• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
Mr Stillion is quite right in saying that whoever wins the information war wins the battle.  If you can hide to the enemy your intentions and position, yet you can see and hear them, you will win.  This is exactly what happened during Op Desert Storm.

At the tactical level, this is moreso true.  Whichever side has the greatest SA will win.  In modern air warfare, this is achieved by controlling the Electronic Spectrum: hiding/ deceiving while being able to see a clear picture.

Another aspect that is not talked about in the article is the importance of centralized control, decentralized exectution.  This is one thing we, the West, do well.  Russia has probably as good pilots as we have.  What they don't have is the tactical decentralization we enjoy in the west.  We train mission commanders (leading an overall tactical effort), package commanders (leading a certain aspect of the overall effort) and flight leads (leading individual flights within a package).  Given a mission objective and guidance, the mission commander is let to command once the execution starts, thus giving him flexibility to change the plan as the scenario unfolds.  In Russia, this is the opposite.  Individual pilots are given commands from C2 nodes and initiative is not encouraged. 

This is a key reason why I believe we would roll over an Eastern opponent, regardless of how good their planes, missiles and pilots are.
 
Good2Golf said:
CC-150T and CF-188s are compatible now - no issue, and won't be an issue for the next tenth of a century... 

What matters when the CC-150 and CF-188 are no longer in service is that the fighter-tanker issue, whatever the CC- or the CF- designators for the respective capabilities are, has been resolved.  You appear to be prejudging that the CC-150T will be what services the CF-1XX and that is not necessarily the case.

No, not at all.  What I am presupposing is that if the F-35A is chosen as our new fighter, we will have to either buy new tankers, or rely on the US for ALL of our AAR needs - for the obvious reason that we don't have a boom-equipped tanker.  I don't see a problem if we purchase a fighter that uses the probe and drogue system, as the CC150 and CC130T's are both fleets that can remain in our inventory for at least another 15 years (before anyone squawks about the age of the CC130T's, they are actually our newest "old" Hercs and only (!) 25 years old, so they have plenty of time left.)  I think the CC130T / CC150 combo actually performs pretty well (though not ideal) for what we need it for.  But with an F-35A, a solution would have to be found. 

Harrigan
 
Since you are in the know, I'm assuming your "can remain in the inventory for the next 15 years" prejudges ELE extensions for both, and that you assess such an extension and concomitant deferral of replacement capital projects to be the best course of action to provide Strat and Tac AAR?
 
Good2Golf said:
Since you are in the know, I'm assuming your "can remain in the inventory for the next 15 years" prejudges ELE extensions for both, and that you assess such an extension and concomitant deferral of replacement capital projects to be the best course of action to provide Strat and Tac AAR?

Very valid question, and yes to both:

1.  In my personal opinion, I see no major heartaches with an ELE extension for either fleet, but obviously it will depend on what fighter (and FWSAR asset) we buy.  We've been waving the magic wand on ELE's for many of our fleets recently (cough. HornetBuffalo....cough), and the Airbus and CC130T's have not been 'ridden hard and put away wet'.  (Note that I am discussing the CC130T's as a subset of the "old" Herc fleet which are, on the whole, knackered). 
However, obviously no ELE decision would be made until the Fighter replacement type is announced.  If it is probe-equipped, I would expect we will extend the Polaris and Herc tankers.  If it needs a boom-equipped tanker, I suspect we won't. 

2.  A qualified Yes to this one - as it is only a discussion in the event of a probe-equipped aircraft chosen to replace the Hornets.  Considering the other much higher priority and more expensive projects (FWSAR, NFA, CSC, the rest of the naval fleet plans, etc), I just don't see that there would be an appetite for yet another new air force asset to replace the Airbus and Herc AAR fleet if they are not in imminent danger of falling apart.  If the new fighter is boom-equipped, then we would obviously have to decide between a new AAR aircraft, or reliance on US AAR support.

In an ideal world, we'd have a defined process where we plan for an aircraft type's replacement before it becomes urgent, but realistically I don't see that happening anytime soon, not with our defence budget at its lowest rate since the 1930's. 
( http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/18/make-canadas-woeful-defence-spending-record-an-election-issue )

Harrigan

P.S. So as not to give the wrong impression, obviously an ELE extension is not done without a lot of hard work and due diligence from Maintenance and WSM folks.  However, in many cases, we do safely extend the life of an aircraft out of necessity that we would rather have replaced (Buffalo and Sea King come to mind).  That is not exclusive to the Air Force of course - the Navy and Army would likely say the same for much of their kit.
 
More on Rafale at Defense Industry Daily (further links at original):

July 30/15: France is anticipating an additional pair of export orders for its Rafale fighter, with Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates reportedly external link the most likely candidates. Reuters also reported Thursday that negotiations between India and France are now also discussing the possible supply of additional Rafales on top of the 36 ordered in April. Malaysia external link is looking to replace its MiG-29 Fulcrums, with the UAE recently restarting negotiations for the Rafale as it looks to swap out its fleet of Mirage 2000-9 fighters. The Gulf state has previously articulated a potential buy of sixty Rafales...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-rafale-fighters-au-courant-in-time-05991/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Marines again, at DefenseTech:

F-35B Needs Workaround to Fuse Sensor Data, General Says

The U.S. Marine Corps’ next-generation fighter jet will initially rely on a workaround to merge targeting data from multiple aircraft, a general said.

Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the service’s deputy commandant for aviation, on Monday discussed the issue during a conference call with reporters. He oversaw the recent operational readiness inspection of 10 F-35B jump-jet versions of the Lockheed Martin Corp.-built plane.

“Right now, inside the 2B software, we have some latency issues with trying to tie all four airplanes together,” he said, referring to the block of computer code that runs the aircraft and was used to merge sensor information.

“There’s no latency at all with the first two airplanes; there’s no latency problems with ships three and four,” he said. “It’s when I try and tie all four together that sometimes a target is kind of slightly misplaced on the ground, or it’s not but I’m not confident in 100 percent of the cases exactly where it’s supposed to be.”

As a temporary workaround, Lockheed engineers devised a software patch that will share sensor data from two aircraft with another pair of aircraft by using a Link 16 tactical data connection, Davis said.

“What they’ve done is they’ve gone to two-plus-two with a Link 16 tie-in, so they’re able to share targeting information with all four airplanes,” he said. “But they’re doing sensor fusion as two-two ships vice a four-ship.”

Davis said the workaround performed well during the recent operational readiness inspection. Indeed, he said the 10 F-35Bs passed all IOC criteria and met the requirements for a declaration of combat readiness. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford is reviewing the results and is expected to declare the F-35 ready for initial operations “soon,” he said...
http://defensetech.org/2015/07/29/f-35b-needs-workaround-to-fuse-sensor-data-general-says/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Sorry for the late reply Baz... been busy and thinking about how to reply.

Baz said:
And that statement sums up what should be the core of the discussion about the F-35, and supporting bits, like tankers.

I think perhaps a bit of focus is needed on the Polaris. It wasn't like Canada went out and purchased a brand new tanker aircraft specific to this role. Basically the RCAF saw that the Luftwaffe had developed a modification for their A310 fleet for tanking, and took advantage of the existing upgrade. I can't find a reference to the actual cost, but it would have been much, much less than a regular purchase.

Moreover its quite possible that we won't seen an ELE until after 2030 anyway... so this discussion is kinda moot. As someone noted above, the CC-150s have fewer flight cycles than their civil equivalents.  However a key limiting factor was with their avionics, which required modernization to meet basic flight standards. This was done in 2013.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newscanadian-dnd-contracts-esterline-for-cc-150-polaris-avionics-upgrade

Where the ELE is at this stage is not clear, though I’ve heard that its expected to go past 2030 now. Anyways, we can do without tankers, but it reduces flexibility. The RCAF had planned to do so after the CC-137 was withdrawn, but found an alternative at a reasonable price. I suspect we would try to repeat such purchase in the future.

Baz said:
I thought the core of the Government's defence strategy was "Canada First?"

Jets and tankers are a political statement by Canada for expeditionary ops, backed op by General Officers that want to see it happen.  They are not a refection of our Allies real needs.  Disclaimer: this is shaped by the work I did at SHAPE after Libya.

Sure, I certainly agree with that view and it has been the case for a very long time... at least since the end of the cold war, if not earlier. And lets not ignore the clear domestic political role: expeditionary aerial interventions are the most popular forms of military intervention for a Canadian government. With the exception of a period during the Kosovo war, a majority of the Canadian public has generally supported the various operations. Other forms have seen serious public discontent (Afghanistan), or complete ignorance (Naval operations in the Indian ocean). 

As an aside, perhaps the recent resurgence of Russia may alter what allies perceive their needs are? From my outside perspective, I look at how the discussions on NATO's tactical nuclear arsenal has developed over the past 15 years. Three years ago it seemed as if the dual key arrangements were going to fade into obscurity as no nation felt there was a need and were worried about the domestic implications. Now there is quite a bit of renewed discussion and renewed calls for its rehabilitation, even in Germany. In many ways the weapons have little, or no military value in the current strategic environment. However Allied nations want the political reassurance of the arsenal. Perhaps we should look at our military contributions at the same light. Unless we spend tens of billions of dollars, we're never really going to make a decisive contribution to our allies security.

Baz said:
So, a thought bubble: keep the 18s, lower the flight hours, and get more new tankers, based at the fighter bases, for domestic ops.  Get TLAMs and AHs for expeditionary.

Mmmmm, I think that would be a very costly and imperfect approach to our security. Tankers are expensive: I believe the KC-46 runs around 200 million a copy, with the 330 closer to 300m. Our CF-18s will require a significant overhaul, while their operational costs will only increase as the aircraft ages. The CF-18 isn’t ideal for this type of mission compared to some of the other options; its range is its biggest deficiency.

Moreover there would be questions from our biggest ally about our actual commitment to continental defence. Lets say we select F-35: the RCAF basically has near seamless interoperability with the USAF in the north: that will have some effect at the operational and strategic level. Certainly it will put less stress on US tanking assets.

We have no launch platforms for TLAMs, so you'd need to buy a new ship or retrofit existing ones (big cost). Moreover TLAMs are a ruinously expensive strategy: I can point you to this RAND study which discusses the cost relationship over time:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR778.html

Even helicopters like the AH-64 are not inexpensive, nor do they provide as flexible a response as the fast fighter fleet. I can’t really think of many examples where such a force was deployed independently. The best I could come up with was the Franco-British efforts in Libya…. however they operated from an off-shore platform and weren’t there SF elements on the ground? The only other case I can think of is the Kosovo deployment of AH-64, which were not actually employed for a variety of reasons. I can’t think of any others, but its certainly not as flexible. Then again helicopters bring a different set of capabilities to the fore, which should be judged on its own merits. Perhaps such an acquisition would foster a more joint perspective for the CAF.

All in all, I think this would significantly hinder our ability to carry out the objectives set out in Canada First. As your thought experiment indicates, trying to replicate what a modern fighter can do with a basket of capabilities is a costly and difficult to achieve.



 
I'm not convinced  by your arguments; however, I have no opinion on the choices, just thoughts; shaped by my own set of experiences.

The report you quote was sponsored by who?  The USAF.  That's certainly not unbiased.  The are angry over a couple of things: the lose of the ALCMS,  and the fact they absolutely have to rely on the USNs TLAMS to get in.  In general they hate the fact that the USN provides a flexible timely response they can't.

AS haven't been used.  Although Air Forces don't want to talk about it, my understanding (somebody correct me) was in a fight in AFG the choice for support was the guns, followed by the AHS,  then the A-10s (a capability the USAF  hates), then the fast jets.  Although, fast air made for really good show of force.

They are also in Iraq right now... as are the 10s.

A lot of the fast air only interventions (like Libya) were Operational successes but Strategic failures.  The debate started in WWII whether strategic use of air power can win on it's own is not over.

I'm part of a rotary Wing fleet... they are no where near as expensive.  Even though Cyclone is expensive to procure (as it has a lot of electronics) and more expensive to fly, it still pales in comparison to jets.  Even though we have to pay a crew of four.  And helps have no where near the deployed footprint.

The fighter force is our most expensive fleet.  Whether it provides the flexible response at a cost favourable to other options is the real question, and one which isn't really be talked about.  The argument is the 35 is the best jet to do what the RCAF wants to do, and it's probably true in my *opinion*.  Whether what the RCAF wants to do is the best option is a National decision, which isn't being discussed.
 
Baz: Whatever else about fast air the matter remains: are Canadians willing to defer to the US for defence of Canadian airspace--and to pay for their doing it?  Russian bombers with cruise missiles, plus Russian doctrine, need to be taken into account:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=norad

Mark
Ottawa
 
Absolutely... we need something.

However, what we need, how many, how we train, and how much we train are completely dependant on whether they are going to be expeditionary.

That's what I've been trying to say, we need a National discussion on what our expeditionary forces should look like.
 
US Navy--fewer F-35Cs, more Super Hornets/Growlers?

[Admiral John Richardson, President Barack Obama's nominee for chief of naval operations]... said he would take a hard look at the Navy's current requirement for 340 F-35 C-model fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

"If confirmed, I will work with the chairman and other services to revalidate the appropriate number of aircraft the Navy requires to meet the mission," he said.

Richardson's comments opened the door to a fresh push by Boeing Co to market a more advanced version of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet now in use on carriers...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/usa-navy-richardson-idUSL1N10A1WQ20150730

Earlier:

USN Looking for More Super Hornets–Maybe Upgraded–and More Growlers
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/mark-collins-usn-looking-for-more-super-hornets-maybe-upgraded-and-more-growlers/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Meanwhile India:

IAF pushes for 20 more Rafale fighters from France

India and France are now trying to swiftly finalize the government-to-government deal for direct acquisition of 36 Rafale fighters, even as the earlier $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project for 126 such jets stands scrapped.

The IAF is pushing for at least 20 additional Rafales over the 36 decided during the Modi-Hollande summit in Paris on April 10. But India is unlikely to buy more than 36 Rafales at this stage, less than one-third of the 126 jets envisaged under the MMRCA project.

"It will take another month or so to clinch the new G-to-G deal, which will entail better terms than what was conveyed by Rafale-manufacturer Dassault Aviation during the MMRCA negotiations. Once the deal is finalized, the deliveries of the 36 jets in a flyaway condition will begin in two years," said an official.

In a written reply in Rajya Sabha, defence minister Manohar Parrikar said the Indian and French teams were negotiating the terms and conditions for the 36-jet deal and would recommend a draft agreement.

"The RFP (request for proposal) issued earlier for procurement of 126 MMRCA has been withdrawn. In this multi-vendor procurement case, the Rafale met all the performance characteristics stipulated in the RFP during the evaluation conducted by IAF," he said.

"The (36) aircraft and associated systems would be delivered on the same configuration as had been tested and approved by the IAF, and with a longer maintenance responsibility by France," he added...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IAF-pushes-for-20-more-Rafale-fighters-from-France/articleshow/48289304.cms

Mark
Ottawa
 
At last:

Marines Declare F-35B Operational

In a milestone for the F-35 joint strike fighter, the US Marine Corps today declared the F-35B jump-jet model to have achieved initial operational capability (IOC).

The news means that the Marines consider the F-35B model – one of three designs of the multi-role fighter — to be an active plane that can perform in operations the same way any other active aircraft in its arsenal can.

The plane was declared operational by Gen. Joe Dunford, the outgoing Marine Corps commandant — and incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs — in a July 31 announcement.

"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees," Dunford said in a statement. "VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."

The Marines plan on buying 420 total jets, a mix of 340 B and 80 C models. The first F-35B deployment is scheduled to take place in 2017, with the unit known as VMFA-121 moving to Iwakuni, Japan.

Although the jets will be operational, they are not in their final form. More capability, including the use of the plane's gun, will come down the line with software update 3F, which will drop in 2017...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/31/f35-operational-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/

Mark
Ottawa
 
AvWeek:

AvWeek:
...
The Marines are declaring IOC with the limited capabilities provided by Lockheed Martin’s 2B software package for the jet. This allows for use only of the AIM-120 air-to-air missile, 500-lb. Laser Guided Bombs, and the 2,000-lb. Joint Direct Attack Munition. This early software release allows for employment of weapons only from the jet’s internal bay; external stores are not functional until later software releases.

Still, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the Marines’ deputy commandant for aviation, insists the aircraft will be more effective than the F-18 Hornets and AV-8B Harriers it will replace. The software supports “basic” close air support and interdiction missions as well as “limited” suppression of enemy air defense and destruction of air defense missions, according to the service. 

The Marines plan to retire the Harriers in 2026 with the Hornets to follow in 2030, according to Maj. Paul Greenberg, a service spokesman. The second Marine Corps squadron set to stand up in fiscal year 2016 with the F-35B is VMA-211, now operating with the Harrier jump jet. It will be followed by VMFA-122, another Hornet squadron, in 2018, Greenberg says.

The service expects to declare full operational capability (FOC) in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017, at the end of the development phase of the program, which began in October 2001. After meeting that milestone, the Marines finally will have the  3F software package that allows for use of far more weapons and the aircraft’s full electronic attack capability, including the missionized gun outlined for the Marine Corps.

Davis says his primary concern for the first squadron is improving its mission capability rate. VMFA-121’s jets are mission capable about 60% of the time. Though that percentage is low, that is where service officials expected it to be at the F-35B’s operational debut...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-marines-declare-first-f-35b-squadron-operational

Mark
Ottawa
 
AvWeek again:

Timeline: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Milestones From 1996 To 2015
http://aviationweek.com/timeline-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-milestones-1996-2015

Mark
Ottawa
 
How soon many forget that F-35 is still not as long in development as EFA/EF2000/Eurofighter/Typhoon was. 

To put things in perspective, the EFA/EF2000/Eurofighter/Typhoon program commenced in 1983 and the first declaration of Initial Operating Capability (IOC) was by the Italian AF in Dec 2005 - 22 years. 

By contrast, JSF commenced in 1996 and IOC declared for the F-35B V/STOL variant for the USMC this July - 19 years, or three years less time to IOC than Typhoon.  The USAF still plans for IOC next year, thus 20 years from program commencement to IOC (of the second service to employ F-35).

Considering that even the French, taking Rafale from 'program commence' (1984) to IOC with Rafale M (the Navalized variant) in 2004 for a total of 20 years took longer than the F-35.

Thus, in the Western world, it would appear that the actual "start-to-IOC" champion in advanced fighter aircraft was.......gosh, the F-35.

This doesn't fit many groups' narratives, so we'll see how things go in the future with critique of the program.

:2c:

G2G



 
You assume that the USAF will make their current target date; based on past performance, that is very optimistic.  Even the USMC prediction of FOC next year would appear to be overly optimistic.  Besides, I don't believe load 3F will provide the "sensor fusion" capability that is one of Canada's HLMCs.

(I would also suggest that the USMC IOC is overly optimistic; no hardpoints, limited capabilities and the public acknowledgement that Block 2 was never intended to be fielded software suggests an agenda and an intent to have some "good news" instead of more "failed to meet test performance objectives and reliability objectives again" announcements in the press.)
 
Good2Golf said:
How soon many forget that F-35 is still not as long in development as EFA/EF2000/Eurofighter/Typhoon was. 

To put things in perspective, the EFA/EF2000/Eurofighter/Typhoon program commenced in 1983 and the first declaration of Initial Operating Capability (IOC) was by the Italian AF in Dec 2005 - 22 years. 

By contrast, JSF commenced in 1996 and IOC declared for the F-35B V/STOL variant for the USMC this July - 19 years, or three years less time to IOC than Typhoon.  The USAF still plans for IOC next year, thus 20 years from program commencement to IOC (of the second service to employ F-35).

Considering that even the French, taking Rafale from 'program commence' (1984) to IOC with Rafale M (the Navalized variant) in 2004 for a total of 20 years took longer than the F-35.

Thus, in the Western world, it would appear that the actual "start-to-IOC" champion in advanced fighter aircraft was.......gosh, the F-35.

This doesn't fit many groups' narratives, so we'll see how things go in the future with critique of the program.

:2c:

G2G


Wiki does a really nice summary on the Spitfire Development/Concurrent Production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_variants:_specifications,_performance_and_armament

Everything from the Mk IA to the Seafire F Mk 47. - Revised props, new engines, new wings, new tails, new undercarts, new weapons, drop tanks, two seats... but still a Spit.

Against the intended production of 2500 to 4000 (F16 type numbers) there are currently about 120 flying F35s.

In the Spitfire era those 120 would have flown operationally and been replaced as they were shot down, wore out or declared obsolete.

These days the investment in those machines is intended to be recouped by bringing the all up to the latest standard.  The alternative is ditching 250 MUSD investment in building the early machines.
 
Typhoon's "IOC" was a loaded gun and some interim s/w missiles who the ItAF could maintain CAP over the Turin Olympics...FOC was years and years later.  Not a salesman by any stretch, but looking to add some balance to those who profess that the F-35 is a mess compared to other similar programs.  ;)


Regards
G2G
 
Well, the Cyclone contract was signed in 2004; we're only 11 years into that development cycle...
 
Back
Top