• 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
Chris Pook:

Ships and sea aside, the USMC and USN lobby Congress quite independently of each other (most of time); Marines are most certainly not under the navy's thumb.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Either way it doesn't make the USAF any better at bargaining...  :)
 
Lasers in jet fighters by 2020?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/politics/us-air-force-laser-fighter-jet-weapons-research/index.html
 
That's a working demonstration, far from operational model and deployment. It's cool sci-fi stuff, but I think we're a lot further away than 5 years from now.
 
F-35 doubter Bill Sweetman at AW&ST:

Opinion: Why Does U.S. Air Force Want New F-15s Or F-16s?
The first step is admitting there is a problem

...
SLEPs, upgrades and replacements cost money, but there’s another problem: time. Aircraft in the depot are not available for operations or training. F-35s being delivered today are not yet operational but are big maintenance consumers until the JSF’s automated logistics system works, and changing delivery standards mean they need retrofits.

The Navy is being particularly cautious about SLEPs. Any owner of an older house will tell you that there is never a nice surprise when you remove paneling, and the same goes for aircraft, particularly when they have been operated in salty conditions. When the Navy performed SLEPs on its Classic Hornets, it found corrosion and other unexpected problems, and Super Hornets ended up being grounded because Classics were clogging the depots.

Buying more F-35s is an expensive option—the Navy’s plan sacrifices F-35Cs to pay for Super Hornet life extensions. Simply retiring older jets is not attractive either: Once force structure is lost, it is expensive to recover. New production of older aircraft could mitigate these problems for both services. It is an easier decision for the Navy, with the Super Hornet line still rolling. But the ACC still wants to know what that option would cost.

Hence the trial balloons: While the acquisition troops would love to forge ahead with the F-35 at its most efficient rate, the operational commanders don’t see that as the way to get to a balanced operational fleet in the 2020s.

Who’s right? I don’t know, but absent a formal study, it’s not clear that anyone else does, and as long as the acquirers and operators are communicating by balloon, nobody ever will.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-why-does-us-air-force-want-new-f-15s-or-f-16s

Mark
Ottawa
 
More on USN F-35Cs–and Super Hornets–very interesting:

Carter Orders Navy to Build Fewer Ships, Spend More on Jets

Defense Secretary Ash Carter has ordered U.S. Navy leaders to buy fewer ships so the service can spend more on jets such as the F-35 as well as munitions and upgraded systems for electronic warfare.

“For the last several years, the Department of the Navy has overemphasized resources used to incrementally increase total ship numbers at the expense of critically needed investments in areas where our adversaries are not standing still, such as strike, ship survivability, electronic warfare and other capabilities,” Carter wrote in a memo obtained by Bloomberg News that’s rare in its blunt rejection of a military service’s approach…

Navy spokesman Commander William Marks said service officials were aware of Carter’s memo but “budget discussion are pre-decisional and it would inappropriate to discuss anything further until the FY 17 budget is finalized. ”..

In the memo to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus…Carter directed the Navy to increase purchases over the five years of Lockheed’s F-35 and the F/A-18E/F made by Boeing Co. Thirty-one of the Navy’s version of the F-35 would be added over the Navy’s request…
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-17/carter-orders-navy-to-build-fewer-ships-spend-more-on-jets

Mark
Ottawa
 
More:

Document: Budget Directive Letter from SECDEF Carter to SECNAV Mabus
http://news.usni.org/2015/12/17/document-budget-directive-letter-from-secdef-carter-to-secnav-mabus

Mark
Ottawa
 
Very curious.... on so many levels.  Especially in comparison to the apparent mechanics of decision making up here.

I guess, in the US, the Generals and Admirals wouldn't get away with ignoring a clear directive from the PM via his MinDef to, say, for example, downsize themselves.
 
Chris Pook said:
Very curious.... on so many levels.  Especially in comparison to the apparent mechanics of decision making up here.

I guess, in the US, the Generals and Admirals wouldn't get away with ignoring a clear directive from the PM via his MinDef to, say, for example, downsize themselves.

I'm not sure because of the way the US decision making process is structured. Congress could go along or change the plan or just vote down everything. One suspects the framers of the constitution, who really had thought long and hard before coming up with a system that would prevent any "king" from appearing, would be appalled by how human venality has managed to assert itself, just like it has everywhere else.

In Washington, I fear, they would call in a few markers and with their congressional acolytes proclaim that the president was trying to emasculate national defense, etc, etc, etc. As someone much smarter (and deader) than me proclaimed, "Politics makes for strange bedfellow."
 
There are numerous cases where the Congress will order the armed services to purchase things the armed services say the don't want, like more transport aircraft rather than sexy new fighter planes.

While this may sound like a problem that we would love to have ("No General, you will take those C-17's and you will like it!), it does tend to have knock on effects on force structures and logistics to support items which Congresscritters support (for whatever reason, either because they are bringing pork to their district or because they believe they are Sun Tzu reincarnate). This sort of micro management is no help at all.
 
Well, well, well (imagine the pressure from the US gov't and LockMart):

Canada Defense Minister Backs Off Campaign Rejection of F-35 Jet

Canada’s new defense minister backed off a campaign-trail pledge by his Liberal Party that Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jets would be excluded from a competition to replace the country’s aging fleet of military aircraft.

Harjit Sajjan said Monday [Dec. 21] during a conference call with reporters his focus is finding the best aircraft to replace the CF-18 jets before they become obsolete. He was asked twice whether the F-35 is being excluded from bidding, and both times he sidestepped the question. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said while campaigning for the October election Canada “won’t purchase the F-35” because they’re too expensive [see link near end].

Canada still needs to set the terms of a new competition for replacement aircraft, ones that can be available “in a timely manner” and be able to work on missions with U.S. and European allies, Sajjan said Monday. The previous government had invested in F-35 development contracts without signing a final purchase agreement.

“My focus isn’t about F-35 or any other aircraft; my focus” is about replacing the CF-18s, Sajjan said on the call. “We will open it up to an open process.”..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/canada-defense-minister-backs-off-campaign-rejection-of-f-35-jet

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Well, well, well (imagine the pressure from the US gov't and LockMart):

And also now being able to review information that they would not have had before, and, maybe, some common sense.
 
Loachman said:
And also now being able to review information that they would not have had before, and, maybe, some common sense.
Fingers crossed on that last part ...
 
Loachman said:
And also now being able to review information that they would not have had before, and, maybe, some common sense.

And with a flying fleet of over 400 in the next year or two it might put an end to "the paper aeroplane" jibe.
 
milnews.ca said:
Fingers crossed on that last part ...

Based upon lengthy history, "that last part" is the least likely scenario.
 
I think the "vital ground" in that campaign pledge was that the CF-18 replacement would be selected by a competition.  That much has not changed.

"Sajjan signals F-35 won't be excluded from fighter replacement competition"
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sajjan-signals-f-35-won-t-be-excluded-from-fighter-replacement-competition-1.2709293
 
Meanwhile the Finns are at least theoretically open to the F-35--and F-15 beyond usual suspects:

Finland kicks-off F/A-18 replacement process

Finland has notified five manufacturers of its intention to seek bids for its HX fighter-replacement programme, which will see it replace its 61-strong Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornet fleet.

On 16 December, the Finnish ministry of defence notified the governments of France, Sweden, the UK and the USA that it will be seeking information on seven aircraft types from five different manufacturers.

Requests for information (RFI) will be issued by March 2016, Finland says, which will include the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F-18 and F-15, and Lockheed Martin F-35 and F-16.

Replies to the RFI are to be submitted to Helsinki by the end of October 2016, with the contest to be launched in “spring 2018”, followed by a selection in 2021 [plenty of time to get F-35 costs down]…

The current F-18 fleet will be phased out by 2025, and Helsinki estimates it will take around 15 years to introduce the new capability.

Finland operates 54 single-seater F-18Cs and seven two-seater F-18Ds, that are nearing 20 years in age…

Denmark operates the ageing F-16A/B and is in the process of deciding on a replacement which many believe will be the F-35A, as Copenhagen was previously involved in the JSF’s development stage.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/finland-kicks-off-fa-18-replacement-process-420255/

Mark
Ottawa
 
I wish we could look at replacing things when they're 20 years old. A pipe dream, I know.

I think the Finnish process is going to have a lot of parallels, other than physical airspace size as our process. Roughly similar numbers, similar arctic operating environment, and although not a NATO member, interoperability with NATO partners.
 
Some more info on F-35 program:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/12/f35-production-being-rushed-to-avoid.html#more

Bearpaw
 
Popular Science's next issue discusses the F-35 and whether it will be the last manned fighter aircraft.  Interestingly, PopSci still cites Canada as one of the nations buying the F-35.

On a dusty tarmac, about 20 miles from downtown Phoenix, Capt. Joseph Stenger stands in 109-degree heat, barely sweating. A 32-year-old fighter pilot with the slicked-back hair, steady eyes, and ropey forearms you see on movie posters, he is admiring an equally impressive piece of flying machinery: the F-35 Lightning II fighter. In his green flight suit, and standing a little over 6 feet tall, Stenger is nearly face to snout with this menacing jet.

It’s his job to figure out what it can do in combat, and to teach that to hundreds of other fighter pilots.The F-35 started arriving here at Luke Air Force Base this past winter. It is the most sophisticated fighter ever built. It is stealthy, so it can appear the size of a golf ball to enemy radar, if it’s detected at all. It can also jam enemy radar—or make it seem there are 100 golf-ball-size targets in the sky. It can travel at Mach 1.6. It carries a 25 mm cannon, air-to-air missiles, two 2,000-pound guided bombs, and four external laser-guided bombs. But what truly sets it apart is its brain, 8 million lines of software code—more than any fighter in history—fusing navigation, communication, and targeting systems.

Stenger explains it like this: In older jets, he has to manually operate things like radar (pointing it at the ground to search for missiles shot at him, or at the sky, to look for enemy planes). He has to monitor a high-speed data link for plane-to-plane communications and texts from ground troops. He or his back-seat weapons guy must pick through data before locking on a target and firing. “You can imagine that’s pretty time consuming and requires a lot of cognitive processing,” Stenger says.

The single-seat F-35 does much of this for him, by fusing and automating dozens of sensors. So, for instance, if his heat sensor picks up an enemy missile headed his way, a chime will sound, “like a doorbell” he says, and a computer voice will say, “Missile left, nine o’clock.” When Stenger looks there, a green circle pops up on his helmet’s face shield, pinpointing the missile’s site, along with its speed and time to impact. Just by looking at the circle Stenger can aim his weapon and fire at the enemy, then outrun the missile. Six external cameras also capture a 360-degree view outside the jet and feed it to his face shield. If Stenger looks down he can see through the cockpit floor to the ground....

http://www.popsci.com/last-fighter-pilot?src=SOC&dom=fb

While this is an article about the F-35 specifically, it does touch on the next generation and proposes that "fighters" will end up being manned aircraft not unlike current bombers, with long range missiles and the ability to control RPAs to be essentially Over-the-horizon Targeting.  The following quotes are also interesting:

Standing outside the [simulator] cockpit, he peers into the darkened dome, and says he believes we will one day fight our enemies from inside one of these things. When I ask what that will take, he says flatly, “Bandwidth.”

Hierlmeier [LCol, CO of the F-35A school], flanked by a pair of Lockheed Martin contractors and an Air Force PR person tapping her smartphone, leans on the cockpit and considers that future. “I don’t want to be the horse cavalry guy at the start of World War I,” he says. “I’m hoping we’ll see a day when man is not in the machine, in the jet, but man is in the loop. We’ve got to embrace that. I see a day when you’re driving into this dome, and you’re fighting the fight from right here.”

I also believe that it will be best to adopt a mixed manned/RPA fleet at first, where the manned aircraft controls the RPAs and weapons release.  Politics/optics will be bad if a truly autonomous RPA releases weapons onto the wrong target and/or causes civilian casualties.  That being said, bandwidth and the ability to be hacked is the limiting factor for any future RPA, so I suspect the days of the fighter pilot (or bomber pilot) aren't over yet.
 
Back
Top