F-35 JSF.... Cure All or Another Hazard

[old_pop2000]

We've been discussing the British decision to purchase the F-35C CTOL version of the JSF. I've also posted another piece about the Marine F-35B STOVL aircraft coming to Miramar MCAS in 2017. I thought maybe we could get into some details about the bird and the countries interested in purchasing it.

If anyone has questions about its performance or anything, put them up here, so we can all research and find answers.

Hope everyone enjoys this thread.

[JMS]

Spain and Italy are betting they can buy some, somewhere around 2020 as replacement for their Harriers, or naval aviation will loose their embarked fixed wings. Norway, Denmark and Netherlands are tottering on their comittments. F-35 will remain shaky until the end of the current crisis, IMO.

[old_pop2000]

Spain and Italy are betting they can buy some, somewhere around 2020 as replacement for their Harriers, or naval aviation will loose their embarked fixed wings. Norway, Denmark and Netherlands are tottering on their comittments. F-35 will remain shaky until the end of the current crisis, IMO.

Most of those nations are in the exploratory stages. They are simply getting facts from the program office about the capability of the F-35B. If they decide to move ahead with a purchase, they need to understand the problems with the STOVL jet blast, range and bringback capability to be able to modify or adjust the designs of their new carriers in the case of Spain. If they want to stay with STOVL aircraft, this is the only game in town unless France can develop something or Russia.

Youtube has some interesting videos. Here is one of them, more along the side. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr6WuM7GOIQ

[JMS]

The new do-it-all LHA Juan Carlos I and the Italian Cavour have been built with the F-35 dimensions and compatibility worked out already, so, unless something apocaliptical happens, it should work OK. Older ships like the Garibaldi and the Principe will probably be out of service by then (Principe's MLU has been cancelled and it will be mothballed as an economy measure).

[old_pop2000]

The new do-it-all LHA Juan Carlos I and the Italian Cavour have been built with the F-35 dimensions and compatibility worked out already, so, unless something apocaliptical happens, it should work OK. Older ships like the Garibaldi and the Principe will probably be out of service by then (Principe's MLU has been cancelled and it will be mothballed as an economy measure).

This is the reason for the STOVL tests currently in progress. Those ships were designed long before the actual F-35B was flying. It is difficult to gauge the blast problems at that stage. The carriers probably are strong enough to carry the weight of the plane and overall dimensions, but there are other factors. I suspect the nations considering the plane are either watching the tests or are receiving the data to evaluate. This is still a work in progress for them. Do I want to spend this amount of money for an aircraft that is getting heavier and whose bringback weight is being reduced. This is aircraft is a far cry from the AV-8 Harrier and it will be more complicated so OMN funding is going to rise.

[thevanderploegs]

Canada is also in line to buy a bunch, and has a hand in the development and manufacture of some parts, I believe.

[old_pop2000]

Canada is also in line to buy a bunch, and has a hand in the development and manufacture of some parts, I believe.

Yes they are and Pratt & Whitney Canada is helping to develop the engines. Also, there are some smaller Canadian companies bidding on airframes and other items. Mostly piece work and subcontracting.

[steel_selachian]

I'll just nip over to Wikipedia and have a look at who's ordering what variants:

F-35A
United States AF - Planned to replace F-16 starting in 2013; at present looking at a total buy somewhere around 1700 aircraft.
Italian Aeronautica Militare - Planned to replace Tornado IDS with 69 aircraft. Italy is doing a lot of production work on the F-35 and Cameri Air Base will be the only final assembly, check-out, and overhaul center for the F-35 outside the US, so I'd say that buy's pretty definite.
Royal Netherlands AF - Planned to buy 85 to replace F-16AM, but questions have been raised.
Royal Canadian AF - Expects to buy F-35s to replace CF-18s starting 2018, but there's been controversy over it.
Turkish AF - Will license-assemble F-35As and purchase approx. 120. Again, production investment so it'll probably come through.
Royal Australian AF - Planned to replace AF-18A starting in 2017 and eventually replace leased F/A-18Fs. Planned to buy 100, may be cut to 75.
Royal Norwegian AF - To replace F-16As; developing Joint Strike Missile to give the F-35 an internally-compatible antiship/strike cruise missile.
Royal Danish AF - In the program, but looking at alternatives such as Gripen NG.
Israeli AF - To purchase 20 with some unique Israeli features; expected to arrive in 2015.
Singapore AF - Looking into a buy of ~100 aircraft, no commitment.
Also on offer to or considered by India, Finland, Greece, South Korea, and Japan.

F-35B
USMC - To replace F/A-18C, AV-8B, and EA-6B with 340 aircraft.
Italy - 40 for AM and 22 for Marina Militare; latter to be assigned to the Cavour.
Spain - Not committed to a purchase, but interested in replacing EAV-8B aircraft and Juan Carlos I is fitted to accommodate the F-35B.
Indian Navy has expressed interest; so has ROCAF but understandably the PRC would not be happy in that case.

F-35C
USN - To replace F/A-18C; 480 currently planned.
RN/RAF - Proposed buy of 50 aircraft to outfit one QE carrier and replace remaining Tornado GR4s with RAF.
Indian Navy has expressed interest.

In short, the F-35B has the least potential number of orders; F-35C will get slightly more but both are pretty much driven by USMC/USN orders. Not many other nations have the need for STOVL/cat-launched aircraft, especially at extra expense.

[old_pop2000]

I'll just nip over to Wikipedia and have a look at who's ordering what variants:

F-35A
.....In short, the F-35B has the least potential number of orders; F-35C will get slightly more but both are pretty much driven by USMC/USN orders. Not many other nations have the need for STOVL/cat-launched aircraft, especially at extra expense.

The problem is that any delay, could drive up the cost due to economies of scale if some on that list decide not to buy the plane. It would seem that the A model for the USAF would be the most highly sought after model and the USAF has stated it will allow the other nations to take theirs and they will wait for another plane. They have to get the plane into the air, tested, evaluated and the problems solved especially the software issues. The A model should be the easiest to complete first and begin production. Any real changes could be put into the planes after delivery, by Lockheed teams onsite. I doubt there will be any structural issues like fatigue cracks. Those might start showing up when it reaches regular flight status and full loads. Those are going to be more difficult to repair.

[steel_selachian]

New question: We've already discussed the F-35B's limitations on bringing weapons and avgas back to the boat. Now, how much can it get off an amphib/baby carrier, assuming a rolling takeoff and the boat doing 20+ knots into the wind? Is it going to be able to get a useful payload out to the beach? If the F-35Bs have to take off with a reduced fuel load, this will mean depending on CV or shore-based tankers or having a really short operational reach - remember under current doctrine an LHA/D is supposed to stay about 250 miles out to keep away from mines and shore-based aircraft/SSMs/PCFGs. If they have to compromise on weapons load, that's going to limit the number and types of weapons carried - better hope the Navy and AF took care of anything that needed a 2000-lb. penetration bomb stuffed in it.

[old_pop2000]

New question: We've already discussed the F-35B's limitations on bringing weapons and avgas back to the boat. Now, how much can it get off an amphib/baby carrier, assuming a rolling takeoff and the boat doing 20+ knots into the wind? Is it going to be able to get a useful payload out to the beach? If the F-35Bs have to take off with a reduced fuel load, this will mean depending on CV or shore-based tankers or having a really short operational reach - remember under current doctrine an LHA/D is supposed to stay about 250 miles out to keep away from mines and shore-based aircraft/SSMs/PCFGs. If they have to compromise on weapons load, that's going to limit the number and types of weapons carried - better hope the Navy and AF took care of anything that needed a 2000-lb. penetration bomb stuffed in it.

The answer depends on whether you want to be stealthy or not. Stealthy means two AIM-120s and two GBU-32 JDAMs or six GBU-39 SDBs. Now, if you don't care about stealth and use the external pylons, you can lift another 15,000 lbs. On the C model, that figure rises to 18,000 lbs with the bigger wings. Anyway, without the B model, the F-35 would be much farther along in testing and probably ready for deployment. The Marines, I fear, conops is based on Operation Watchtower and they don't want to be stranded without air power.

[steel_selachian]

Hmm. I ask because I finally got NWP working again and started fooling around with weapons edits; in the case of the F-35B in USMC service I usually don't worry about stealth and load them for bear. I think the heaviest configuration I cooked up was 2xGBU-24 (inner wing pylons), 4xGBU-32 (middle wing pylons and internal), 2xAIM-120 (internal) and 2xAIM-9X (wingtips).

[old_pop2000]

Hmm. I ask because I finally got NWP working again and started fooling around with weapons edits; in the case of the F-35B in USMC service I usually don't worry about stealth and load them for bear. I think the heaviest configuration I cooked up was 2xGBU-24 (inner wing pylons), 4xGBU-32 (middle wing pylons and internal), 2xAIM-120 (internal) and 2xAIM-9X (wingtips).

Curious question, what about two 420 gal fuel tanks external on the inboard station. It has a capacity of 5000 lbs. Without it, and the load, you are really limiting the planes range and any ability to maneuver if engaged. BTW, are your loadouts configured for the target types or mission types. A gun is good thing for shooting up soft ground targets and saves the bombs. It so comes in real handy during a close in fight air to air.

[steel_selachian]

Considered that, but at last check NWP didn't account for external fuel tanks on any aircraft except for fast-movers with buddy pods. I suppose I could delete two bombs and fiddle with the range, but I just decided to max out the weapons load. That configuration would be for hitting hard fixed targets in a low-threat environment with available fighter cover; fly out, stay at 12,000 or above, hit 2-6 targets in close proximity, and go home. Pure short-haul bomb truck run. I may have used it in one Cuba scenario where the SAM opposition was limited to SA-8 and -9 vehicles and aerial opposition was a grand total of 2 MiG-29As and 7 strike-configured L-39As. If I was worried about range, maneuverability, and threats I would probably either leave those jobs to the CVN birds or configure the F-35Bs with internal weps only.

[steel_selachian]

The answer depends on whether you want to be stealthy or not. Stealthy means two AIM-120s and two GBU-32 JDAMs or six GBU-39 SDBs. Now, if you don't care about stealth and use the external pylons, you can lift another 15,000 lbs. On the C model, that figure rises to 18,000 lbs with the bigger wings. Anyway, without the B model, the F-35 would be much farther along in testing and probably ready for deployment. The Marines, I fear, conops is based on Operation Watchtower and they don't want to be stranded without air power.

You do have a point. Never mind that the Navy still owns the amphibs they fly off of ...

[old_pop2000]

You do have a point. Never mind that the Navy still owns the amphibs they fly off of ...

Yup, and the escorts, naval fire support, transports and a whole host of other things the Marines need to stay alive.

[steel_selachian]

That said though, one of the reasons the Navy separated its CVBG/ARG groups into separate CSG and ESG forces was to essentially double the number of carriers. The F-35B does give the ESGs a small number of fast-movers with LO strike capability that can be put to use in lower-intensity environments.

This might help make the F-35B a little more useful - just eight of these puppies would make for a useful CAS payload in an LIC. A full load of 24 would make the F-35 into a nightmarish "tank plinker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B

Another question: I know that the F-35B and C are planned to have an optional 25mm gun pod mounted on the centerline, but how effective will this be? I recall that as for air-to-air engagements the gun pods mounted to the F-4Ds in Vietnam suffered from some technical issues, such as the recoil throwing the pylon mounting out of line and affecting accuracy. Then there's also the issue of risking an $80 mil-plus jet on close-in strafing runs.

[old_pop2000]

That said though, one of the reasons the Navy separated its CVBG/ARG groups into separate CSG and ESG forces was to essentially double the number of carriers. The F-35B does give the ESGs a small number of fast-movers with LO strike capability that can be put to use in lower-intensity environments.

This might help make the F-35B a little more useful - just eight of these puppies would make for a useful CAS payload in an LIC. A full load of 24 would make the F-35 into a nightmarish "tank plinker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B

Another question: I know that the F-35B and C are planned to have an optional 25mm gun pod mounted on the centerline, but how effective will this be? I recall that as for air-to-air engagements the gun pods mounted to the F-4Ds in Vietnam suffered from some technical issues, such as the recoil throwing the pylon mounting out of line and affecting accuracy. Then there's also the issue of risking an $80 mil-plus jet on close-in strafing runs.

There aren't many tanks in Low intensity conflicts, lots of Toyota pickups possibly but nothing worth one of those cluster bombs. As far as gun pods, the A model of the F-35 has an internal gun but the others will use an external gun pod. Hope they do a better job of attaching it than was done with the SUU-23A Gun pod. That was a nightmare except the fighter pilots said that the dispersion pattern of the gun pod was good for air to air gunnery. Gave them a shotgun pattern, very deadly. It was accurate for ground targets.

[steel_selachian]

The GBU-53 is a bit expensive - I think they're talking $60-$70K for a production weapon, which is about what a 2,000-lb JDAM costs - but it's not a cluster weapon. It's Raytheon's one-up on the Boeing SDB with a tri-mode seeker (IIR, MMW, and laser) and a shaped charge warhead with a fragmentation jacket for antipersonnel effect. If I were only shooting at gun-toting pickups I'd probably stick with a cannon if it's accurate enough, but if you want to blow up a few houses full of bad guys (or if you're operating in one of the many Third World countries where the Soviets handed out T-54/55s and BTRs like party favors and some of the damn things still run) it'll be useful to pack a bunch of light little 250-lb PGMs onto an F-35B.

[old_pop2000]

The GBU-53 is a bit expensive - I think they're talking $60-$70K for a production weapon, which is about what a 2,000-lb JDAM costs - but it's not a cluster weapon. It's Raytheon's one-up on the Boeing SDB with a tri-mode seeker (IIR, MMW, and laser) and a shaped charge warhead with a fragmentation jacket for antipersonnel effect. If I were only shooting at gun-toting pickups I'd probably stick with a cannon if it's accurate enough, but if you want to blow up a few houses full of bad guys (or if you're operating in one of the many Third World countries where the Soviets handed out T-54/55s and BTRs like party favors and some of the damn things still run) it'll be useful to pack a bunch of light little 250-lb PGMs onto an F-35B.

This munition is specifically designed to hit a small target, in an urban environment without waking the neighbors. In a LIC, pissing off the neighbors is how you gain more enemies, we learned that in Vietnam, Iraq and other conflicts. Guns are not accurate, not a lick. They tend to spray ammunition everywhere and hit the neighbors. They are also not that effective against hardened targets. If that gun-toting pickup is parked next to the neighbors house, I can hit it safely without disturbing the china cabinet. That's the idea.

[steel_selachian]

Another F-35 issue. Some critics have lambasted its "limited" AAW payload, with one USAF officer melodramatically stating that he would "wake up in a cold sweat" at the thought of the F-35 "going in with only two air dominance weapons." Never mind that configuration would be an LO attack one, with AAMs only carried for self-defense. Methinks someone was trying to make a half-baked case for more F-22s.

Lockheed Martin has stated that eventually it wants to fit the internal air-to-ground stations to carry 2 AIM-120s apiece, which would give an AAW-configured F-35 six internally-carried AMRAAMs - as much BVR firepower as the F-22. Furthermore, I don't know if it's possible to fit the inner-and mid-wing hardpoints with twin LAU-7 or LAU-127 rails for additional AAMs, but if so ... you're looking at one nasty air-to-air loadout if stealth isn't called for.

[old_pop2000]

Another F-35 issue. Some critics have lambasted its "limited" AAW payload, with one USAF officer melodramatically stating that he would "wake up in a cold sweat" at the thought of the F-35 "going in with only two air dominance weapons." Never mind that configuration would be an LO attack one, with AAMs only carried for self-defense. Methinks someone was trying to make a half-baked case for more F-22s.

Lockheed Martin has stated that eventually it wants to fit the internal air-to-ground stations to carry 2 AIM-120s apiece, which would give an AAW-configured F-35 six internally-carried AMRAAMs - as much BVR firepower as the F-22. Furthermore, I don't know if it's possible to fit the inner-and mid-wing hardpoints with twin LAU-7 or LAU-127 rails for additional AAMs, but if so ... you're looking at one nasty air-to-air loadout if stealth isn't called for.

HI Steel:

Let's take a hard look at this AA capability requirement that is continually being discussed. First, why does the USAF need an F-35 with excessive AA capability? In theory, a strike package will have TARCAP aircaft accompanying them, so the F-35s should only need a limited-two to four AAM- capability. The AIM-120 is not a good maneuvering missile since it was designed to kill Russian tactical strike aircraft. The best missiles for AA combat would be the AIM-7 or AIM-9. Now, what kind of opponent will the F-35 encounter? Sukhoi 27s or 30s which can carry twelve AAM. They have third generation IR Search tracking systems with a 200 NM range. Another problem is that simulations do not take into account many of the factors that will be encountered in air combat.

The F-35 has eleven weapons stations. 1-3 on the starboard wing, five underneath and three on the port wing. Stations 1, 5,7 and 11 are restricted to A/A. Station 6 is the gun station. Stations 9, and 3 have a 5000 lb capacity with the rest at 2500. The current AA stations only have a 300-350 lb capacity. You also have the problem of design. Remember this aircraft was designed for interdiction and the radar aperture is limited by the nose geometry to maintain stealth, it isn't real good for wide angle search, acquisition and tracking of air to air targets. Especially for hostiles engaging from acute angles. The Lau-115 launcher weighs about 120 lbs depending on the version. It is generally used for the AIM-7. The Lau-7A weighs about 155 lb. Now you can mount two LAU-7A launchers on one LAU-115 as the navy does. However, this puts the weight at well over 400 lbs, just for the launchers. This means that there is only six stations that can carry that configuration, not counting the missile weight. The AIM-7 weighs about 510 lbs, IIRC. The AIM-9 weighs about 180 lbs. The AIM-120 weighs about 355 lbs. So, if we go with two AIM-120 our lift weight is 710 lbs plus 400 lbs for the launchers. Total weight, roughly, is 1110 lbs. We have to expect that the environment in the Asian-Pacific area maybe entirely different for this aircraft than what it was designed for. The single engine denotes an aircraft with limited over water capability and excessive risk. I am not certain upgrades can fix the problem.

[steel_selachian]

The AIM-120 is not a good maneuvering missile since it was designed to kill Russian tactical strike aircraft. The best missiles for AA combat would be the AIM-7 or AIM-9.

AIM-7? Really? Given that the best those things ever managed was a 0.37 Pk in the turkey shoot known as Desert Storm, I wouldn't call it a good AA missile unless you have a really obliging target. Also, as I understand it's only being carried in the inventory now for low-priority stuff; I doubt the Sparrow will even be integrated with the F-35 given it's well on its way out the door in favor of AMRAAM.

[old_pop2000]

AIM-7? Really? Given that the best those things ever managed was a 0.37 Pk in the turkey shoot known as Desert Storm, I wouldn't call it a good AA missile unless you have a really obliging target. Also, as I understand it's only being carried in the inventory now for low-priority stuff; I doubt the Sparrow will even be integrated with the F-35 given it's well on its way out the door in favor of AMRAAM.

If we got into a real air war with an effective opponent, we will draw down the stocks of AIM-120s real fast. On many missions, such as interdiction, AIM-9s and 7s would be the missile of choice due to their lower weight, size and dogfighting characteristics. The Eagles and Raptors would carry the AIM-120s but the bomb trucks like the F-35 would be relegated to carrying the 9s and 7s. I have doubts whether the bird is configured for the sparrow, but in a pinch, they might be able to rig them. The point is that the F-35 structurally was never designed for high G dogfights, it is a bomb truck. To gain load capacity, some stealth was thrown out. Even the prime contractor agrees that the F-35 within visual range combat is only marginally superior to the current crop of fourth gen fighters. Do I really want to expend this expensive bomb truck doing a job, that an F-15, F-18 or even the F-16 can do? If I am in a coalition, a Rafale can do this kind of work cheaper and better. The better plan is to use the stealthy F-22/F-35s in high threat environments to gain a measure of air superiority and supremacy, then send in the fourth gen aircraft to take care of the battlefield. This makes far more sense.

[steel_selachian]

If we got into a real air war with an effective opponent, we will draw down the stocks of AIM-120s real fast. On many missions, such as interdiction, AIM-9s and 7s would be the missile of choice due to their lower weight, size and dogfighting characteristics. The Eagles and Raptors would carry the AIM-120s but the bomb trucks like the F-35 would be relegated to carrying the 9s and 7s. I have doubts whether the bird is configured for the sparrow, but in a pinch, they might be able to rig them.

Er ... AIM-7 is heavier, larger, and last I checked less useful in a dogfight than the AIM-120 (have fun trying to keep your radar on the other guy in a furball until it hits). Carrying that would be more like a "better than nothing option," and even then you're probably better off just with AIM-9s. I think if the US runs into a situation where it severely runs down AMRAAM stocks in a war, we've done something wrong (i.e. not blown most of the other guy's airplanes up on the ground using stealth aircraft and cruise missiles).

I agree with your points, although the F-35 is going to see some pure air-to-air applications. Eventually the USAF is probably going to buy enough to start replacing the ANG F-16s used for NORAD missions, which means here and there we're going to want some on patrol over the US with enough AAMs to stop a bomber strike/terrorist kamikaze run; also circa 2025 when the last of the F-16s and F-15s head to the boneyard they'll be the only fighter in the arsenal besides a limited number of F-22s. Other air forces are going to have the F-35 serving primarily as an AAW platform, at least for day-to-day airspace defense/patrol missions. Might be a reason to see some configured as top cover with a large BVR AAM load if you have the F-22s delegated to higher-priority duties. And as far as the USN and USMC goes, the F-35 is going to be the only game in town besides the Super Hornet for AAW, if you're in a spot too remote for land-based F-22s to help. I can definitely see those services operating F-35Bs and Cs on pure AAW missions.

[old_pop2000]

Er ... AIM-7 is heavier, larger, and last I checked less useful in a dogfight than the AIM-120 (have fun trying to keep your radar on the other guy in a furball until it hits). Carrying that would be more like a "better than nothing option," and even then you're probably better off just with AIM-9s. I think if the US runs into a situation where it severely runs down AMRAAM stocks in a war, we've done something wrong (i.e. not blown most of the other guy's airplanes up on the ground using stealth aircraft and cruise missiles).

I agree with your points, although the F-35 is going to see some pure air-to-air applications. Eventually the USAF is probably going to buy enough to start replacing the ANG F-16s used for NORAD missions, which means here and there we're going to want some on patrol over the US with enough AAMs to stop a bomber strike/terrorist kamikaze run; also circa 2025 when the last of the F-16s and F-15s head to the boneyard they'll be the only fighter in the arsenal besides a limited number of F-22s. Other air forces are going to have the F-35 serving primarily as an AAW platform, at least for day-to-day airspace defense/patrol missions. Might be a reason to see some configured as top cover with a large BVR AAM load if you have the F-22s delegated to higher-priority duties. And as far as the USN and USMC goes, the F-35 is going to be the only game in town besides the Super Hornet for AAW, if you're in a spot too remote for land-based F-22s to help. I can definitely see those services operating F-35Bs and Cs on pure AAW missions.

Steel:
The AIM-7P weighs only about 235 lbs whereas the AIM-120C weighs about 335. The Sparrow is cheaper to build and with a range of 38 nm, is a BVR missile. It does not have fire and forget capability but trust me, ROE will not allow BVR kills, unless the friendly coalition aircraft have an IFF/SIF unit compatible with the US, there is too much chance of a friendly fire incident. Within the 38 nm of the AIM-7 range, the AIM-120 does not need aircraft support, but beyond that range it needs command inertial guidance from the firing aircraft. Understand that your PK drops dramatically beyond certain ranges as the missiles speed decreases. Aspect, speed, altitude, speed of the target, and how hard the opponent can turn all play a role in determining PK. With the advent of the AIM-9X and other WVR missiles that are IR seeking, helmet mounted sights, the "no escape" zones for these missiles is much wider than in Vietnam. I worked on one of the first helmet sights for the F4J. It was the sidewinder extended acquisition system based helmet system used for the AIM-9D/G. Here is link to a picture of the VTAS helmet and description of the sensor units.

http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtas.htm
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm

As far as pure air to air applications, we will probably start using unarmed bomb trucks in many situations that required a strike force. A small UCAV can do today what took many aircraft before. Air to air encounters will be around for a long while, but Desert Storm was probably a precursor to the future.

[old_pop2000]

Here is a good PDF on IFF/SIF equipment and modes. Something to understand, when you test and repair such equipment, it has to be done in a copper cage which is ground deeply into the earth and the door must be closed. If not, you can trigger an emergency mode on local aircraft or FAA radars. ..... and yes, it gets hotter than hell inside, without fans. So, you test components then, close the doors, to run the test that may cause the problem. Emergency beacons for pilots are tested the same way. In fact, I tested them both in the same caged room. Tricky, but it works.

http://jcs.dtic.mil/j6/cceb/acps/acp160/ACP160D.pdf

[steel_selachian]

Steel:
The AIM-7P weighs only about 235 lbs whereas the AIM-120C weighs about 335. The Sparrow is cheaper to build and with a range of 38 nm, is a BVR missile. It does not have fire and forget capability but trust me, ROE will not allow BVR kills, unless the friendly coalition aircraft have an IFF/SIF unit compatible with the US, there is too much chance of a friendly fire incident. Within the 38 nm of the AIM-7 range, the AIM-120 does not need aircraft support, but beyond that range it needs command inertial guidance from the firing aircraft. Understand that your PK drops dramatically beyond certain ranges as the missiles speed decreases. Aspect, speed, altitude, speed of the target, and how hard the opponent can turn all play a role in determining PK. With the advent of the AIM-9X and other WVR missiles that are IR seeking, helmet mounted sights, the "no escape" zones for these missiles is much wider than in Vietnam. I worked on one of the first helmet sights for the F4J. It was the sidewinder extended acquisition system based helmet system used for the AIM-9D/G. Here is link to a picture of the VTAS helmet and description of the sensor units.

http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtas.htm
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm

As far as pure air to air applications, we will probably start using unarmed bomb trucks in many situations that required a strike force. A small UCAV can do today what took many aircraft before. Air to air encounters will be around for a long while, but Desert Storm was probably a precursor to the future.

Dennis, where does that 235-pound weight figure for the AIM-7P come from? Last I checked it was just an improved AIM-7M; the Sparrow has the same length as the AMRAAM but has a wider airframe (8 inches vs. 7 inches) and weighs 510 pounds including a warhead twice the size of AMRAAM (88 pounds vs. 40 pounds). Overall, I doubt the F-35 will ever carry it; it's not planned for integration, it's out of production, the US hasn't even bothered to upgrade all the -7Ms to -7P configuration (-7Ps are being issued to replace -7Ms as they are expended/pulled from service), and once the F-15/16/18 leave service we won't have any planes wired to carry them.

In general I agree the F-35 is unlikely to need more than either 2xAMRAAM or 2xAMRAAM + 2xSidewinder for a standard bomb truck mission - in most cases even if F-22 support isn't available the objective is going to be to kill most of the enemy air assets on the ground with stealth aircraft and standoff weapons. I'd expect a CSG commander to make enemy airbases prime targets for sub-launched UGM-109s before getting within range, given that neither the F/A-18E nor the F-35C are dedicated fighters. Still, it would be handy to be able to turn the F-35 into an AAM truck if the need comes up. Against a capable opponent I doubt we'd stick to an ROE requiring visual ID; we saw the results of that in Vietnam. NCTR and C4I capabilities have also improved considerably since then.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis, where does that 235-pound weight figure for the AIM-7P come from? Last I checked it was just an improved AIM-7M; the Sparrow has the same length as the AMRAAM but has a wider airframe (8 inches vs. 7 inches) and weighs 510 pounds including a warhead twice the size of AMRAAM (88 pounds vs. 40 pounds). Overall, I doubt the F-35 will ever carry it; it's not planned for integration, it's out of production, the US hasn't even bothered to upgrade all the -7Ms to -7P configuration (-7Ps are being issued to replace -7Ms as they are expended/pulled from service), and once the F-15/16/18 leave service we won't have any planes wired to carry them.

In general I agree the F-35 is unlikely to need more than either 2xAMRAAM or 2xAMRAAM + 2xSidewinder for a standard bomb truck mission - in most cases even if F-22 support isn't available the objective is going to be to kill most of the enemy air assets on the ground with stealth aircraft and standoff weapons. I'd expect a CSG commander to make enemy airbases prime targets for sub-launched UGM-109s before getting within range, given that neither the F/A-18E nor the F-35C are dedicated fighters. Still, it would be handy to be able to turn the F-35 into an AAM truck if the need comes up. Against a capable opponent I doubt we'd stick to an ROE requiring visual ID; we saw the results of that in Vietnam. NCTR and C4I capabilities have also improved considerably since then.

HI Steel:
I was quoting the approx. launch weight for an AIM-7A, 7C,7D and F models. The Navy manual states the AIM-7M/P has a weight of 509.5 lbs, 144.2 inches long and 40.24 inches wide with wings and fins attached. Interface units are the LAU-92 for the US Navy, LAU-115/116 for same, LAU-106 and 16S1500 for the USAF.

As to operational strategy and tactics, the opponent will dictate those elements. However, I can't visualize any current opponent against whom, we will be required to use the F-35s as air supremacy fighters. I see cruise missiles and UCAV's as the primary, high threat platforms for IEAD planning and execution.

[steel_selachian]

So as per SecDef Gates's announcement, the F-35B is "on probation" through 2012, after which it may well be axed if it isn't ready to roll. So what is the alternative, given that the Marines have said they do not have a "Plan B?" Presumably the Harrier and F/A-18C/D will be kept in service a bit longer, and the Hornet squadrons can switch to either the Super Hornet or F-35C and fly off the CVNs. However, that leaves the question of whether or not we still want or need STOVL aircraft (not necessarily stealth fighters, just a decent CAS platform) flying off the LHDs and LHAs, keeping in mind that the Zulu Cobras can't keep up in range or speed with the MV-22s.

[old_pop2000]

So as per SecDef Gates's announcement, the F-35B is "on probation" through 2012, after which it may well be axed if it isn't ready to roll. So what is the alternative, given that the Marines have said they do not have a "Plan B?" Presumably the Harrier and F/A-18C/D will be kept in service a bit longer, and the Hornet squadrons can switch to either the Super Hornet or F-35C and fly off the CVNs. However, that leaves the question of whether or not we still want or need STOVL aircraft (not necessarily stealth fighters, just a decent CAS platform) flying off the LHDs and LHAs, keeping in mind that the Zulu Cobras can't keep up in range or speed with the MV-22s.

I believe that increasing the purchase of F-18E/Fs tailored for the Marines is an easy fix. No stealth or STOVL will not make much difference to Marine aviation. It's possible that they might increase the purchase or design a UCAV suitable for their needs to offload some of the mission requirements. There are many ways of skinning this cat.

[steel_selachian]

I believe that increasing the purchase of F-18E/Fs tailored for the Marines is an easy fix. No stealth or STOVL will not make much difference to Marine aviation. It's possible that they might increase the purchase or design a UCAV suitable for their needs to offload some of the mission requirements. There are many ways of skinning this cat.

But likely there will be lots of hissing and scratching before it's done.

[old_pop2000]

But likely there will be lots of hissing and scratching before it's done.

I suspect, the Marines will suddenly opt for the F-35 CTOL and forget the STOVL version. No hissing and scratching, they will either get the STOVL working or go for the CTOL version. That would probably be a better choice because the forward deployment aspect for the Marines is BS. No one is going to forward deploy an F-35B, with the cost per unit. The C is a better bird for the money.

[old_pop2000]

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110106_efv_jsf.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

As I thought, the Marines may get more Navy F-18s, probably E/F's. This would make better sense until the CTOL version of the F-35 design can be adapted to Marine use. The conversion of the design to Marine requirements would not take much adaptation. Comm gear and ordnance requirements might top the list.

[steel_selachian]

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110106_efv_jsf.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

As I thought, the Marines may get more Navy F-18s, probably E/F's. This would make better sense until the CTOL version of the F-35 design can be adapted to Marine use. The conversion of the design to Marine requirements would not take much adaptation. Comm gear and ordnance requirements might top the list.

What sort of changes to ordnance requirements would those be? I'd imagine the Marines are more geared towards carrying CAS requirements, possibly including standbys like rocket pods, Rockeyes, incendiaries, and good 'ol unguided Mk.82s.

[old_pop2000]

What sort of changes to ordnance requirements would those be? I'd imagine the Marines are more geared towards carrying CAS requirements, possibly including standbys like rocket pods, Rockeyes, incendiaries, and good 'ol unguided Mk.82s.

Hi Steel:
It isn't just the type of ordnance along with their racks and launchers, it's the location for these and other items such as targeting pods. i.e. On an F-18C/D, station 3 & 4 are interchangeable with station 7 and 6. However, targeting pods on station 4 would have an impact on weapons and their trajectories on station 3. The Navy is now using computational fluid dynamics to calculate information on transonic effects. This was true of the GBU-12, MK-83 and FPU-8 fuel tank. The idea is to eliminate testing. Extensive testing was required for the dual AIM-120 assembly to ensure that the offset center would not affect targeting. We are now talking about a whole new aircraft, so these CFD calculations and testing must be done again, to verify the weapons the Marines have chosen for their version of plane. These would include guided rockets, direct attack and stand-off weapons. The idea is that you don't just hang the launcher or rack, put the weapon on it and away we go. It's a whole lot more complicated especially with an internal weapons store configuration with external weapons stores.

[steel_selachian]

Hi Steel:
It isn't just the type of ordnance along with their racks and launchers, it's the location for these and other items such as targeting pods. i.e. On an F-18C/D, station 3 & 4 are interchangeable with station 7 and 6. However, targeting pods on station 4 would have an impact on weapons and their trajectories on station 3. The Navy is now using computational fluid dynamics to calculate information on transonic effects. This was true of the GBU-12, MK-83 and FPU-8 fuel tank. The idea is to eliminate testing. Extensive testing was required for the dual AIM-120 assembly to ensure that the offset center would not affect targeting. We are now talking about a whole new aircraft, so these CFD calculations and testing must be done again, to verify the weapons the Marines have chosen for their version of plane. These would include guided rockets, direct attack and stand-off weapons. The idea is that you don't just hang the launcher or rack, put the weapon on it and away we go. It's a whole lot more complicated especially with an internal weapons store configuration with external weapons stores.


I was more thinking about what weapons the Marines would be using that the Navy already hasn't done or will do those studies for.

As far as the AV-8Bs soldiering on, how much longer would those birds be good for?

[old_pop2000]

I was more thinking about what weapons the Marines would be using that the Navy already hasn't done or will do those studies for.

As far as the AV-8Bs soldiering on, how much longer would those birds be good for?

Hi Steel:

The Marine depot at Cherry Point is probably the Depot Repair Point for the bird. They will probably examine the flight hours and the work will be gauged on that. The following document I have provided will explain much of this effort. Examine page 16, bottom, for a chart on how they will proceed at the depot.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10618r.pdf

During the E & E process, they will identify parts that are critical and non-critical. They will probably magnaflux many areas and if cracks are found, the structure will have to be evaluated for cost benefit analysis for repair or scrapping. The structure is the critical aspect of the process. Is the structure sound enough to continue to fly the bird. Everything else can be replaced at the depot or sent to the depot repair point for repairs. Sorry, but a definitive answer, at this moment, isn't possible until Cherry Point can evaluate the birds in service to see how the structures are holding up.

As far as testing of ordnance, that's probably already been accomplished at Yuma. They also do some structure testing at a facility on the base.

The key to this issue of the STOVL version or the CTOL version is whether forward deployment is vital to the Marine effort. I can't really see any situation where forward deployment is that vital. In most scenarios USAF or Naval fighters will have control of the skies. In most scenarios, these two powerful elements will take down the IADS including airfields first before proceeding with any forward deployment. The Marines are just hedging their bets and it maybe impractical.

[steel_selachian]

That was one of the reasons I asked how much longer the Harriers could be kept around. Given that they do the job they were built for - the sort of visual-range CAS missions where stealth and supersonic speed aren't required, but affordability and reliability are - I'd expect if the F-35B goes bust the Corps would try to get as many years as they can out of those birds while the VMFA units transition to F/A-18Es or F-35Cs flying from shore bases or CVNs.

[old_pop2000]

That was one of the reasons I asked how much longer the Harriers could be kept around. Given that they do the job they were built for - the sort of visual-range CAS missions where stealth and supersonic speed aren't required, but affordability and reliability are - I'd expect if the F-35B goes bust the Corps would try to get as many years as they can out of those birds while the VMFA units transition to F/A-18Es or F-35Cs flying from shore bases or CVNs.

Hi Steel:
In the world, over 75% of the people, live within 100 miles of the sea. Hence, littoral zone and brown water operations are the priority. They always have. However, if you examine Marine history over the last 50 years, they have never needed forward deployed VTOL aircraft or used them. In fact, in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc. no real forward deployed aircraft were required. The Marines may still be fighting Guadalcanal. And even there, they had, eventually three fully equipped fields to fly from. VTOL and STOVL aircraft are nice theoretical concepts but they are limited in range and load capacity. They are also limited in their ACM capacity due to the extra weight and lack of some kinds of electronics. Remember the fans take up the area where some fuel takes belong. Hence, limited range. The Marines need to revise their CONOPS and develop a realistic plan that uses existing CTOL aircraft. Believe me, the Brits could have used an air wing of F4s during the Falklands, not the AV-8s.

As far as the F-18E/F, I am not certain they have corrected the wing vibration issue which required you to remove the missiles and put a new set on. The vibration tends to have ill effects on electronics, even if they are soldered onto the PCBs. It's acceleration is also poor, with the extra weight.

[thevanderploegs]

Wasn't the original thought behind the V/STOL aircraft one of ability to operate from improvised or no airfields (ie: parking lots, or open fields) because it was assumed that air bases would be destroyed early in a conflict? It would be an advantage to have a fighter that can take off from a stretch of road or from concealed locations around the country-side if the 10,000' runway is pockmarked with craters. The scenario never played out and mid-air refueling obviated the need to have airbases close to the front lines. IIRC this was the original thinking with the RAF when they started the development that led to the Harrier 50 years ago.

[old_pop2000]

Wasn't the original thought behind the V/STOL aircraft one of ability to operate from improvised or no airfields (ie: parking lots, or open fields) because it was assumed that air bases would be destroyed early in a conflict? It would be an advantage to have a fighter that can take off from a stretch of road or from concealed locations around the country-side if the 10,000' runway is pockmarked with craters. The scenario never played out and mid-air refueling obviated the need to have airbases close to the front lines. IIRC this was the original thinking with the RAF when they started the development that led to the Harrier 50 years ago.

Hi Gary:
That certainly was the original concept although It might have stemmed from their experiences in the BOB where forward air fields were bombed on a daily basis. In case of a war with Russia in Northern Europe it probably occurred to the English that that might happen again. The Marines simply adopted the plane for obvious reasons as its limited capability still served them. Again, I've never seen an operation where it was truly needed.

Here is some interesting information and history. It's pretty accurate. http://www.airforceworld.com/attacker/eng/av8.htm

[Mike Malanaphy]

Wasn't the original thought behind the V/STOL aircraft one of ability to operate from improvised or no airfields (ie: parking lots, or open fields) because it was assumed that air bases would be destroyed early in a conflict? It would be an advantage to have a fighter that can take off from a stretch of road or from concealed locations around the country-side if the 10,000' runway is pockmarked with craters. The scenario never played out and mid-air refueling obviated the need to have airbases close to the front lines. IIRC this was the original thinking with the RAF when they started the development that led to the Harrier 50 years ago.

HI Gary,

It was certainly was. During the Cold War, it was anticiapted that the Soviets would use nuclear and chemical weapons to attack airfields and other support infrastrucrure; not only to negate NATO's tactical air, but the ability of the US to airlift troops and supples in.

There was a lot of talk about how to operate from roads and other areas away from airports, but even with VSTOL, you stilll need maintenance, fuel, and other facilities to operate with any real effectiveness. A bigger foot print is easier for the enemy to detect and target. The Swedes had a credible ability and designed roads that could support jet aircraft with the other facilities blended into the countryside. How well it would have worked is another story.

The other issue is that VSTOL aircraft trade off performance for that capability. Like any weapons system, they trade off capibilites within the design envelope...something has to give. In the real confilct where VSTOL was put to the test, the Harriers did OK air to air, but were vulnerable to ground fire. Ark Royal and her Phantoms could have been much more effective. The Argentines were hampered by a poor air to air missle and flying at the extreme end of their radius of action with little or no fuel for combat. Had the Falklands been 200 miles closer and the Argentines had Sidewinders, might have been a different story. As an expedient, it worked under very limited circumstances.

In our discussion about littoral warfare, an OHG with a Harrier II instead of a helicopter might be a useful combination. But a very expensive solution to the problem.

The US Army is able to operate helicopters that way, but only because they had an airliftable set of support equipment.

[old_pop2000]

HI Gary,

It was certainly was. During the Cold War, it was anticiapted that the Soviets would use nuclear and chemical weapons to attack airfields and other support infrastrucrure; not only to negate NATO's tactical air, but the ability of the US to airlift troops and supples in.

There was a lot of talk about how to operate from roads and other areas away from airports, but even with VSTOL, you stilll need maintenance, fuel, and other facilities to operate with any real effectiveness. A bigger foot print is easier for the enemy to detect and target. The Swedes had a credible ability and designed roads that could support jet aircraft with the other facilities blended into the countryside. How well it would have worked is another story.

The other issue is that VSTOL aircraft trade off performance for that capability. Like any weapons system, they trade off capibilites within the design envelope...something has to give. In the real confilct where VSTOL was put to the test, the Harriers did OK air to air, but were vulnerable to ground fire. Ark Royal and her Phantoms could have been much more effective. The Argentines were hampered by a poor air to air missle and flying at the extreme end of their radius of action with little or no fuel for combat. Had the Falklands been 200 miles closer and the Argentines had Sidewinders, might have been a different story. As an expedient, it worked under very limited circumstances.

In our discussion about littoral warfare, an OHG with a Harrier II instead of a helicopter might be a useful combination. But a very expensive solution to the problem.

The US Army is able to operate helicopters that way, but only because they had an airliftable set of support equipment.

Hi Mike:
Good piece and absolutely on target. The military is forced to plan for almost all contingencies, no matter how remote that scenario might be. Unfortunately, that is an expensive way to plan. The Marines may have to upgrade the AV-8Bs at the depot, use the F-18Cs and acquire some F-35 CTOL aircraft to augment. Or...... revise their concept of operations and adjust to changing conditions. Perish the thought! The Marines are still living the trauma of being abandoned by Frank Fletcher and Navy at Guadalcanal almost sixty-nine years ago. Time to get over it, gentlemen.

[old_pop2000]

There are some other, pressing issues for both the Navy and Marines. That revolves around the current inventory of tactical fighters. As of January 2010, the Navy/Marine force had 1100 aircraft. 640 F/A-18A-D Hornets, 400 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets(Navy) and about 150 Harriers. The service life for an F-18 is about 8000 hrs. The high usage of aircraft in our recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has seriously reduced the number of years left on these aircraft. Example: If you assume a mission of two hours with two missions per day, then we can put over 4 hrs per day on one airframe.

Generally, the estimate is 600 hrs is two years of flying. This means that the bird has a life of around 13 years. If we have more combat such as we have had, that time can be reduced considerably. When you reached that end point, what do you do? Well, before getting close, you can SLEP or service life extension program. SLEP will perform more extnesive modifications on the aircraft extending its life, maybe another 4000 hours or 6.5 years. I've participated in four these. Two for the F4, one for the E2C and one for the F-14 Tomcat. The Navy has already planned to SLEP the Hornets and will begin in early 2012. However, SLEP takes a bird out of service for over a year, minimum. There is also the problem of finding more wrong with the aircraft once it is field-stripped. Sometimes cracks in the wing support structures are found and in the center barrel. The Navy will not finish the research and planning for a possible Hornet SLEP until 2014. In most cases, however, you field strip the bird of useful components and send it to AMARC.

There are, according the CBO, four alternatives. The HFH program for 509 F-18s with no SLEP; 220 in HFH with 289 in SLEP; 509 in HFH, 126 new super hornets and drop 93 F-35s; 509 in HFH, purchase 126 new Super Hornets. This last alternative proves the highest addition aircraft- years of service. One aircraft-year is equal to one year of service from one aircraft.

As one can see, this issue of the replacement of the AV-8s and F-18s has alternatives and can be complicated. The other problem is the Navy's requirement that the Marines provide one squadron aboard the carriers. They want F-35Cs due to the superior range and heavier payload plus the B model(STOVL) is a real PIB aboard a carrier with the jet blast from the landings and takeoffs. You essentially have to bring the whole air wing in the hanger before launching these aircraft or you will have FOD flying everywhere. The Marines don't want the mix, they just want the B model.

BTW, the top end range of available aircraft that the Navy/Marines are working toward is 1240 aircraft. 37 Navy and 20 MC squadrons. The lower end is 1060. All this by 2025. Another glich is that an aircraft that is very close to the 8000 hours isn't worth the expenditure of funds for SLEP. CBO estimates that 300 F-18s are suitable for SLEP.

Aren't you glad you aren't SECDEF Gates?

[old_pop2000]

FYI
Before you can do a complete SLEP, you have to perform a SLAP. A Service Life Assessment Program. This program consists of structural analysis of the main landing gear, arresting hook and catapult back-up structures, vertical tails, wings and fuselage. F/A-18E/f life limits are 6000 FH, 2250 Cats/Traps and 15,750 total landing. The goals for the SLAP are 12,000 FH, 3500 C/Ts and 22,500 total landings. Boeing is the sole source contractor for the effort. They own MacAir.

[steel_selachian]

That was one thing I noted the other day glancing at the Navy's current roster of VFA squadrons - a number of the legacy Hornet squadrons are converting over to the Super Bug. The CVW based in Japan is now being moved entirely over to F/A-18E/Fs, which makes me wonder if the Navy is planning to eventually transition some of those units to F-35Cs or stand up new squadrons for the bird. If the former, I wonder if some of those birds would get "handed down" to the Marines.

6000 hour limit for the Super Hornet? Kind of makes me wonder about the tradeoff versus the old F-14s. They were a PIB as far as day-to-day maintenance, but some of those airframes pulled 30 years of service - BuNo. 159600 was built in 1976, later converted to F-14D standard, and made the final Tomcat cruise in 2006. That's a hell of a lot of cats and traps.

[old_pop2000]

That was one thing I noted the other day glancing at the Navy's current roster of VFA squadrons - a number of the legacy Hornet squadrons are converting over to the Super Bug. The CVW based in Japan is now being moved entirely over to F/A-18E/Fs, which makes me wonder if the Navy is planning to eventually transition some of those units to F-35Cs or stand up new squadrons for the bird. If the former, I wonder if some of those birds would get "handed down" to the Marines.

6000 hour limit for the Super Hornet? Kind of makes me wonder about the tradeoff versus the old F-14s. They were a PIB as far as day-to-day maintenance, but some of those airframes pulled 30 years of service - BuNo. 159600 was built in 1976, later converted to F-14D standard, and made the final Tomcat cruise in 2006. That's a hell of a lot of cats and traps.

F-14 required 50 hrs maintenance per flight while the Super Hornet requires about 10. Big difference.

[steel_selachian]

That's what I thought, but I was wondering about the overall integrity of the airframe - i.e., whether we can expect to get 30 years out of some of the Super Hornets with an SLEP. The Tomcat did have a rep as the last true "Grumman Ironworks" product; the scrappers at AMARC had issues smashing the airframes.

[old_pop2000]

That's what I thought, but I was wondering about the overall integrity of the airframe - i.e., whether we can expect to get 30 years out of some of the Super Hornets with an SLEP. The Tomcat did have a rep as the last true "Grumman Ironworks" product; the scrappers at AMARC had issues smashing the airframes.

The wingbox on an F-14 was titanium. We've already had problems with cracking in the centerbarrel of the A models. We had to return them to Boeing for repairs. Hard to say, what they will find with SLEP on the younger birds.

[old_pop2000]

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110125_strike_eagle_aesa.html?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

This is the kind of improvements that are made through a SLEP program. SLEP meaning the service life extension program. I've participated in these. These can be extensive reworks and upgrades. For the F4s, we improved them by adding SEAM, new upgraded wiring, leading edge slats for maneuvering and upgraded engines. If you can't procure a new bird or enough, this is the kind of program that can extend the life of any aircraft. They are usually cost effective.

[old_pop2000]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/16/fighter.jet.funding/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

I hate sound pessimistic, but this might be the beginning of the end for this bird, at least for some of the project. I suspect, that the STOVL version is all but dead as are the new engine projects. If other purchasers can provide more funding, it might be able to be maintained, but with budgetary constraints and a difficulty finding places to use this aircraft, its days might be numbered. UCAV's may be causing much of this.

[steel_selachian]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/16/fighter.jet.funding/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

I hate sound pessimistic, but this might be the beginning of the end for this bird, at least for some of the project. I suspect, that the STOVL version is all but dead as are the new engine projects. If other purchasers can provide more funding, it might be able to be maintained, but with budgetary constraints and a difficulty finding places to use this aircraft, its days might be numbered. UCAV's may be causing much of this.

Well, the F136 project has long been a funds sink - it's basically a leftover from the teething problems with the early F100 engines in the F-15 program, a requirement that the plane have a second engine ready to go (likewise, the ATF prototypes had the F119 and F120 engines to run through). That article is a bit of shoddy reporting - makes it sound like Obama and Gates are out to can the whole F-35 program instead of just the F136 engine. I highly doubt the F-35A and C models will get the ax; the B's future is doubtful (enough that I'm probably going to stop putting them in NWP scenarios).

[old_pop2000]

Well, the F136 project has long been a funds sink - it's basically a leftover from the teething problems with the early F100 engines in the F-15 program, a requirement that the plane have a second engine ready to go (likewise, the ATF prototypes had the F119 and F120 engines to run through). That article is a bit of shoddy reporting - makes it sound like Obama and Gates are out to can the whole F-35 program instead of just the F136 engine. I highly doubt the F-35A and C models will get the ax; the B's future is doubtful (enough that I'm probably going to stop putting them in NWP scenarios).

I agree, I am going to peruse through defense update material and see the progression of information. I suspect the STOVL and second engines are probably dead but with the early shutdown of the F-22 line, the USAF is going to need the F-35. I believe Gates and Congress will authorize more F-18E/Fs for the Marines and Navy along with continued research into UCAVs. If they mothball some of the Nimitz carriers, you could see some of the F-35Cs eliminated.

[steel_selachian]

I agree, I am going to peruse through defense update material and see the progression of information. I suspect the STOVL and second engines are probably dead but with the early shutdown of the F-22 line, the USAF is going to need the F-35. I believe Gates and Congress will authorize more F-18E/Fs for the Marines and Navy along with continued research into UCAVs. If they mothball some of the Nimitz carriers, you could see some of the F-35Cs eliminated.

I have been wondering what the Navy's plan is with the F-35C - they've been converting a number of F/A-18C squadrons to the Super Bug; nominally right now there are enough in service or in the pipeline for every CVW to have 2-3 (CVW-5 in Japan actually has four Super Hornet squadrons now; once the EA-18G gets going with that outfit the Super Hornet is going to be the only airframe in the unit). I know I saw some older (circa 1997-98) projections that had the CVWs coalescing around 3 Super Bug squadrons and 1 of JSFs in the 2011-2020 time frame. Assuming a 10-CVW force (current size) that works out to something like 200-250 F-35Cs early on; if more are to be bought as planned I assume some of the Super Hornet units are supposed to switch over to the JSF eventually.

[old_pop2000]

I have been wondering what the Navy's plan is with the F-35C - they've been converting a number of F/A-18C squadrons to the Super Bug; nominally right now there are enough in service or in the pipeline for every CVW to have 2-3 (CVW-5 in Japan actually has four Super Hornet squadrons now; once the EA-18G gets going with that outfit the Super Hornet is going to be the only airframe in the unit). I know I saw some older (circa 1997-98) projections that had the CVWs coalescing around 3 Super Bug squadrons and 1 of JSFs in the 2011-2020 time frame. Assuming a 10-CVW force (current size) that works out to something like 200-250 F-35Cs early on; if more are to be bought as planned I assume some of the Super Hornet units are supposed to switch over to the JSF eventually.


Hi Steel:
It's really hard to assess what the CVWs will look like in about five to ten years. They will have at least four attack squadrons, probably two F-18E/F and maybe two of F-35s, one squadron of E2Ds, when available, a detachment of C2s and a detachment of EA-18Gs. We are looking at an air wing composition of around 74 aircraft not counting the UCAV's that might be assigned along with ASW Helos. This maybe the Gerald R. Fold composition. The Marine squadron is difficult to assess.

Don't laugh at this idea. Marine air might disappear except for helos on LHAs. I can see no real purpose having a Marine air wing any longer. Again, this isn't Guadalcanal anymore, times have changed. Coalition warfare, with the air forces from other nations, our carrier air wings and USAF plus Army UCAV's are making it almost a waste of money. I can see more UCAV's in the Marine Corp future, very good weapon for Marines, flying from LHAs and other ships.

Nimitz will be about 36 years old, this year. If put into ready-reserve within five years, she could still be a capable ship for any necessary ramp up. This goes for the Vinson also. The Fords will have smaller crews which will reduce OM&N funding. This could, over time help offset the cost of the F-35Cs. Problem is the LCS will absorb more funding and so will newer LHA's. The problem for the Navy and Marines, is the lack of a credible adversary.

http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/NAV2010_04_Future_carrier_CVW_amphib_ACE_sp.pdf

Remember that in the 2500 years of history between the western culture and the east, even with western made technology, eastern empires and nations, including the Mexicas and Incas, all have faired poorly, losing every time against western nations. From Salamis to the Gulf war, this has not changed. That isn't chavinistic, it is an observable fact. The most deadly and horrific wars have always occurred between western nations, not against eastern. Both World wars were between western nations, although the Japanese used western naval doctrine, German army doctrine but adapted it to the samurai code.

Question: Would the last concept be a good subject for a thread of its own? Think we could get some interesting ideas and comments?

[steel_selachian]

Probably - much as I cherish the tradition of threads whizzing off on tangents here, that's something in a different vein than future aircraft discussion.

Speaking of which, something up your alley: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/27/af-worries-jsf-costs-may-soar/

[old_pop2000]

Probably - much as I cherish the tradition of threads whizzing off on tangents here, that's something in a different vein than future aircraft discussion.

Speaking of which, something up your alley: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/27/af-worries-jsf-costs-may-soar/

Hi Steel:

Concerning the article, the maintenance and operating costs are termed OM&N in the navy. It means operations and maintenance, Navy. As far as the Navy study, they are usually right on the mark. The navy learned many moons ago, that self-serving studies only prolong the problem and then GAO and Congress get into the act, and that is not good for promotions or projects. The idea is that using large buys of the aircraft, keeps the logistics trail full with parts, keeps suppliers gainfully employed and reduces maintenance costs over time. I agree with SECDEF Gates, that US Government depots can do the work of overhaul, upgrade and maintenance far cheaper than private sources. The overseas buyers will want a piece of the action. They will buy the initial bird, but will want their companies to be partnered in the production of the aircraft and of the parts. This is the era of globalization. We can examine the F-16 program for success in this idea of the globalization of parts production.

Our real problem is how we design our specifications based on a moving target of requirements. The moving target continues to change the specifications for the aircraft designers and then we start the snowball effect of increased procurement costs and cost overruns. All weapons procurement means labor and material costs. Usually, its the labor costs that drive up the price. Its easy with government depots, because we are at the mercy of cost of living adjustments from Congress and wage studies. I am retired and I haven't had a COLA in two years. No problem, because according to the government, inflation went into the negative direction. Yea, but go buy gas, tomatoes etc. Everything has now gone up. This has an effect on wages in the areas where the parts manufacturers and government depots are located. Hence, labor cost will rise and the cost of maintenance then goes up. It's better to initially settle on an established set of requirements, design the specs, build the plane and once in service, start the upgrade process to add capability. You can't build the perfect nutcracker on the first try. Built it, use it, then modify it to get the damn thing to work better.

The F4B's had radars with single target track capability, no ECM to speak of and no MTI. It also could not drop bombs and hit anything, it was really kentucky windage at work. I can list a dozen items it was missing, but it still went to war and killed the enemy. We and the USAF then went to work upgrading the birds and designing new ones like the F4J, F4D and finally the F4E. But, it took time and money. This is the problem as I see it for the F-35 and all the new birds.

I might, BTW, start that new thread.

[steel_selachian]

Hi Steel:

Concerning the article, the maintenance and operating costs are termed OM&N in the navy. It means operations and maintenance, Navy. As far as the Navy study, they are usually right on the mark. The navy learned many moons ago, that self-serving studies only prolong the problem and then GAO and Congress get into the act, and that is not good for promotions or projects. The idea is that using large buys of the aircraft, keeps the logistics trail full with parts, keeps suppliers gainfully employed and reduces maintenance costs over time. I agree with SECDEF Gates, that US Government depots can do the work of overhaul, upgrade and maintenance far cheaper than private sources. The overseas buyers will want a piece of the action. They will buy the initial bird, but will want their companies to be partnered in the production of the aircraft and of the parts. This is the era of globalization. We can examine the F-16 program for success in this idea of the globalization of parts production.

Our real problem is how we design our specifications based on a moving target of requirements. The moving target continues to change the specifications for the aircraft designers and then we start the snowball effect of increased procurement costs and cost overruns. All weapons procurement means labor and material costs. Usually, its the labor costs that drive up the price. Its easy with government depots, because we are at the mercy of cost of living adjustments from Congress and wage studies. I am retired and I haven't had a COLA in two years. No problem, because according to the government, inflation went into the negative direction. Yea, but go buy gas, tomatoes etc. Everything has now gone up. This has an effect on wages in the areas where the parts manufacturers and government depots are located. Hence, labor cost will rise and the cost of maintenance then goes up. It's better to initially settle on an established set of requirements, design the specs, build the plane and once in service, start the upgrade process to add capability. You can't build the perfect nutcracker on the first try. Built it, use it, then modify it to get the damn thing to work better.

The F4B's had radars with single target track capability, no ECM to speak of and no MTI. It also could not drop bombs and hit anything, it was really kentucky windage at work. I can list a dozen items it was missing, but it still went to war and killed the enemy. We and the USAF then went to work upgrading the birds and designing new ones like the F4J, F4D and finally the F4E. But, it took time and money. This is the problem as I see it for the F-35 and all the new birds.

I might, BTW, start that new thread.

I have to admit I'm highly skeptical of the whole contractor push - it seems to me we end up paying more to get the same job done.

That is the thing about modern aircraft - with the exception of stealth features, you can do a lot to an airframe to improve sensors, performance, and weapons capabilities over its lifetime. Several nations have some pretty tricked-out F-4s flying around these days, which will probably soldier on until those air forces acquire F-35s.

Additionally, there are some jobs for which the F-35 may be plain expensive overkill. Last I checked starting in 2028 the USAF wants to start replacing the A-10 fleet with F-35s. The Hog's job, like the Harrier, is cheap, relatively low-tech WVR close air support. The F-35 lacks the low-speed handling, armor, and heavy cannon; you don't need a $60-$80 mil stealth fighter to shoot up ground targets at close range but you darn well do need a stable gun/missile platform that can shrug off 23 mm cannon fire and won't take a lot of delicate work to keep in action. One wonders if the Marines should have just gone with a non-stealth supersonic or high subsonic STOVL aircraft to step into the Harrier's shoes - longer range, more payload, but not with all the sophisticated frills of the F-35 family.

[old_pop2000]

I have to admit I'm highly skeptical of the whole contractor push - it seems to me we end up paying more to get the same job done.

That is the thing about modern aircraft - with the exception of stealth features, you can do a lot to an airframe to improve sensors, performance, and weapons capabilities over its lifetime. Several nations have some pretty tricked-out F-4s flying around these days, which will probably soldier on until those air forces acquire F-35s.

Additionally, there are some jobs for which the F-35 may be plain expensive overkill. Last I checked starting in 2028 the USAF wants to start replacing the A-10 fleet with F-35s. The Hog's job, like the Harrier, is cheap, relatively low-tech WVR close air support. The F-35 lacks the low-speed handling, armor, and heavy cannon; you don't need a $60-$80 mil stealth fighter to shoot up ground targets at close range but you darn well do need a stable gun/missile platform that can shrug off 23 mm cannon fire and won't take a lot of delicate work to keep in action. One wonders if the Marines should have just gone with a non-stealth supersonic or high subsonic STOVL aircraft to step into the Harrier's shoes - longer range, more payload, but not with all the sophisticated frills of the F-35 family.

The problem with your idea is that you must examine requirements based on possible future scenarios. The A-10 was designed as a Cold War tank buster. For that purpose, it was well designed but that was prior to the advancements in integrated air defense systems. Be careful using the Gulf War, that may not be a good picture of how future military efforts might unfold. New advances in artillery ordnance and helicopter gunships, can do a very credible job of reducing tank forces. However, is this really the next scenario we will face? Who is our next adversaries and what kind of forces will they be able to field? North Korea, Iran, China? Is China really an adversary. Threat analysis and assessment is absolutely vital. This does not address whether the F-35 can replace the A-10. For the A-10's mission, it probably can't but it probably doesn't have to. See the problem. This is the issue with the moving target of requirements based on the moving target of scenarios.

Just a note: If you would like to discuss the concept of Western military domination, why not do it here? I don't see much participation from anyone else.

[ksbearski]

Dennis-

I thought the really only effective tank plinker during the gulf war was the F-111. I thought that after 2-3 A-10's got shot down in a day, the Coalition reverted to using F-111's with their passive thermal viewing systems to kill Iraqi armor. I know that was twenty years ago, but what does the AF use now? The A-10 are strictly ANG driven now, are they not? Or are they retired?

[Armand2REP]

I don't know which units use them, but I do know they are in Afghanistan now.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis-

I thought the really only effective tank plinker during the gulf war was the F-111. I thought that after 2-3 A-10's got shot down in a day, the Coalition reverted to using F-111's with their passive thermal viewing systems to kill Iraqi armor. I know that was twenty years ago, but what does the AF use now? The A-10 are strictly ANG driven now, are they not? Or are they retired?

Hi Barry:

A-10's flew about 8000 sorties. There were only about 136 A-10s and 12 OA-10s deployed. Ten of 15 were damaged but returned to action and only six were actually shot down. On one mission, two A-10s destroyed 23 Iraqi tanks with missiles and cannons.
DOD credits the A-10 with 1000 tanks, 1200 artillery pieces, and 2000 other military vehicles. Confirmed kills include 967 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 1306 trucks, 501 armored personnel carriers, 28 command posts, along with SCUD hunting, SEAD and attacks on early warning radars

According to captured Iraqi officers and men, the A-10 was the most feared and recognizable aircraft at the front. It scared them because it could loiter and chose its target, then destroy it. They never knew what the target might be or when they would finally kill it.

As to the F-111, 67 F-111Fs of the 48th TFW flew 2500 sorties, destroyed 2203 targets, including direct hits on 920 tanks, 252 artillery pieces, 245 hardened aircraft shelters, 13 runways, 113 bunkers, and 12 bridges. A total of 5500 bombs were dropped. Almost 85 percent of these bombs were precision guided munitions. The F-111E model did not have the precision guided weapons capability and dropped Mk 82 and MK84s. They flew out of Incirlik, Turkey with the 20th TFW.

I would say that both aircraft performed admirably but the A-10 was probably the best daytime, battlefield close air support aircraft in service.

BTW, the USAF has never liked close air support. You don't make general by destroying enemy tanks. You do it by dropping big nuclear bombs from B-52s and the like or shooting down enemy fighters. I'll bet there are very few, if any, Generals that have flown A-10 Hogs.

[old_pop2000]

I don't know which units use them, but I do know they are in Afghanistan now.

The 81st Fighter squadron stationed at Bagram AB, Afghanistan. The birds are maintained by the 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Wing.

[old_pop2000]

CAS is defined by Joint Publication 1-02 as Air action by fixed and rotary winged aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.

The USAF defines it as the application of aerospace forces in support of the land component commander's objectives

The problem has always been that the USAF since its beginnings has thought of itself as a strategic force, whereas the Army has always thought of it as a tactical force. This problem still exists. The Marine Corps aviators have always known that their job was to support the ground troops. USAF has always used the Luftwaffe as an example of what not to do. However, CAS has always been, since WWII, an important component of warfighting.

[steel_selachian]

The 81st Fighter squadron stationed at Bagram AB, Afghanistan. The birds are maintained by the 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Wing.

Given that I like to put together lists of squadrons used in my FC scenarios, I can list four active-duty wings using the A-10.

81st FS - Spangdahlem AB, Germany
74th and 75th FS - Moody AFB, Georgia
25th FS - Osan AB, Korea
354th, 357th, and 358th FS - Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona

On top of that there are five ANG squadrons (not counting the PA ANG 103rd FS, which is going to turn in its A-10s next year) and four AFRES squadrons, one of which is the A-10 training unit. Whether or not the Hog is going to be useful in future conflicts is a good question, but it is cheap, tough, easy to keep flying, and packs a credible wallop at standoff and close range. With the A-10C upgrade in progress they have a new flight computer, glass cockpit MFDs, a remote video datalink for the FAC role, an expanded PGM capability including JDAMs and WCMDs, and the capability to mount either the Litening or Sniper targeting pods (which would give it the same E/O and FLIR capabilities as the F-35).

[old_pop2000]

Given that I like to put together lists of squadrons used in my FC scenarios, I can list four active-duty wings using the A-10.

81st FS - Spangdahlem AB, Germany
74th and 75th FS - Moody AFB, Georgia
25th FS - Osan AB, Korea
354th, 357th, and 358th FS - Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona

On top of that there are five ANG squadrons (not counting the PA ANG 103rd FS, which is going to turn in its A-10s next year) and four AFRES squadrons, one of which is the A-10 training unit. Whether or not the Hog is going to be useful in future conflicts is a good question, but it is cheap, tough, easy to keep flying, and packs a credible wallop at standoff and close range. With the A-10C upgrade in progress they have a new flight computer, glass cockpit MFDs, a remote video datalink for the FAC role, an expanded PGM capability including JDAMs and WCMDs, and the capability to mount either the Litening or Sniper targeting pods (which would give it the same E/O and FLIR capabilities as the F-35).

As of 2009, which is the most recent list I've been able to find, here is what was available:

25th FS at Osan AB
47th FS at Barksdale AFB, training
74th & 75th FS"s at Moody
81st FS at Bagram AB
103rd FS ANG at Willow Grove ARS
104th FS ANG at Martin State AP Air Guard Station
107th FS ANG, Selfridge ANGB
163rd FS ANG, Fort Wayne Internation Airport
184th FS ANG, Fort Smith Regional Airport
190th FS ANG, Boise ANGB
303rd FS at Whiteman AFB
354th FS training, at Davis-Monthan AFB
358th FS training, at Davis-Monthan AFB
66th Weapons Squadron at Nellis AFB
422 Test & Evaluation Squadron at Nellis
　
As far as its future usefulness, hard to say. Depends on future scenarios. BAE has a contract to develop 70mm rockets for the A-10 and AV-8s. It's termed an advanced precision kill weapons system. Short quote from an article:


The APKWS is a precision-guided version of the venerable Hydra 70-millimeter rocket that uses laser guidance to improve the accuracy of the previously unguided Hydra munition. The APKWS -- which uses existing Hydra 70 components such as launchers, rocket motors, warheads, and fuzes -- is intended to fill the need for air-launched weapons more powerful than the unguided Hydra 70, but which do not need the firepower of the AGM-114 Hellfire missile.

The APKWS helps extend the lethal range of military attack jets, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as expand the number of precision-guided munitions that each aircraft can carry. BAE Systems won a $15.3 million Navy contract last August for low-rate initial production I (LRIP-I) of the APKWS II guidance section to convert the unguided Hydra rocket to a laser-guided smart munition.

Precision rockets can carry a wide variety of munitions, from dispersed bomblets to small explosive warheads for use against enemy infantry, armored personnel carriers, light vehicles, and unfortified buildings.

BAE Systems will do work on this contract in Nashua, N.H., and should be finished by May 2014. For more information contact BAE Systems Electronic Solutions online at www.baesystems.com/Businesses/ElectronicSolutions (http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/ElectronicSolutions), or Naval Air Systems Command online at www.navair.navy.mil (http://www.navair.navy.mil).

[old_pop2000]

FYI

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110226_f35a.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

[steel_selachian]

FYI

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110226_f35a.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

Hmm, says the F-35B is supposed to start shipboard trials this year. We'll see if that goes off as planned ...

[old_pop2000]

Hmm, says the F-35B is supposed to start shipboard trials this year. We'll see if that goes off as planned ...

Hmm! That's where we will separate the men from the boys. Its one thing to build and demonstrate on land or in a sim, another to do it on a pitching carrier deck. If it doesn't do well, that may solve Gates's problem. Here's is an example of what I am talking about. http://www.usscoralsea.net/pages/f111.php

[old_pop2000]

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110304_jsf_reality_check.html?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

Just some more information on the state of the F-35 program.

[steel_selachian]

http://defense-update.com/wp/20110304_jsf_reality_check.html?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

Just some more information on the state of the F-35 program.

Hopefully that's not just a puff piece like it reads ...

[steel_selachian]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/24/q-navy-secretary-ray-mabus/

Looks like the Navy wants to put Marines in the F-35C.

[old_pop2000]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/24/q-navy-secretary-ray-mabus/

Looks like the Navy wants to put Marines in the F-35C.

Navy has it figured that if the Marines have the F-32C, then that essentially means, the Navy has another squadron to use on the carriers. Just another way of adding to the capability of the air wings.

[steel_selachian]

Navy has it figured that if the Marines have the F-32C, then that essentially means, the Navy has another squadron to use on the carriers. Just another way of adding to the capability of the air wings.

Not to mention that even the America-class LHAs will normally only carry one squadron of F-35Bs. Unless you want to retask those ships as baby carriers at the expense of the LPH role, or you have friends nearby willing to lend you a forward airbase, any other USMC squadrons will have to come off of CVNs. The Navy also gets more carrier-capable units. Sounds like a win-win.

[old_pop2000]

Not to mention that even the America-class LHAs will normally only carry one squadron of F-35Bs. Unless you want to retask those ships as baby carriers at the expense of the LPH role, or you have friends nearby willing to lend you a forward airbase, any other USMC squadrons will have to come off of CVNs. The Navy also gets more carrier-capable units. Sounds like a win-win.

It might be better to allocate another squadron of attack helos and eliminate the F-35Bs. Possibly provide more UCAVs.

[steel_selachian]

It might be better to allocate another squadron of attack helos and eliminate the F-35Bs. Possibly provide more UCAVs.

Problem is that the Zulu Cobras don't have the range or speed to keep up with MV-22s. In at least one recent deployment the Nassau ESG went and transferred the Cobras, Hueys, and Super Stallions off the LHA and kept just the V-22s and Harriers (where they put the other helos I don't know). On the America-class LHAs that won't have a well deck this seems like a smart idea - keep well away from shore and let the LSD and LPD be risked as necessary to deliver the standard helos and LCACs.

One solution might be that the USMC is reportedly investigating the concept of a gunship variant of the Bell/Agusta BA609 civil tiltrotor as a long-term Cobra replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell/Agusta_BA609

[old_pop2000]

Problem is that the Zulu Cobras don't have the range or speed to keep up with MV-22s. In at least one recent deployment the Nassau ESG went and transferred the Cobras, Hueys, and Super Stallions off the LHA and kept just the V-22s and Harriers (where they put the other helos I don't know). On the America-class LHAs that won't have a well deck this seems like a smart idea - keep well away from shore and let the LSD and LPD be risked as necessary to deliver the standard helos and LCACs.

One solution might be that the USMC is reportedly investigating the concept of a gunship variant of the Bell/Agusta BA609 civil tiltrotor as a long-term Cobra replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell/Agusta_BA609

Are you referring to the February 2008 Nassau ESG deployment without the 24th MEU? That was a joint Marine and Navy decision to allow Maritime Sealift Command to perform the transportation mission. Yes, they would take their helos with them. I suspect this was a test of MSC and its ability to move an MEU if no ESG was available during a crisis situation. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Armand2REP]

F-35 Tests Suspended After Airborne Glitch

Flight testing of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters has been suspended after a U.S. Air Force aircraft experienced a dual generator failure and oil leak during a test sortie on March 9, prime contractor Lockheed Martin said March 11.
http://www.defensenews.com/pgf/stories13/031111dn_f35a_af4_315.JPGhttp://www.defensenews.com/images/arrow_caption.png
The March 9 incident occurred at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., which is the main Air Force flight test facility, on aircraft AF-4, pictured above. (Liz Kaszynski / Lockheed Martin)



The plane, an F-35A, returned safely to base, but further test flights are being delayed while engineers figure out the cause of the problem.


"As a routine safety precaution, the Joint Program Office (JPO) has temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations until a team of JPO and [Lockheed] technical experts determines the root cause of the generator failure and oil leak. Once the cause is known, the appropriate repairs and improvements will be made before flight operations resume," Lockheed spokesman John Kent said in an e-mail.
Unlike previous fighter jets, the F-35's flight control surfaces are moved by electro-hydrostatic actuators powered by electricity. As such, an electrical failure could be especially problematic.
The incident occurred at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., which is the main Air Force flight test facility, on aircraft AF-4, the fourth Air Force test plane. There are 10 F-35 test aircraft operating at Edwards and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.



http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5938613&c=AME&s=AIR

[old_pop2000]

FYI - http://defense-update.com/wp/20110315_f35c_marine_corps.html?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29

[steel_selachian]

FYI - http://defense-update.com/wp/20110315_f35c_marine_corps.html?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DefenseUpdate+%28Defense+Upda te%29


Hmm. The article mentions agreement of F/A-18E/F purchases as well. Does this mean some USMC Hornet squadrons will be converting to the Super Bug, and if so will they then replace those aircraft with F-35Cs in a few years or keep them?

[old_pop2000]

I suspect this is an admission that the B version is not cost effective in terms of mission capability and OM&N funding. The E/F model would serve the Marines more than adequately, is more compatible with the Navy and is far cheaper to buy and maintain. The C model of the F-35 could be the model of choice for difficult and dangerous missions against IADS in the early days of any combat operation.

[steel_selachian]

Currently the USMC aviation structure is 4 squadrons of EA-6B Prowlers in the EW role, 8 squadrons of AV-8B Harrier IIs in the light-attack role, 8 squadrons of F/A-18C Hornets in the fighter/attack role, and 5 squadrons of F/A-18D Hornets in the all-weather attack/Forward Air Controller role. Assuming the Marines do not radically alter that makeup (although unless they buy into the EA-18G I would expect the EA-6 VMAQ squadrons to be disestablished), that's 5 of 13 Hornet units going to the F-35C, probably at least 8 Harrier units the Corps would want to convert to F-35Bs, and 8 Hornet squadrons that could convert to either F-35 variant or the Super Hornet. I would assume if the Marines still want 340 F-35Bs (estimating ~20 birds per squadron) that would make for around 15 squadrons with 40 left over for training/attrition replacements. So if they are indeed picking up Super Hornets, and I'm not sure that article clearly states they are, the Marines still seem like they want to trade them in for F-35Bs down the road.

[steel_selachian]

So far, so good ... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures--video-f-35b-starts-critical-tests-in-comeback-attempt-362941/

[old_pop2000]

So far, so good ... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures--video-f-35b-starts-critical-tests-in-comeback-attempt-362941/


In 2004, programme officials extended the development of all three variants by two years to redesign the F-35B, which was overweight by more than 1,400kg.

Last year, the F-35B faced its biggest problem yet, with flight tests slowed by five design problems in the propulsion system and durability tests halted after a bulkhead cracked

Meanwhile, programme officials also appear to have resolved a 90.7kg performance shortfall in the vertical lift bring-back weight of the F-35B in hover while returning to a ship.

The three problems above really are killers and P &W along with the prime contractor are going to have to find a permanent fix. This aircraft may begin its life with a severe weight handicap that will reduce ordnance loads. That's not good for a bomb truck.

I believe that while the Marines feel they need that bird, they need a reliable system that can perform the missions required. Bring back weight is now, very important with the expense of precision guided weapons and the small ordnance loads of the assault carriers.

[steel_selachian]

The three problems above really are killers and P &W along with the prime contractor are going to have to find a permanent fix. This aircraft may begin its life with a severe weight handicap that will reduce ordnance loads. That's not good for a bomb truck.

I believe that while the Marines feel they need that bird, they need a reliable system that can perform the missions required. Bring back weight is now, very important with the expense of precision guided weapons and the small ordnance loads of the assault carriers.

That's what I was asking some time ago - what kind of load could you realistically get off an LHD/LHA deck, and what could you realistically bring back? Might make the air boss think twice about sending out an F-35B with say 7,000 lbs. of AtG ordnance and/or self-defense AAMs on top of a full internal fuel load unless he's sure the bird is going to expend most of it.

[old_pop2000]

That's what I was asking some time ago - what kind of load could you realistically get off an LHD/LHA deck, and what could you realistically bring back? Might make the air boss think twice about sending out an F-35B with say 7,000 lbs. of AtG ordnance and/or self-defense AAMs on top of a full internal fuel load unless he's sure the bird is going to expend most of it.

Interesting article from January. Hope we haven't already posted this.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A90d01128-ff7f-4d64-9f22-ac75779e6fc5

[steel_selachian]

Interesting article from January. Hope we haven't already posted this.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A90d01128-ff7f-4d64-9f22-ac75779e6fc5

Haven't seen that before, but that's what I figured from the British debate over the SRVL requirement. These birds are going to at best get back on board with about 3000 lbs. of ordnance plus minimum internal fuel. That presumably means that unless an F-35B is being called out to a definite strike requiring a lot of iron, it's not likely to carry more than the internal weapons capacity - 2000 pounds of bombs, two AIM-120s, no external tanks. Now with the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb mounted on quad racks in the internal bays, that might not be so bad - that's still 8 standoff PGMs. However, you're still talking a pretty limited (not to mention expensive) load for a bird that may be assigned to CAS overwatch for Marines ashore, especially (if the LHD/LHA is the only air asset around, which is sort of the whole presumption behind having specialized V/STOL aircraft on them) when there's only 4-12 available aircraft.

[old_pop2000]

Haven't seen that before, but that's what I figured from the British debate over the SRVL requirement. These birds are going to at best get back on board with about 3000 lbs. of ordnance plus minimum internal fuel. That presumably means that unless an F-35B is being called out to a definite strike requiring a lot of iron, it's not likely to carry more than the internal weapons capacity - 2000 pounds of bombs, two AIM-120s, no external tanks. Now with the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb mounted on quad racks in the internal bays, that might not be so bad - that's still 8 standoff PGMs. However, you're still talking a pretty limited (not to mention expensive) load for a bird that may be assigned to CAS overwatch for Marines ashore, especially (if the LHD/LHA is the only air asset around, which is sort of the whole presumption behind having specialized V/STOL aircraft on them) when there's only 4-12 available aircraft.

FYI - Some of the missions for a MAW - The actual list is very long but does not include any fighter or attack aircraft operations


Offensive Air Support (OAS). Conduct air operations against enemy installations, facilities, and personnel in order to destroy, neutralize, interdict, or isolate enemy military forces and military resources. provide fires and force protection in order to shape the battlespace by delaying enemy reinforcements, degrading critical enemy functions, and manipulating enemy perceptions.

Close Air Support (CAS). Provide fixed-wing and rotary-wing offensive air support against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces.

Deep Air Support (DAS). Provide actions against enemy targets at such a distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each mission with fire and movement of friendly forces is not required.

Antiair Warfare (AAW). Destroy or reduce the enemy air and missile threat to an acceptable level. Include such measures as the use of interceptors, bombers, antiaircraft guns, surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles, and electronic attack and the destruction of an air or missile threat both before and after it is launched. Gain and maintain whatever degree of air superiority is required

Offensive Antiair Warfare (OAAW). Conduct offensive operations against enemy air assets and air defense systems before they can be launched or assume an attacking role.

Air Defense. Destroy attacking enemy manned and unmanned aircraft or cruise missiles in the earth's atmosphere, or nullify or reduce the effectiveness of an enemy attack; and coordinate ballistic missile defense as part of a Joint or Naval Force.

Now, fit ordnance with mission or missions for the F-35 STOVL. Keep in mind, that one flight of four, may have mulitiple missions, in fact, I guarantee you, it will.

[steel_selachian]

More footage and some commentary:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5c5289ef-25a0-486b-9895-d111599748de&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5c5289ef-25a0-486b-9895-d111599748de&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[old_pop2000]

More footage and some commentary:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5c5289ef-25a0-486b-9895-d111599748de&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5c5289ef-25a0-486b-9895-d111599748de&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Interesting, and a good PR stunt by the Navy to use the media to convince Congress to keep the bird. Landing and taking off with dry weight isn't this aircraft's problem and the Marines and Navy know it. Structural issues and engine problems head the list of problems plaguing this aircraft along with HUD and software. These are just the ones we know of, I am certain there are others lurking out there.

[old_pop2000]

The US Navy and Marines are buying the entire surplus UK Harrier jump jet fleet, spares and all. They are going to partially replace the aging F-18D twin seaters.

"C'mon, Man"

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/11/navy-marine-buying-decommissioned-british-harriers-111311w/

[steel_selachian]

The US Navy and Marines are buying the entire surplus UK Harrier jump jet fleet, spares and all. They are going to partially replace the aging F-18D twin seaters.

"C'mon, Man"

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/11/navy-marine-buying-decommissioned-british-harriers-111311w/

Not a bad deal I suppose, although it seems like a tacit admission by the Marines that the F-35B is going to be late to the party. India is due to get the MiG-29K and the HAL Tejas flying off carriers soon and Spain and Italy only have token Harrier forces, so the USMC is the logical one to pick the birds up. I wonder if the refits to the GR.9s will include fitting the APG-65 or if they'll just be left without radars.

As I recall, the F/A-18Ds are some of the newest legacy Hornets in the fleet, with the last one being delivered in 2000. Have they just seen heavier use than the F/A-18Cs?

[old_pop2000]

Not a bad deal I suppose, although it seems like a tacit admission by the Marines that the F-35B is going to be late to the party. India is due to get the MiG-29K and the HAL Tejas flying off carriers soon and Spain and Italy only have token Harrier forces, so the USMC is the logical one to pick the birds up. I wonder if the refits to the GR.9s will include fitting the APG-65 or if they'll just be left without radars.



As I recall, the F/A-18Ds are some of the newest legacy Hornets in the fleet, with the last one being delivered in 2000. Have they just seen heavier use than the F/A-18Cs?

　

Hi Steel:

The jury is still out on this deal, not enough real information to make an accurate assessment about the quality of the product. However, here are some telling comments: " ...purchase will give the U.S. Marines a relatively economical way to get their hands on key components to keep the Harrier fleet running." What key components? Engines?

"I don't think it will be costly to rip out the Brit systems" and replace them with Marine gear, said Lon Nordeen, author of several books on the Harrier". Really!, what does the Navy say. Obviously that writer has never worked at the depot level of maintenance or he wouldn't make such a stupid statement.

"Most of the retired Harriers are stored at the Royal Air Force base at Cottesmore, England. They have been undergoing minimum fleet maintenance, including anti-deterioration measures, in order to keep them airworthy, Heinrich said." That isn't good, minimum fleet maintenance.

"British and U.S. Harrier II aircraft had a high degree of commonality from their origin. The planes were developed and built in a joint arrangement between British Aerospace - now BAE Systems - and McDonnell Douglas, now a division of Boeing. While each company built its own wings, all forward sections of the British and American Harrier IIs were built by McDonnell in St. Louis, Mo., while British Aerospace built the fuselage sections aft of the cockpit. All the planes have to fit together" Yea, when they were in the factory, but they are not in the factory anymore, hotshot.

Oh well! We will just have to wait and see. Glad I don't have to work on those birds. MacAir will have a lot of fun.

　

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Aging-Aircraft-Cracks-in-USAs-FA-18-fleet-05131/ (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Aging-Aircraft-Cracks-in-USAs-FA-18-fleet-05131/)

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8225756&c=AIR&s=TOP (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8225756&c=AIR&s=TOP)

　

　

　

　

　

[steel_selachian]

Especially since as we've discussed in other threads the RAF's Tornado force seems to require 100-130 aircraft just to have 12 combat-capable airframes available at a given time. With that as a standard I shudder to think what "minimum fleet maintenance" means. The systems are also problematic as well - the GR.9 is not fitted with the APG-65 radar like the II+ and isn't fitted with the 25 mm gun pod; the Brits don't use the JDAM so I don't know if those birds are wired for it.

Overall, it sounds like the Marines should just buy some F/A-18Fs, or maybe better yet EA-18Gs. That way they could replace the F/A-18Ds and the EA-6Bs and knock off two birds with one stone.

[old_pop2000]

It would be nice to have a clarification of the term "minimum fleet maintenance" especially in the area of long term storage. Did they drain the hydraulics, remove the engines and place them in containers. Did they coccoon the planes and put them inside or just leave them in the damp English air. This is why AMARC is in the desert, its dry and aircraft storage is much better. Last time I looked at a map of England, I did not see any desert regions. I suspect these are going to be hanger queens at Davis Monthan. If the Marines need a part, then they will send a message to AMARC and they will retrieve it.

BTW, apparently only 40 are still flyable.... or were when sent to storage. I suspect that figure has dropped. It confirms my suspicions, these are going to AMARC as hanger queens. The engines are the key, they are being harvested for those. They have high maintenance on those engines.

As far as possible replacement aircraft for the STOVL's, it might be better for DOD to review the actual fixed wing requirements for the Marines. Possibly those days are over, and just providing more capable drones and AH-64 Longbows might be a better solution for tactical air support given the Navy and Air Force's capabilities and future combat scenario. I don't think we have any island hopping campaigns in our future, do you? The military is very conservative and hates to admit that a long held belief is obsolete. I suspect if fixed wing air support is still necessary(I don't believe that), then F-18E/F's will be more than capable of providing it. For the Marines and their conops, simple is better. The F-18E/F has proven to be a reliable, capable bomb truck.

[JMS]

This are for spares, IMO, only use for them.

[old_pop2000]

The first order of business for the Navy/Marine Team is to get a full inventory of all aircraft by block number and all spares. They will need copies of each birds flight and maintenance logs plus any maintenance documentation for the spares. All the spares will have to be contracted for test and repair as necessary at either MacAir or Cherry Point. The aircraft will have to be processed through examination and evaluation or E & E at either location depending on who gets the contract.

An examination will reveal which spares can be certified for installation without evaluation, testing and repair. Those parts will be given ID for the government supply system and entered into the records with new maintanance paperwork. Those will go to fill shortages in the Marine Aviation Supply system.

The E & E process has to be guided by a contract which spells out what needs to be tested and repaired. Most contracts like this have a clause that says, if you disturb it, you have to fix it. Some systems can't be tested and repaired without disturbing other systems, so that gets interesting. The aircraft will probably have to be magnafluxed for cracks in the structure especially the wing attachment points. The engines may have to be sent to the engine repair depot which might be either of the two locations or Rolls-Royce.

That is briefly(very briefly) the procedure that will have to be followed to accept those aircraft and spares into the Naval/Marine corps supply system. This does not include upgrades and updates that the Marines may request, that could be a separate contract to MacAir to take a certain number of flyable, low hour birds, upgrade to current Marine Corp AV-8B standards and use them to alleviate shortages.

Timeframe? Give it five years before the Marines will see anything of value. Less if E & E finds few problems with the spares. It will take a good six months to E & E a bird and send it through depot maintenance. It will take longer, to rewire and upgrade the avionics to current standards. If they co-award the work to both depots, they might get eight to ten birds a year completed. Depends on how bad the Marines need the aircraft. If we can hold off on any more combat operations, they might be able to get ahead, if not, they won't make it before the F-35 is ready, then all for naught.

This link below is a 1996 document about refurbishing Marine Corp AV-8Bs at Cherry Point, it might help you to understand what will happen with the UK birds.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96049.pdf

Addendum: The money for this effort will probably have to come out of the NavY OMN funding or operations and maintenance Navy. It will compete with F-18E/F, C and D models, V-22 Ospreys, AH-1 Hueycobras, CH-53s, C-130s, AV-8Bs and other Navy/Marine Corp aircraft. It will also compete with current combat operations like Afghanistan or any where else we decide to project power. Where would you prioritize 74 old, British AV-8Bs and spares? They would be sucking hind T_ _ in the priority list. :)

http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/11pres/OMN_Vol1_book.pdf - Operations and Maintenance Navy fiscal budget for 2011

This is not brochure knowledge, trust me.

[steel_selachian]

This are for spares, IMO, only use for them.

I dunno, with that talk about sending some of the F/A-18Ds in the VMFA(AW) squadrons to the boneyard and replacing them with AV-8s, it sounds like the intent is to get at least some of the airframes into US service.

[old_pop2000]

I dunno, with that talk about sending some of the F/A-18Ds in the VMFA(AW) squadrons to the boneyard and replacing them with AV-8s, it sounds like the intent is to get at least some of the airframes into US service.

Why don't we put some numbers on this and really see if those 40 flyable AV-8B's can fulfill the requirement.

Marine aviation has six tasks: Offensive air support, AAW assault support, air reconnaissance, electronic warfare and control of aircraft and missiles. They use F/A-18A/C/D models in Marine fighter/attack squadrons; those are VMFAs and F/A-18Ds in Marine fighter/attack (all weather) squadrons, VMFA [AW]s. Now, according to AVPLAN FY2011 there are 60 F/A-18Ds and 98 AV-8Bs. The AV-8Bs are currently in seven active VMAs comprised of 14 AV-8Bs per squadron. Now, if the Brits aren't lying, there are only 40 flyable AV-8Bs in the group of 74. If my math holds out, we are at least 20 short, since the current requirement, excluding the training squadron with 17 Ds, is 60.

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/Check6/FY11MarineAviationPlan.pdf

[steel_selachian]

Why don't we put some numbers on this and really see if those 40 flyable AV-8B's can fulfill the requirement.

Marine aviation has six tasks: Offensive air support, AAW assault support, air reconnaissance, electronic warfare and control of aircraft and missiles. They use F/A-18A/C/D models in Marine fighter/attack squadrons; those are VMFAs and F/A-18Ds in Marine fighter/attack (all weather) squadrons, VMFA [AW]s. Now, according to AVPLAN FY2011 there are 60 F/A-18Ds and 98 AV-8Bs. The AV-8Bs are currently in seven active VMAs comprised of 14 AV-8Bs per squadron. Now, if the Brits aren't lying, there are only 40 flyable AV-8Bs in the group of 74. If my math holds out, we are at least 20 short, since the current requirement, excluding the training squadron with 17 Ds, is 60.

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/Check6/FY11MarineAviationPlan.pdf

Hmm, wonder if this is out of date now - I didn't see any mention of the five squadrons of F-35Cs that will be going with the CVWs, and the timetable presented for the F-35B introduction seems laughably optimistic at this point. My bet with the F/A-18Ds is that they might pare the most worn aircraft out of the fleet and maybe use the GR.9 conversions to replace a squadron or two; then again with their night attack role and the high amount of wear on the F/A-18Ds they're probably first in line to be converted to the F-35 and will have to stand down for retraining and reformation for some time anyway.

Matter of fact, the last I checked the USMC was going with five squadrons of F-35Cs for the carriers - not that things would work out that neatly, but I wonder if the five VMFA(AW) squadrons will be slated for that role. If the F/A-18Ds are aging fast it might make sense to get those crews in F-35Cs rather than wait for the inevitable kinks in the F-35B to be worked out (not to mention training for V/STOL operations).

[old_pop2000]

Hmm, wonder if this is out of date now - I didn't see any mention of the five squadrons of F-35Cs that will be going with the CVWs, and the timetable presented for the F-35B introduction seems laughably optimistic at this point. My bet with the F/A-18Ds is that they might pare the most worn aircraft out of the fleet and maybe use the GR.9 conversions to replace a squadron or two; then again with their night attack role and the high amount of wear on the F/A-18Ds they're probably first in line to be converted to the F-35 and will have to stand down for retraining and reformation for some time anyway.



Matter of fact, the last I checked the USMC was going with five squadrons of F-35Cs for the carriers - not that things would work out that neatly, but I wonder if the five VMFA(AW) squadrons will be slated for that role. If the F/A-18Ds are aging fast it might make sense to get those crews in F-35Cs rather than wait for the inevitable kinks in the F-35B to be worked out (not to mention training for V/STOL operations).

Answer to the first question. It is FY 2011 data, we are now in FY 2012 as of 1 October. So, its out of date by thirty days.

As to the F-35C, Budget Item P-40 states that 13 JSFs were procured in years prior to FY 2010. Procured means funded, not flying. FY2010 funded 20, FY2011 funded 7 as did FY2012. FY2013 will fund 12, 2014 will fund 14, FY 2015 will fund 19 and FY 2016 will fund 20. Grand total is 257. Note: that FY2010 is both B and C models, whereas starting in FY11, it has its own budget line, 0152. By 2016, the DON should have about 200 F-35Cs funded. The F/A-18E/F procurement is finished in 2013. If we assume 48 F-18s of all types in three squadrons on board, we have enough, by 2016 to equip 5 Air Wings. well... not exactly. We have funded enough aircraft for 5 airwings, that does not mean they will be built by that time. So, the time frame maybe two to three years. Now, if the Navy decides to maintain one squadron of F/18-E/Fs on board, that would allow for more F-35Cs to equip more airwings. So, by 2016 the DON will have funded enough aircraft to completely equip 5 air wings. However, that does not include test and evaluation aircraft at Pax River and training squadrons.

The source on all this information is the official DON budget submitted in February 2011 for this current budget year.


　

[old_pop2000]

I have provided a link to a copy of the USN/USMC F-35C Transition Plan issued on March 14, 2011. This is current, there is no follow-up or later additions to this. Briefly, it provides for five squadrons of F-35C aircraft to the CVW, a procurement of around 260 aircraft with the Marines buying another 80 along with 340 F-35Bs. The production schedule is in the document. The actual six squadron transition timeframe is available below it. While the document states that six squadrons will be transitioned, one is a Fleet Replacement Unit and does not deploy. Twenty-three aircraft will be deployed in T & E and the FRS squadrons.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Documents/mfr_to_e.pdf (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Documents/mfr_to_e.pdf)

[steel_selachian]

I have provided a link to a copy of the USN/USMC F-35C Transition Plan issued on March 14, 2011. This is current, there is no follow-up or later additions to this. Briefly, it provides for five squadrons of F-35C aircraft to the CVW, a procurement of around 260 aircraft with the Marines buying another 80 along with 340 F-35Bs. The production schedule is in the document. The actual six squadron transition timeframe is available below it. While the document states that six squadrons will be transitioned, one is a Fleet Replacement Unit and does not deploy. Twenty-three aircraft will be deployed in T & E and the FRS squadrons.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Documents/mfr_to_e.pdf (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Documents/mfr_to_e.pdf)

Actually, the six-count excludes the FRS. So there should be three VFAs and three VMFAs of F-35Cs operational by the fall of 2019.

[old_pop2000]

Actually, the six-count excludes the FRS. So there should be three VFAs and three VMFAs of F-35Cs operational by the fall of 2019.

Hmmm! Another senior moment. They are coming fast and furious these days:)

[steel_selachian]

Meh, that sort of thing happens. So long as you can still track down documents for those of us here too lazy to go nosing through defense publications :p

Just to ask, does the USN have any more Super Bugs in the pipeline? I was looking over the current CVW composition at Scramble and the Navy already has 2-3 squadrons on most of the carriers (with the exception of CVW-5, which has four).

[old_pop2000]

Meh, that sort of thing happens. So long as you can still track down documents for those of us here too lazy to go nosing through defense publications :p

Just to ask, does the USN have any more Super Bugs in the pipeline? I was looking over the current CVW composition at Scramble and the Navy already has 2-3 squadrons on most of the carriers (with the exception of CVW-5, which has four).

Hi Steel:

The FY2010 budget purchased nine Superbugs, FY2009 purchased 18. The Navy, in 2009, said it would procure a total of 506 E/Fs, with the final 57 purchased in the FY2010-2012 budget. Now, a new MYP contract was signed on September 24, 2010 for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 for a total of 124 E/Fs and EA-18Gs. SECDEF added 41 E/F aircraft to the FY2012 budget for 2012 through 2014. and Congress added 9 more. So, the total planned is 565 Super bugs and 114 Growlers. There is also upgrades for the APN-1, ATFLIR, ShARP and MIDS data-link along with SLEP II efforts to extend the life of the structure. The Navy says it will equip all 428 Block II Super Bugs with AESA radars.

You can read about all this and more in this document, just in case I screw up the numbers.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05%20May/Robling-Philman%2005-24-11.pdf (http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/05%20May/Robling-Philman%2005-24-11.pdf)

[steel_selachian]

Looks like you got those right - I was curious about further transitions of squadrons from legacy Hornets to Super Bugs, as there were a couple VFAs the Wikipedia article on the F/A-18E/F lists as using the Super Hornet but are currently F/A-18C squadrons. The document you posted stated that with the added E/F orders the Navy slated three more F/A-18C squadrons to move into Super Bugs (I think those are VFA-34, VFA-136, and VFA-192), so I might guess those units will be transitioning in the next couple of years. Makes sense since the F/A-18Cs are going to go out of business by 2022-23 and by that point the Navy and Marines might have enough F-35Cs to put one squadron in each CVW.

[steel_selachian]

No plans to fly the GR.9s acquired from the UK - http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/11/defense-us-marines-wont-fly-harriers-111711/

And as far as funding the F-35B - D'OH!

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/11/marine-ah1-uh1-helo-programs-may-be-cut-111511/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-cracks-stop-vertical-landings-on-some-f-35bs-365059/ (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/11/marine-ah1-uh1-helo-programs-may-be-cut-111511/)

[old_pop2000]

Looks like you got those right - I was curious about further transitions of squadrons from legacy Hornets to Super Bugs, as there were a couple VFAs the Wikipedia article on the F/A-18E/F lists as using the Super Hornet but are currently F/A-18C squadrons. The document you posted stated that with the added E/F orders the Navy slated three more F/A-18C squadrons to move into Super Bugs (I think those are VFA-34, VFA-136, and VFA-192), so I might guess those units will be transitioning in the next couple of years. Makes sense since the F/A-18Cs are going to go out of business by 2022-23 and by that point the Navy and Marines might have enough F-35Cs to put one squadron in each CVW.

The Navy's shortfall in fighters will have to be reduced by two methods. Reduce the number of aircraft per squadron from 12 to 10 under certain circumstances and SLEP 150 A-D models. Here is the solicitation abstract on that SLEP program from last year.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=aa0263bda79a1fd62757b11f11f6a393&tab=core&_cview=0

They have already budgeted for the purchase of more F/A-18E/Fs in FY2012 but won't see those aircraft until 2014. By 2018, they can have the shortfall reduced to 67 aircraft. SLEP can take anywhere from 170 days to 270 days. If only one contractor is doing the work, you could have about 15 aircraft in various stages in the plant. Some in disassembly/Final Assembly, paint, weights and balance and testline for final mission readying and test flight. You could do the group in less than five years.

[steel_selachian]

Right now the USN has 22 squadrons either operational or slated to transition to the Super Hornet and 12 legacy Hornet squadrons. The Marines have five squadrons slated to transfer to the F-35C, so if all the Navy F/A-18C squadrons transfer to the F-35C you're looking at 22 Super Hornet squadrons and 16 F-35C squadrons deployed on carriers. Given that the Navy has stated it wants to go to a 50/50 mix of the types in the CVW, presumably some Super Bug units would switch to the F-35C towards the end of the run. That's one squadron short of the stated goal of 40 for 10 CVWs, although perhaps they're planning to stand up an entirely new F-35C unit or use reserve squadrons to patch that. Still, as you stated the trick is going to be in that gap between the end of F/A-18E production and the F-35C starting to arrive in numbers; the USN is going to need to maintain 10-12 F/A-18C squadrons to keep all the CVWs fully stocked as late as 2020, given that at that point only 6-7 F-35C units will be up and running. They'll probably have to call on remaining USMC F/A-18C units to meet that.

Of course, one fix for this that the Marines wouldn't like would be to trade in some more F-35B orders for Cs. At present they're planning to have nine "expeditionary" squadrons with 10 aircraft each to support the MEUs on the LHD/LHA ships, plus 7 land-based F-35B squadrons with 16 aircraft apiece. One can argue whether or not that's required, given that most land-based F-35B ops will not require STOVL capability and the planes would be put to better use on a CVN, especially in the Pacific.

[old_pop2000]

Right now the USN has 22 squadrons either operational or slated to transition to the Super Hornet and 12 legacy Hornet squadrons. The Marines have five squadrons slated to transfer to the F-35C, so if all the Navy F/A-18C squadrons transfer to the F-35C you're looking at 22 Super Hornet squadrons and 16 F-35C squadrons deployed on carriers. Given that the Navy has stated it wants to go to a 50/50 mix of the types in the CVW, presumably some Super Bug units would switch to the F-35C towards the end of the run. That's one squadron short of the stated goal of 40 for 10 CVWs, although perhaps they're planning to stand up an entirely new F-35C unit or use reserve squadrons to patch that. Still, as you stated the trick is going to be in that gap between the end of F/A-18E production and the F-35C starting to arrive in numbers; the USN is going to need to maintain 10-12 F/A-18C squadrons to keep all the CVWs fully stocked as late as 2020, given that at that point only 6-7 F-35C units will be up and running. They'll probably have to call on remaining USMC F/A-18C units to meet that.

Of course, one fix for this that the Marines wouldn't like would be to trade in some more F-35B orders for Cs. At present they're planning to have nine "expeditionary" squadrons with 10 aircraft each to support the MEUs on the LHD/LHA ships, plus 7 land-based F-35B squadrons with 16 aircraft apiece. One can argue whether or not that's required, given that most land-based F-35B ops will not require STOVL capability and the planes would be put to better use on a CVN, especially in the Pacific.

Steel:

Unfortunately, no plan survives the first shot. The shortfall rests on some very critical variables; F-35 deliveries, force structure, usage rates, life limits, depot turnaround time along with arrested field landings and cat launches. The F-18A-D SLEP is designed to extend the life from 8500 hrs to 10,000 hrs. The first induction of A-D models into SLEP began in October with the start of the Fiscal Year 2012. Lots of variables, some not in the Navy/Marine control. The Super Hornets have an expected service life of 20 years and have now reached 30% of that figure, while the A-D models have actually reached that level.

So, Congress, Combat, accidents and other unknowns may eat into the operational levels and the plans will go right out the door. Until the legacy aircraft are disassembled, magnifluxed and inspected, there is no way to know how long the SLEP will take. Some may have to be retired to AMARC and used for parts due to excessive wear, corrosion and cracks in the structures. The availability of parts from the OEM can influence the turn around times along with the engineering processing time. The Navy tends to give the depots, SLEP programs but Naval Air Depot, NI is already doing the Greyhound SLEP and F-18s along with helos. Jacksonville or Cherry Point might be candidates along with MacAir. I don't know who was awarded the contract. At NI, Bldg 94 is the disassembly/assembly hanger for fighters, Greyhounds are in the east end of Bldg 472, with the helos in the east end of Bldg 378. Those are the only three areas where the whole aircraft structure can be housed and worked. They could get three into Bldg 27 near the Quay, but those areas are small. Most of the depots have limited hanger space, the civilian builders usually have far more space. Space is important in this kind of business.

[old_pop2000]

Steel:

I thought I would give you some brief information about the SLAP and SLEP programs. The Navy/Marines have conducted and are continuing to conduct two SLAP programs. One for the F/A-18E/F and last year, for the legacy F/A-18s. SLAP means service life assessment program and that is just what it is. The programs determine how long the planes will last and what significant repairs may be needed to extend beyond their initial minimum life span of 6000 hrs. That figure is for the Super Hornets. Generally, IIRC, you log about 300 hrs per year per aircraft. Of course, this is peacetime hours, not combat. The Navy is hoping to extend the life of the Super Hornets to 9000 hrs. The legacy aircraft are the key to the gap. The Navy knows that the legacy birds are really getting tired and will probably have to be retired early. This will make the shortfall worse. The idea is to determine just what kind of work needs to be done on these older aircraft. Boeing can sell the Navy new Super Hornets for $50 million dollars. So the idea is to find out how expensive a SLEP program would be, compared to a new multi-year contract. If the center barrels are bad and need repair, that will probably cost $5 million a piece. The F/A-18 has had a history of cracking in the center barrel. The inner wing mods will cost as much as $4 to 5 million a piece per wing. For one legacy aircraft, that could raise the cost of just those two repairs to $15 million dollars. Now, we have to add the rest of the SLEP items and determine, is it more cost effective to just retire the A-D legacy aircraft and award a multi-year contract to Boeing. If you buy 30 per year for five years, you can save around 10 percent on procurement of the aircaft over single year procurements.

The fact that they have gone ahead and awarded a SLEP contract and it has begun, means that the SLAP program probably determined that SLEP would be cost effective. However, there is a caveat here. If those birds are not upgraded in electroncs, then in fact they are not nearly as effective and that is an intangible when doing a cost benefit analysis.

The F/A-18E/F SLAP program is slated to be completed by the third quarter of 2015. If one of the aircraft has about 3500 hrs, then in four more years, it will probably have around 5000 hrs, if no one starts another hot war. That is 1000 hrs away from their expected life span. This means that to just get a reasonably accurate cost figure and repair assessment, then prepare a contract, will push those aircraft into 2016 before any contract can be award and that might add another 300 hrs or more. If the contract takes 3-5 years to finish, most of the Super Hornets will have exceeded their expected flight hours easily. Again, all predicated on no shooting wars, just normal training and flight ops.

I hope this simple briefing, [very simple] gives you a picture of the problem. Now this is predicated on no defense budget cuts and I won't get into that. [Shakes Steel to wake him up]:)

1238

For Your reference, the above is a real, live center barrel.

Dennis

[steel_selachian]

Hey, right now I'm trying to pare a 61-page thesis on population genetics down to a ~10 page publication manuscript. If I can stay awake through that, I think I can remain conscious through a 2-paragraph summary of a SLAP/SLEP process :p

Extending the lifespan of the legacy Hornets will be a help, but my question is whether or not they'll get enough flyable birds out of the process to keep the numbers up until the Navy has enough F-35Cs. From the document you posted, it looks like by the middle of 2019 the transition rate into the F-35C is going to be two squadrons per year, with six active squadrons and the FRS ready by that point. Again, this is just the plan and reality may interfere, but unless that plan picks up speed some of the F/A-18Cs will have to soldier on until 2024 or 2025. The USMC squadrons transitioning to the F-35B will not be a help, as those birds can't be operated off a CVN without mucking up flight deck operations. I'm wondering if the CVWs might have to deploy short 1 squadron or swap aircraft (i.e. a CVW returning from deployment turns its aircraft over to the next CVW preparing to go out, which would put more abuse on the aircraft); alternately budget realities might force the Navy to cut a CVN/CVW (although I think the Navy would shove the F-35B in front of the firing squad first).

[old_pop2000]

Hey, right now I'm trying to pare a 61-page thesis on population genetics down to a ~10 page publication manuscript. If I can stay awake through that, I think I can remain conscious through a 2-paragraph summary of a SLAP/SLEP process :p

Extending the lifespan of the legacy Hornets will be a help, but my question is whether or not they'll get enough flyable birds out of the process to keep the numbers up until the Navy has enough F-35Cs. From the document you posted, it looks like by the middle of 2019 the transition rate into the F-35C is going to be two squadrons per year, with six active squadrons and the FRS ready by that point. Again, this is just the plan and reality may interfere, but unless that plan picks up speed some of the F/A-18Cs will have to soldier on until 2024 or 2025. The USMC squadrons transitioning to the F-35B will not be a help, as those birds can't be operated off a CVN without mucking up flight deck operations. I'm wondering if the CVWs might have to deploy short 1 squadron or swap aircraft (i.e. a CVW returning from deployment turns its aircraft over to the next CVW preparing to go out, which would put more abuse on the aircraft); alternately budget realities might force the Navy to cut a CVN/CVW (although I think the Navy would shove the F-35B in front of the firing squad first).

Steel:

Just some more items to throw into the mix. In October 2008, there was a ground of 630 legacy F/A-18s due to aileron hinge cracks and that problem was discovered again in March of 2010. This kind of issue is something to watch and it will definitely affect the shortfall before the SLEP can be completed.

According to the F/A-18 program manager, the Hornet fleet is averaging 330 flight-hours per year and they are 30% above normal usage levels. That means my 300 hr guess was correct. Accident rate is still low but many of the birds have now exceeded 8000 hrs. Costs for the Super Hornets is about $15 million for deep inspections and refurbishments. That means magnifluxing, Xrays and such. DOD is cutting production on the F-35s from 2012-2016 time period. That is not good for the shortfall. The legacy Hornet SLEP is now taking about 260 work-days. Last year, 104 legacy aircraft were grounded due to cracks in fuselage. That is the same issue with the center barrels that we experienced on the A models when they first came into the depot.

FYI - Accident rate for F-18 is 4.9 aircraft per 100,000 flight hours. AV-8B is 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. That accident rate may climb as the birds get closer to their maximum flight hours. Also, retention of pilots and maintenance personnel does have an effect, without good experienced airmen and ground crews, things go from bad to horrible in a hurry.

So, with this detailed information, one can see that the issue of Navy/Marine shortfall is not an easy issue to get your hands around especially when relying on brochure knowledge. What we have been discussing is theory and plans, only time will complete the actual story. If we get into another small-scale operation, there goes the flight-hours. If you fly three sorties per day for thirty days, with each sortie lasting about two hours, you can put 180 flight-hours on a bird in a very short time.

http://blog.usni.org/2009/08/27/the-monster-myths-of-the-cvl-concept/ - short article on sortie rates and surge 97. My guess at 3 sorties per day is accurate between the surge of 4.5 and the goal 2.0.
http://www.ndu.edu/library/pubs2/R20020321FinalMaritimeReport.pdf - Another article, longer however. Just so you don't get bored.

Dennis

PS: Good luck on the thesis issue, I will think about you on my cruise next week. [He laughs]:)

[old_pop2000]

Here is a picture of a center barrel in Bldg 378, west side being replaced in an F-18.

1243

That item on top of F-18 is the actual center barrel. This is project "CBR Plus" is a major program for the legacy Hornets to eliminate the requirement for replacing the whole aircraft.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/frcsw/fa-18.html

[steel_selachian]

That first link you posted is along the lines of why the heck the Marines feel they need 340 F-35Bs. Odds are on most Wasp-class deployments they'll only be able to squeeze four F-35Bs aboard; maybe they can double that to eight if they pull the CH-53Ks and H-1s off. The new America-class LHAs (provided they don't end up being a one-of design due to complaints about the lack of a well deck) might be able to up that to 10-16 F-35Bs, but it's still kind of a head-scratcher how that many F-35Bs is justifiable. The LHDs and LHAs are not much use as baby CVs. The only other justification for the V/STOL capability is forward bases, and what commander in his right mind is going to park a $100-million fighter close enough to the front lines where someone can put an RPG in it? Furthermore; how are you going to get those planes to those forward bases (with fuel and armament) that apparently are so damn remote you can't just send in the Seabees to build a decent runway?

[old_pop2000]

That first link you posted is along the lines of why the heck the Marines feel they need 340 F-35Bs. Odds are on most Wasp-class deployments they'll only be able to squeeze four F-35Bs aboard; maybe they can double that to eight if they pull the CH-53Ks and H-1s off. The new America-class LHAs (provided they don't end up being a one-of design due to complaints about the lack of a well deck) might be able to up that to 10-16 F-35Bs, but it's still kind of a head-scratcher how that many F-35Bs is justifiable. The LHDs and LHAs are not much use as baby CVs. The only other justification for the V/STOL capability is forward bases, and what commander in his right mind is going to park a $100-million fighter close enough to the front lines where someone can put an RPG in it? Furthermore; how are you going to get those planes to those forward bases (with fuel and armament) that apparently are so damn remote you can't just send in the Seabees to build a decent runway?

I've always had a problem with the concept of VSTOL and the Marines. I believe that they are planning for the wrong era. They seem to be planning as if there would be no friendly carriers, which has not proved true, at all. In the 21st century, joint actions are the norm, meaning Navy and Air Force attack aircraft will be available. The VSTOL aircraft was intended as a tactical aircraft that could provide high sortie rates during ground campaigns along the old lines. However, that has never been needed. In fact, the Marines have always had good, friendly airbases to fly from, that were well defended. There was no actual need for VSTOL.

The Marine carriers either will have large fixed wing detachments and small rotary wing, or vice-versa. In order to have both, you have to build larger carriers with angled decks capable of handling the much heavier STOVL JSF. The Navy and Marines need to reorganize the naval air arm to take advantage of the current and future crop of carriers. There is no real need in what has been termed "the Second Expeditionary Period", to have separate air forces.

I believe that the Navy and Marines should shelve the STOVL version of the F-35 and forget building more Super Hornets. They should field one common CTOL version of the F-35 or possibly a short take-off and arrested landing version of that bird. Why not equip one Ford class carrier with an all Marine air wing consisting of E/F's and then F-35s.

Military's by convention, are always conservative. The Marines need to recognize that the 21st century requires a rethinking of its doctrine based on the new realities of the world .

　

　

　

[steel_selachian]

Better yet, expand the Marine contribution to the CVWs - instead of just five VMFAs posted to CVWs, put one or two in every wing. That'll eliminate the Navy's fighter shortfall and reduce the number of aircraft it needs to buy (leave a few to operate out of certain forward bases like MCAS Iwakuni or Korea if those areas get hot); it also keeps the Corps from feeling it doesn't have a say in providing air cover from the CVs.

Turn the LH-series ships entirely over to rotary-wing ops; the things were built to put Marines ashore in a hurry, not as CVLs. If they develop a tiltrotor-based replacement for the AH-1/UH-1 force (something that's been posited, using the AW609 as a starting point) they get a gunship that can keep up with the V-22s and possibly take over the CAS role from the Harrier using SDBs and compact AGMs.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Steel:
I am writing this on Amelia Island, Florida, so I don't really have good resources at hand. As to your suggestion, you must take into account costs and future budgets. It would be better for te US Navy budget to simply combine the naval and marine air forces, buy the Marines a better replacement for the AH-1 Cobras, and simplify their their whole naval air organization to streamline and use the money more wisely. They don't need STOVLS or LHA's, or anything like them. One of the issues is fielding a greater number of carrier battle groups. That is the key.

I will be boarding the ship at noon, so I might not reply to anything until next saturday. Have a good week


Dennis

[steel_selachian]

Well in a sense the USN and USMC air forces have been "combined" - they're funded out of the same department of the DoD and until the Harriers and helos came along they pretty much flew the same aircraft. I wouldn't go so far as to completely hand over Marine fast-jet aviation to the Navy, but it would be beneficial if Marine and Navy squadrons were entirely interchangeable on the CVN decks and most Marine squadrons were integrated into the CVWs. Transitioning most of the Marine fast-jet squadrons to the F-35B would essentially bar them from CVN ops, meaning the only way they can get to the action aside from being posted to LHDs/LHAs is long deployments to forward bases using aerial refueling and having weapons shipped along with them (a.k.a. "the same way the Air Force gets to the party, and at about the same time").

I think the LHA/LHD series ships still have a purpose as helicopter carriers, which is more important than a role as a Marine jet carrier - especially considering that for each F-35B you could probably fit an extra MV-22 onboard, which means an LHA-6 without F-35s aboard could double its airlift capacity. If you're going to be barging in with a battalion of Marines, it's probably a safe bet that there will be a CSG around to provide air cover. For most of the "low-intensity" conflicts where it might be nice to have a smaller carrier dispatched, helos and possibly light UCAVs will be enough airpower. In fact, if the Marines were to go for a gunship version of the AW609, I wonder if it would be possible to use it in a similar manner to the old OV-10 Bronco, but with more modern PGMs and targeting systems.

EDIT: Some info about the structural problems cropping up in the F-35B - http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/01/jsf-build-and-test-was-miscalculation-production-must-slow-v/

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well in a sense the USN and USMC air forces have been "combined" - they're funded out of the same department of the DoD and until the Harriers and helos came along they pretty much flew the same aircraft. I wouldn't go so far as to completely hand over Marine fast-jet aviation to the Navy, but it would be beneficial if Marine and Navy squadrons were entirely interchangeable on the CVN decks and most Marine squadrons were integrated into the CVWs. Transitioning most of the Marine fast-jet squadrons to the F-35B would essentially bar them from CVN ops, meaning the only way they can get to the action aside from being posted to LHDs/LHAs is long deployments to forward bases using aerial refueling and having weapons shipped along with them (a.k.a. "the same way the Air Force gets to the party, and at about the same time").

I think the LHA/LHD series ships still have a purpose as helicopter carriers, which is more important than a role as a Marine jet carrier - especially considering that for each F-35B you could probably fit an extra MV-22 onboard, which means an LHA-6 without F-35s aboard could double its airlift capacity. If you're going to be barging in with a battalion of Marines, it's probably a safe bet that there will be a CSG around to provide air cover. For most of the "low-intensity" conflicts where it might be nice to have a smaller carrier dispatched, helos and possibly light UCAVs will be enough airpower. In fact, if the Marines were to go for a gunship version of the AW609, I wonder if it would be possible to use it in a similar manner to the old OV-10 Bronco, but with more modern PGMs and targeting systems.

EDIT: Some info about the structural problems cropping up in the F-35B - http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/01/jsf-build-and-test-was-miscalculation-production-must-slow-v/

Steel:

I thought the F-35 was carrier capable?

[steel_selachian]

Maybe Dennis can correct me on this when he gets back from his cruise, but the F-35B (the VSTOL variant the USMC is procuring) is not fitted for catapult launches nor is it fitted with a tailhook, which means it has to get off the carrier under its own power and do a vertical or rolling vertical landing. A CVN deck is a pretty crowded place, and between the room the F-35Bs would need for a running takeoff and the heat/FOD from the engines things would get messy. The Navy's position is that they would essentially have to put most of the air wing below decks during F-35B ops, which means it would gum up flight operations. In short, they've said "hell, no!" to the idea.

What I don't know is why jet blast and FOD isn't a killer issue on a smaller LHD flight deck, but then again to my knowledge the F-35B is yet to be tested on a loaded LHD to see how it plays with the Marine helos.

The F-35C, on the other hand, is fitted for cats and traps and would slot right into regular flight deck operations. The Navy's buying those and has talked the Marines into buying 80 of them to outfit five USMC squadrons that would be integrated into Navy CVWs.

[old_pop2000]

Maybe Dennis can correct me on this when he gets back from his cruise, but the F-35B (the VSTOL variant the USMC is procuring) is not fitted for catapult launches nor is it fitted with a tailhook, which means it has to get off the carrier under its own power and do a vertical or rolling vertical landing. A CVN deck is a pretty crowded place, and between the room the F-35Bs would need for a running takeoff and the heat/FOD from the engines things would get messy. The Navy's position is that they would essentially have to put most of the air wing below decks during F-35B ops, which means it would gum up flight operations. In short, they've said "hell, no!" to the idea.

What I don't know is why jet blast and FOD isn't a killer issue on a smaller LHD flight deck, but then again to my knowledge the F-35B is yet to be tested on a loaded LHD to see how it plays with the Marine helos.

The F-35C, on the other hand, is fitted for cats and traps and would slot right into regular flight deck operations. The Navy's buying those and has talked the Marines into buying 80 of them to outfit five USMC squadrons that would be integrated into Navy CVWs.

Hi Guys:

I am home.
The answer is that it does not currently have an arresting hook, so that should answer both questions. The question of how it is going to interact with the helos is important. The bring-back weight and fuel issues are the killers, not the deck capatibility. That can be solved with new procedures and deck coatings. I believe that I've read that testing in that environment is underway, but can't confirm.

[steel_selachian]

Some more detail on structural cracks and "hot spots" being found in the early F-35s.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-f-35-concurrency-reaches-turning-point-366056/

[old_pop2000]

Some more detail on structural cracks and "hot spots" being found in the early F-35s.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-f-35-concurrency-reaches-turning-point-366056/

Same problems as always, stress cracks on the center barrel due to aerodynamic and physical loads being transferred from the wings. Also, the fuel tanks that feed the engine are behind the pilot on the Charlie model. This is nothing new and apparently no one has gotten the loads correct in design, after the F-18A problems we had. My, oh my.

[steel_selachian]

Same problems as always, stress cracks on the center barrel due to aerodynamic and physical loads being transferred from the wings. Also, the fuel tanks that feed the engine are behind the pilot on the Charlie model. This is nothing new and apparently no one has gotten the loads correct in design, after the F-18A problems we had. My, oh my.

It's kind of funny in a tangential way for me because a lot of the research done in the area I wrote my MS thesis on (larval fish dispersal) is done through computer modeling and simulations. Which can give you a good idea of how several million eggs the size of the ballpoint in your pen disperse into an ocean current and then continue to move for a month or two after they've hatched out into larvae the size of a grain of rice. Problem is - don't trust the simulation until you've observed how it applies in the real world. You can only program in the factors that you know about. So it is with airplanes and parts.

[old_pop2000]

It's kind of funny in a tangential way for me because a lot of the research done in the area I wrote my MS thesis on (larval fish dispersal) is done through computer modeling and simulations. Which can give you a good idea of how several million eggs the size of the ballpoint in your pen disperse into an ocean current and then continue to move for a month or two after they've hatched out into larvae the size of a grain of rice. Problem is - don't trust the simulation until you've observed how it applies in the real world. You can only program in the factors that you know about. So it is with airplanes and parts.

That is essentially correct about modelling, you have to understand all the factors. An aircraft is a compromise between payload and weight. The structure needs to be strong and stiff enough to withstand its operating environment. Durability is important. If a part fails, it must not fail the whole aircraft.

The fuselage is the designed to carry the payload and is where all parts are connected. It has to resist bending moments, torsional loads and be structurally strong and stiff. But the weight of that structure must be kept at a minimum. Fatigue cracks are caused by repetitive loads and these might not be tested thoroughly. If not, they will overstress and fail.

Is every 2000 lb JDAM exactly 2000 lbs? Does every pilot land exactly at NATOPS landing speed for his weight? The answer to these and many questions is a categorical, NO. Fatigue-critical areas are at the fuselage upper part and at the joints of the fuselage frames to the wing spars. This is the area we call the Center Barrel.

As you can imagine from your work, this gets really complicated and not always understood completely until a problem arises. Then it might be too late, and someone gets killed. It has happened ever since the Wright Bros.

Not to worry, throw enough money at the problem and they can solve it.

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/01/f-35-wing-problem-surfaces-fix-found-navy-version-unaffected/

BTW, the MV-22s are now flying over our house everyday, sound entirely different from the CH-46 they replaced or the CH-53. I saw one yesterday flying east then coming back westward at about 5000 feet, engines almost vertical but with a slight forward angle. Interesting.

[steel_selachian]

Yes, except that I can't help but be worried at this "concurrent" test and production plan. The more planes that are produced before problems start cropping up, the more that have to be hauled in for modification later.

In other news, leaks out of the Japanese government suggest they may be hopping aboard the F-35 bandwagon.

[old_pop2000]

Yes, except that I can't help but be worried at this "concurrent" test and production plan. The more planes that are produced before problems start cropping up, the more that have to be hauled in for modification later.

In other news, leaks out of the Japanese government suggest they may be hopping aboard the F-35 bandwagon.

A retrofit should not be a problem, with the design change, the next block will use the updated design and alls well. They will monitor with magnafluxing, the problem of the cracks and when an overhaul is required by flight hours, the retrofit will be applied in the contract. Not a real problem, just takes time, material and money.

[old_pop2000]

Article about internal report on F-35 problems. Number 1 and number 3 had better be resolved, or this birds is going to have major problems. Buffeting had high speeds and power problems are killers....literally. The buffeting issue could be air separation on the wings striking the tail surface, that is usually the issue. It's gathered along with flutter under aeroelasticity. First explored in 1947 but identified before that.


http://www.stripes.com/news/us/internal-pentagon-report-finds-major-problems-with-f-35-performance-components-1.163372

[old_pop2000]

Just some more information on Aeroelasticity. It a term used in aerodynamics that concerns the interaction between the deformation of an elastic structure in an airstream and the resulting aerodynamic force. It is used to perdict the shape of a body under a given load. It was first discovered and documented in 1916 on the Handley-Page O/400 that experienced violent tail oscillations. Stability is generally a problem that aerodynamacist have to deal with in these kinds of situations. Turbulence and gusts appear to be the primary cause of problems along with buffeting which is transient vibrations induced by wakes behind wings, nacelles and other aircraft components. Hope that helps.

This might put you to sleep, but it is accurate.

http://www.n.ethz.ch/student/florianh/literature/pdf/Aiaa-7218156.pdf (http://www.n.ethz.ch/student/florianh/literature/pdf/Aiaa-7218156.pdf)

[steel_selachian]

Article about internal report on F-35 problems. Number 1 and number 3 had better be resolved, or this birds is going to have major problems. Buffeting had high speeds and power problems are killers....literally. The buffeting issue could be air separation on the wings striking the tail surface, that is usually the issue. It's gathered along with flutter under aeroelasticity. First explored in 1947 but identified before that.


http://www.stripes.com/news/us/internal-pentagon-report-finds-major-problems-with-f-35-performance-components-1.163372

Gyyyyyyargh, what a mess. Lockheed is still trying to figure out the oxygen system problem that's caused 1 F-22 crash, and now this raft of issues with the F-35. Have they forgotten how to build airplanes over there? We'd better hope Sukhoi and Chengdu have as many screwups trying to turn out the T-50 and J-20.

[old_pop2000]

Gyyyyyyargh, what a mess. Lockheed is still trying to figure out the oxygen system problem that's caused 1 F-22 crash, and now this raft of issues with the F-35. Have they forgotten how to build airplanes over there? We'd better hope Sukhoi and Chengdu have as many screwups trying to turn out the T-50 and J-20.

I don't think anyone has forgotten how to design and build aircraft at Lockheed. The supersonic and supercruise flight regime has many variables and that's why we test. In computer sims, wind tunnels and flght tests with more sophisticated instrumentation, the idea is to find these problems and solve them before production. On the whole, we have been doing that but the issue of fatigue may need more detailed study, we obviously haven't got that right yet. I strongly suspect the Russkies and Chinese are having similar problems. They simply build the structure so heavy and strong that these issues probably don't affect them much. However, that means that the aircraft is much heavier than it really should be, requiring bigger engines. You don't get something for nothing in aerodynamics.

[steel_selachian]

Well, despite the F-35 issues Japan has hopped onboard - presumably the Russian and Chinese fielding of stealth fighter prototypes and the possibility of North Korea flaring up made the F-35 a more attractive offer than the Eurofighter, Silent Eagle, or Super Hornet. They also have a new pair of "helicopter destroyers" in the works that would potentially be able to support the F-35B, if they go that route.

[old_pop2000]

Well, despite the F-35 issues Japan has hopped onboard - presumably the Russian and Chinese fielding of stealth fighter prototypes and the possibility of North Korea flaring up made the F-35 a more attractive offer than the Eurofighter, Silent Eagle, or Super Hornet. They also have a new pair of "helicopter destroyers" in the works that would potentially be able to support the F-35B, if they go that route.

This might have been a big incentive to buy the plane. From Aviation Week:

"Japanese industry will be able to make 40% of the aircraft’s “300 components,”
according to a Sankei newspaper report that does not say how the parts have been
counted. The Yomiuri newspaper says the U.S. government is proposing that Japan
build F-35 wings and tails, work that would otherwise go to Lockheed Martin and
BAE Systems, respectively

[old_pop2000]

http://defense-update.com/20120121_us-affirms-commitment-to-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter.html

It would appear that the F-35B is a go. Boeing has won.

[steel_selachian]

Looks like the Navy's bringing out the big PR guns on this one ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/03/top-gun-2-will-rock-the-f-35-t.html

[old_pop2000]

Looks like the Navy's bringing out the big PR guns on this one ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/03/top-gun-2-will-rock-the-f-35-t.html


"No. No, Mav, this is not a good idea"

[steel_selachian]

"No. No, Mav, this is not a good idea"

"Sorry Goose, it's time to buzz the Hill."

[old_pop2000]

"Sorry Goose, it's time to buzz the Hill."

"Maverick: [Flying above MiG upside down] Goose: “Is this your idea of fun, Mav?”

[steel_selachian]

"Maverick: [Flying above MiG upside down] Goose: “Is this your idea of funding, Mav?”

Updated for the sequel.

[old_pop2000]

Updated for the sequel.

Very nice, Steel! Very nice!

[steel_selachian]

Looks like the Marines will start training pilots for the F-35B later this year - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-training-kick-off-set-for-early-april-369303/

[old_pop2000]

Looks like the Marines will start training pilots for the F-35B later this year - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-training-kick-off-set-for-early-april-369303/

I read that the other day, that's good. The flight test area for Eglin is off of the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Good crashing area. The only real problem will be Yuma, because then they will make trips to Miramar and fly over my house. Ich!! It's bad enough with MV-22 Ospreys flying over, now F-35Bs.

[steel_selachian]

I read that the other day, that's good. The flight test area for Eglin is off of the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Good crashing area. The only real problem will be Yuma, because then they will make trips to Miramar and fly over my house. Ich!! It's bad enough with MV-22 Ospreys flying over, now F-35Bs.

Maybe it's a good thing my sister doesn't live there anymore - her ex-husband used to be a JAG officer at Eglin, and I'd spend spring break at the beach there. Maybe one will sink right on the old Oriskany's flight deck.

[old_pop2000]

Maybe it's a good thing my sister doesn't live there anymore - her ex-husband used to be a JAG officer at Eglin, and I'd spend spring break at the beach there. Maybe one will sink right on the old Oriskany's flight deck.Yea, most of the aircraft there are in first crash condition.

[steel_selachian]

Since we were talking several pages back about the introduction schedule for the F-35C, I was wondering if it's standard practice in the Navy to try and spread new aircraft through all the CVWs before adding a second squadron (i.e. transition 1 squadron per CVW to the F-35C until you have 1 squadron in each CVW, then go back and repeat with the second) or lump the first two squadrons into the same CVW (like how VF-1 and VF-2 both got the F-14A and deployed together in 1974). I was just trying to determine the proper mix-and-match of legacy Hornet, Super Bug, and F-35 squadrons for some 2016-2022 NWP scenarios.

[old_pop2000]

Since we were talking several pages back about the introduction schedule for the F-35C, I was wondering if it's standard practice in the Navy to try and spread new aircraft through all the CVWs before adding a second squadron (i.e. transition 1 squadron per CVW to the F-35C until you have 1 squadron in each CVW, then go back and repeat with the second) or lump the first two squadrons into the same CVW (like how VF-1 and VF-2 both got the F-14A and deployed together in 1974). I was just trying to determine the proper mix-and-match of legacy Hornet, Super Bug, and F-35 squadrons for some 2016-2022 NWP scenarios.

Well, its a lot more complicated than that. First you have to have a transition plan. In that plan you have begin by training the support personnel on the new support equipment including test sets and ATE. At the same time, you establish the main base for the whole lot on the coast chose to transition first. In this case, its the West Coast. The main base probably will be Lemoore but could be NAF El Centro. They will fly their old birds to a drop off point, probably Davis Monthan and then head to the transition training squadron. Homebasing begins in 2015 when the first squadron, VFA-01, completes transition. There will be seven fleet squadrons and one training squadron. This means a total of 70 aircraft and 30 training aircraft. A total of 109 FA-18A Pacific Fleet aircraft will be replaced.

The schedule is :

VFA-01 Dec 2015

VMFA-01 Dec 2016

FRS-02 October 2017

VMFA-02 Dec 2017

VFA-02 October 2018

VMFA-03 Dec 2018

VFA-03 July 2019

BTW, FRS means the Fleet Replacement Squadron, essentially the training squadron. Keep in mind, that while the squadrons are transitioning, so does the carrier. GSE and other equipment tailored for the new bird have to acquired and placed aboard. I am not certain which carrier is first. Probably CVN-78 the Gerald Ford which will replace the Big E which is now deploying for its last time. The Gerald Ford will be commissioned in 2015 with the CVN-79 in 2019.


　

[steel_selachian]

Well, its a lot more complicated than that. First you have to have a transition plan. In that plan you have begin by training the support personnel on the new support equipment including test sets and ATE. At the same time, you establish the main base for the whole lot on the coast chose to transition first. In this case, its the West Coast. The main base probably will be Lemoore but could be NAF El Centro. They will fly their old birds to a drop off point, probably Davis Monthan and then head to the transition training squadron. Homebasing begins in 2015 when the first squadron, VFA-01, completes transition. There will be seven fleet squadrons and one training squadron. This means a total of 70 aircraft and 30 training aircraft. A total of 109 FA-18A Pacific Fleet aircraft will be replaced.

The schedule is :

VFA-01 Dec 2015

VMFA-01 Dec 2016

FRS-02 October 2017

VMFA-02 Dec 2017

VFA-02 October 2018

VMFA-03 Dec 2018

VFA-03 July 2019

BTW, FRS means the Fleet Replacement Squadron, essentially the training squadron. Keep in mind, that while the squadrons are transitioning, so does the carrier. GSE and other equipment tailored for the new bird have to acquired and placed aboard. I am not certain which carrier is first. Probably CVN-78 the Gerald Ford which will replace the Big E which is now deploying for its last time. The Gerald Ford will be commissioned in 2015 with the CVN-79 in 2019.


　

I figured the carrier would have something to do with it - for instance in one scenario where I was going to have the Nimitz on a final deployment in 2017 I decided it was unlikely she would be taking on F-35s (why put the equipment aboard when the ship is about to decommission). I was just curious to know whether for example VFA-01 would deploy solo at some point in 2016 or whether the Navy would wait until VMFA-01 was operational and deploy both squadrons together for their first cruise sometime in 2017. I get the impression that in the past the Navy has gone with lump transitions by CVW - for instance, the first two F-14 squadrons both deployed together on the same cruise and the last two A-7 squadrons were both on the JFK for Desert Storm.

[old_pop2000]

I figured the carrier would have something to do with it - for instance in one scenario where I was going to have the Nimitz on a final deployment in 2017 I decided it was unlikely she would be taking on F-35s (why put the equipment aboard when the ship is about to decommission). I was just curious to know whether for example VFA-01 would deploy solo at some point in 2016 or whether the Navy would wait until VMFA-01 was operational and deploy both squadrons together for their first cruise sometime in 2017. I get the impression that in the past the Navy has gone with lump transitions by CVW - for instance, the first two F-14 squadrons both deployed together on the same cruise and the last two A-7 squadrons were both on the JFK for Desert Storm.

My best guess is CVN-78 will do her first WestPac in 2016 with a Navy F-35C and a Marine F-35C. Next, the new JFK will deploy with the next two squadrons and then the third. These carriers will replace the Big E, Nimitz and Carl Vinson. Just my guess, based on my readings and experience. Scott might have a different idea, but probably can't speak about it.

FYI- CVW-8 composition for George W. Bush on last deployment in the Arabian Gulf ending Dec 2011

13 FA-18Es

14 FA-18Fs

10 FA-18Cs

10 FA-18A+

5 EA-18G

4 E-2C NP

11 MH-60S

11 MH-60R

2 C-2A NP

[steel_selachian]

Smells like another "gold standard cock-up" in the works here - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf/

[old_pop2000]

Smells like another "gold standard cock-up" in the works here - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf/

It's amazing how a former world power can screw the pooch, so many times, so often. They seem to be working hard at it. It's all that socialized medicine, I guess. Ooops, not suppose talk politics.

[steel_selachian]

It's amazing how a former world power can screw the pooch, so many times, so often. They seem to be working hard at it. It's all that socialized medicine, I guess. Ooops, not suppose talk politics.

I prefer to think of it as the MoD doing their best to make the Pentagon look like fiscally responsible procurement geniuses.

EDIT: Or, given this note from Down Under, maybe they "transported" all the smart procurement minds back in the 18th and 19th centuries ;) - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-to-push-back-f-35-decision-by-two-years-371402/

[old_pop2000]

I prefer to think of it as the MoD doing their best to make the Pentagon look like fiscally responsible procurement geniuses.

The Pentagon is not really that bad, they do try to be fiscally responsible in light of the fact that we change presidents and administrations every four years. They have problems adjusting especially with a Congress that wavers. No politics here, just a casual observation. The US public wants a strong defense, but for the homeland, not everywhere in the world. We are basically and psychologically, isolationists, always have been. We hate to expend human and physical resources for other peoples empires. I tend to agree, after Vietnam. Fight your own battles. Enough of the soapbox, the MIB might be watching. (Hi, MIB)

[steel_selachian]

The Pentagon is not really that bad, they do try to be fiscally responsible in light of the fact that we change presidents and administrations every four years. They have problems adjusting especially with a Congress that wavers. No politics here, just a casual observation. The US public wants a strong defense, but for the homeland, not everywhere in the world. We are basically and psychologically, isolationists, always have been. We hate to expend human and physical resources for other peoples empires. I tend to agree, after Vietnam. Fight your own battles. Enough of the soapbox, the MIB might be watching. (Hi, MIB)

*flash* Wha ... ? Must've been swamp gas ...

Soapboxes aside, I do agree - the Pentagon does a fair job given what they have to work with, and at least they tend to get something effective out of the process. The UK on the other hand can spend enough money to buy a wing of B-2s on updating a 1950s-vintage MPA design and producing nine aircraft, and still not get an operational asset out of it. On top of that we've already discussed how they've stated that with over 100 Tornado GR4s in the inventory they can barely manage to scrape together twelve at any given time for an overseas deployment.

[old_pop2000]

*flash* Wha ... ? Must've been swamp gas ...

Soapboxes aside, I do agree - the Pentagon does a fair job given what they have to work with, and at least they tend to get something effective out of the process. The UK on the other hand can spend enough money to buy a wing of B-2s on updating a 1950s-vintage MPA design and producing nine aircraft, and still not get an operational asset out of it. On top of that we've already discussed how they've stated that with over 100 Tornado GR4s in the inventory they can barely manage to scrape together twelve at any given time for an overseas deployment.

Another senior moment, sorry.

I quite agree, not because they pay my retirement, but because over time they have tried to provide the kids the best equipment possible, problems arise from complicated weaponry, but the choice is always theirs. I am still scratching my head on the LCS. But am hopeful it works as designed. I don't like the F-35B, but understand the Marine point of view. Frankly, I believe Marine air is on a short life right now.

[Spook051]

Australia does its own tweak now....

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120503/DEFREG03/305030001/Australia-Delays-F-35-Order-by-2-Years?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[steel_selachian]

Australia does its own tweak now....

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120503/DEFREG03/305030001/Australia-Delays-F-35-Order-by-2-Years?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

The Australians have been fairly smart about the JSF - they put a fair bit of padding in the budget for cost increases and have the option of leasing or outright buying more Super Hornets as a backup plan. Their initial lease of 24 aircraft to replace the F-111s was an "interim" measure that seems to be working out well for them, and if the F-35 doesn't have its act together by the time the AF-18As wear out they'd probably snap up a few dozen more.

[old_pop2000]

The Australians have been fairly smart about the JSF - they put a fair bit of padding in the budget for cost increases and have the option of leasing or outright buying more Super Hornets as a backup plan. Their initial lease of 24 aircraft to replace the F-111s was an "interim" measure that seems to be working out well for them, and if the F-35 doesn't have its act together by the time the AF-18As wear out they'd probably snap up a few dozen more.

Of course, the Australian defense problems are not quite as dangerous as ours and Europe. Unless the indigenous aborigines or possibly the natives of New Guinea get hostile, they only have to worry about the Chinese. They do have a little water between them and their primary threat. However, looking at Australia itself, um, what could they want. The Chinese have the Gobi Desert. I should think that that would be enough desert for one lifetime. So I'm thinkin' they have some time to work the details of this defense crisis out.

[steel_selachian]

Of course, the Australian defense problems are not quite as dangerous as ours and Europe. Unless the indigenous aborigines or possibly the natives of New Guinea get hostile, they only have to worry about the Chinese. They do have a little water between them and their primary threat. However, looking at Australia itself, um, what could they want. The Chinese have the Gobi Desert. I should think that that would be enough desert for one lifetime. So I'm thinkin' they have some time to work the details of this defense crisis out.

Yes, I tend to laugh when Air Power Australia gets the screaming meemies over Su-27/30 exports in the area. China isn't going to get near Australia unless they pull a WWII island-hopping campaign, and I think they'd have to go through PACFLT first. As for Indonesia and Malaysia, their air forces aren't exactly in the best shape (Indonesia's first batch of Flankers didn't even have functioning weapons systems) and neither is a major pending security threat - hell, the RAAF puts AF-18 and AP-3C detachments at RMAF Butterworth. Anyone insisting they need to buy a few dozen F-22s is having a pipe dream.

[old_pop2000]

Yes, I tend to laugh when Air Power Australia gets the screaming meemies over Su-27/30 exports in the area. China isn't going to get near Australia unless they pull a WWII island-hopping campaign, and I think they'd have to go through PACFLT first. As for Indonesia and Malaysia, their air forces aren't exactly in the best shape (Indonesia's first batch of Flankers didn't even have functioning weapons systems) and neither is a major pending security threat - hell, the RAAF puts AF-18 and AP-3C detachments at RMAF Butterworth. Anyone insisting they need to buy a few dozen F-22s is having a pipe dream.

The RAAF should probably focus on borate bombers instead of fancy fighters. They have more to fear from fires getting out of control than any Flanker in the hands of a bunch of headhunters. I wouldn't be worried about Indonesia, they are lucky to be above the water. One more 9.5 earthquake and attendant tsunami will make them an undersea mount. I think Krakatoa junior is more of a threat than any of their neighbors. Subduction faults are hell on islands.

[steel_selachian]

Aaaand somebody should check the water over in Whitehall.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-reverses-controversial-f-35-switch-371661/

[old_pop2000]

Aaaand somebody should check the water over in Whitehall.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-reverses-controversial-f-35-switch-371661/

Well, this is a another episode in the "As the F-35 Turns" for the British. Ho Hum!

[steel_selachian]

Well, this is a another episode in the "As the F-35 Turns" for the British. Ho Hum!

The real fun part is going to be maintaining crew skills. The Harriers are all gone and it's going to be some time before they get enough F-35Bs for training; we'll see if their vertical landing skills suffer in the next 6-8 years.

[old_pop2000]

The real fun part is going to be maintaining crew skills. The Harriers are all gone and it's going to be some time before they get enough F-35Bs for training; we'll see if their vertical landing skills suffer in the next 6-8 years.

No, they will send their pilots to the ITC at Eglin AFB. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120430/TSJ01/304300006/F-35-Training-Takes-Wing-Eglin-AFB

[steel_selachian]

That will be a big help for them - given the shortages of qualified training instructors the RAF has with the Typhoon, I'm not sure I would trust the UK to maintain an adequate F-35B training program on its own, especially with a complex aircraft.

[old_pop2000]

That will be a big help for them - given the shortages of qualified training instructors the RAF has with the Typhoon, I'm not sure I would trust the UK to maintain an adequate F-35B training program on its own, especially with a complex aircraft.

There are a lot of benefits for this kind of integrated training besides the cost. With the emphasis on coalition warfare, having the same information and doctrine makes mission planning much simpler. It helps in the area of feedback. If they have an operation, they can feed back what they learn and it can be integrated into the training syllubus. It also helps improve the aircraft.

[steel_selachian]

I'm setting an egg timer to see how long this lasts ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-how-hammonds-balancing-act-brought-stability-to-uk-defence-371933/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-how-hammonds-balancing-act-brought-stability-to-uk-defence-371933/)

[old_pop2000]

I'm setting an egg timer to see how long this lasts ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-how-hammonds-balancing-act-brought-stability-to-uk-defence-371933/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-how-hammonds-balancing-act-brought-stability-to-uk-defence-371933/)

I love this statement: "Referring to a previous "conspiracy of optimism", where politicians, defence procurement officials and the military would launch programmes against an unrealistic best-case scenario, Hammond says "no project will be allowed to commit without a 10-year budget line to cover not only its procurement,". Are you kidding me? You bought fancy weapons and did not think about operations and maintenance for minimum ten years.

Another interesting statement: ""Maritime surveillance from conventional aircraft is not currently funded in the programme,"" How about unconventional like drones? You are an island nation, idiot. You have been since the end of the last ice age, 13,000 years ago. You had better get some maritime surveillance out there, you are almost certainly going to need it.

Last one: "The black hole in the defence budget has finally been eliminated". This guys obviously never studied cosmology or he would know that black holes don't go away, they just eat everything in the area and get bigger.

Where is Jackie Fisher when you need him.
　

[steel_selachian]

Probably still designing HMS Incomparable :p

Interesting assertion by the USMC that the F-35B will have the highest sortie generation rate out of all the F-35 variants. I'm setting an egg timer on this one, too - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-f-35b-cannot-generate-enough-sorties-to-replace-a-10-371985/

[old_pop2000]

Probably still designing HMS Incomparable :p

Interesting assertion by the USMC that the F-35B will have the highest sortie generation rate out of all the F-35 variants. I'm setting an egg timer on this one, too - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-f-35b-cannot-generate-enough-sorties-to-replace-a-10-371985/

Hmmm! What about the concept of Marines and increased sortie rates bothers me. You see, the Marines are counting on the egress and ingress times being short in any combat situation. So this will increase their sortie rates. They won't have to fly from a carrier or a base in the rear area. This is a nice theory. In Desert Storm. AV-8Bs managed a 90% mission capable rate. Be careful of the term mission capable, it's a gotcha. All it means is that the bird could fly, and the pickle switch was working, no more. Average turnaround time was 23 minutes. They were based as close as 35 miles from the front. So, they were not over enemy territory much or enemy AA fire. Also, no enemy air assets. In both wars involving Marines; Vietnam and Desert Storm, their bases were extensive with the proper facilities and close to the front. The Marines are having a hard time defending their need for a separate Marine air.

Marine air has many missions, one of which is offensive air support basically broken down into close air support and deep air support. Now, the real question is how much of its total mission of Marine Air is allocated to CAS/DAS. Another question is whether VLO is really needed for the offensive air support mission. Remember also that the OAS mission is executed by both fixed and rotary winged aircraft. Percentages are not forth coming.

Here is a good source: http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCWP%203-23%20Offensive%20Air%20Support.pdf

[steel_selachian]

One of the other news updates recently has been that NAVAIR has indefinitely delayed integrating the Next-Generation Jammer system with the F-35. That means the Marines will be dependent on the USN EA-18Gs for EW support once their last EA-6Bs go to the boneyard.

[old_pop2000]

One of the other news updates recently has been that NAVAIR has indefinitely delayed integrating the Next-Generation Jammer system with the F-35. That means the Marines will be dependent on the USN EA-18Gs for EW support once their last EA-6Bs go to the boneyard.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, DOD and the Navy would like to eliminate Marine Air as non-essential in future war fighting. Based on the past and present conditions, its a hard case for the Marines to make, that they still require their own air support. My idea is to move the fixed wing assets to the Navy with the pilots, update and upgrade the rotary wing assets with new or upgraded attack and transports by purchasing more MV-22 Ospreys and AH-64 Longbows. Now their assault ships will just have one element to deal with and fixed wing support will be a joint, USAF, Navy and Foreign responsibility. Beware of what you read from Congress and the Navy, they will state in public one thing, but actions will dictate the future. The agreement between the Navy and Marines to provide a Marine squadrons is a start, the loss of Electronic warfare components is another. The reasons for fixed wing Marine assets are slowly dwindling to zero.

[steel_selachian]

As I have stated on numerous occasions, DOD and the Navy would like to eliminate Marine Air as non-essential in future war fighting. Based on the past and present conditions, its a hard case for the Marines to make, that they still require their own air support. My idea is to move the fixed wing assets to the Navy with the pilots, update and upgrade the rotary wing assets with new or upgraded attack and transports by purchasing more MV-22 Ospreys and AH-64 Longbows. Now their assault ships will just have one element to deal with and fixed wing support will be a joint, USAF, Navy and Foreign responsibility. Beware of what you read from Congress and the Navy, they will state in public one thing, but actions will dictate the future. The agreement between the Navy and Marines to provide a Marine squadrons is a start, the loss of Electronic warfare components is another. The reasons for fixed wing Marine assets are slowly dwindling to zero.

That may be the case, but at face value it's probably a simple calculation. The EA-18G has two crew and existing onboard EW hardware and software. Even that has been acknowledged as a heavy workload for a two-seater versus the 3-4 crew on an EA-6B. The F-35 variants are all single-seat aircraft and adding the capability to use jamming pods would be an additional integration expense. The Air Force has largely abandoned traditional EW for the gods of stealth and AESA electronic attack capabilities, the Navy already has a perfectly suitable platform, and given the F-35B's probable bringback limitations I doubt it would be able to land on an LHA with multiple jamming pods aboard. No reason to spend the money if the services either don't want the gear or can't utilize it for that platform.

[old_pop2000]

That may be the case, but at face value it's probably a simple calculation. The EA-18G has two crew and existing onboard EW hardware and software. Even that has been acknowledged as a heavy workload for a two-seater versus the 3-4 crew on an EA-6B. The F-35 variants are all single-seat aircraft and adding the capability to use jamming pods would be an additional integration expense. The Air Force has largely abandoned traditional EW for the gods of stealth and AESA electronic attack capabilities, the Navy already has a perfectly suitable platform, and given the F-35B's probable bringback limitations I doubt it would be able to land on an LHA with multiple jamming pods aboard. No reason to spend the money if the services either don't want the gear or can't utilize it for that platform.

I believe that you are missing the big picture here. This isn't about cockpit overload or cockpit management of information flow, its about redundancy. It's about having redundant capability in our military and in a coalition with joint operations having the EW suites located in other aircraft. It's about performing information gathering prior to combat operations, detailing enemy air defense capabilities and weaknesses. Never lose sight of the fact that AAWs primary function is to gain air superiority and at some point, supremacy. Once gained, then air, land and sea operations can move forward without restrictions. it's about the cost of AAW and SEAD. It's about cost per performance. How much EW and weaponry do we need to gain the air superiority and for how long? If I am acting in concert with other services and other nations, there is going to be redundancies in capability. How do I exploit that redundancy to ameliorate costs? That's what this is all about, not cockpit overload in EF-18Gs or the fact that the F-35 is only single place. Newer EW suites do not require a WSO or a GIB. They are automated with little interference from the cockpit. Here is a good piece on this subject.

http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0054_brungess_setting_context.pdf (http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0054_brungess_setting_context.pdf)

Here is another article about the JSF EW suite - http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/845.html

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123202488