia, officials said.
Exercise Cope Taufan also represents the first foreign deployment for the Hawaii Raptors, which received fully operational status in April of 2013.
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam is home to 20 of the stealth jets.
Guardsmen and women from Hawaii's 154th Wing's 199th Fighter Squadron and 204th Airlift Squadron, as well as the active duty 19th Fighter Squadron, are participating.
"This is a historical event for us and we're very honored and excited to be here," said Lt. Col. James Sage of the 199th Fighter Squadron.
F-15 fighters from Massachusetts also are part of the exercise, which is in its final stages.
Both aircraft were to engage with Royal Malaysian Air Force Sukhoi Su-30MKMs, IHS Jane's Defense Weekly reported.
Hawaii-based F-22 Raptors Deploy to Malaysia | Military.com
Jun 20, 2014 by William Cole
Six Hawaii-based F-22 Raptor fighters and more than 100 airmen participating in an exercise in Malaysia are making history as part of the first Raptor deployment to Southeast Asia, officials said.
Exercise Cope Taufan also represents the first foreign deployment for the Hawaii Raptors, which received fully operational status in April of 2013.
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam is home to 20 of the stealth jets.
Guardsmen and women from Hawaii's 154th Wing's 199th Fighter Squadron and 204th Airlift Squadron, as well as the active duty 19th Fighter Squadron, are participating.
"This is a historical event for us and we're very honored and excited to be here," said Lt. Col. James Sage of the 199th Fighter Squadron.
F-15 fighters from Massachusetts also are part of the exercise, which is in its final stages.
Both aircraft were to engage with Royal Malaysian Air Force Sukhoi Su-30MKMs, IHS Jane's Defense Weekly reported.
Hawaii-based F-22 Raptors Deploy to Malaysia | Military.com
Similar threads
