F-35 Program - General Discussion

John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Clueless said:
Excluding a certain Green's Senator that continues to post misinformation about the program even though he was part of the recent inquiry.
Click to expand...
Greens? Yeah well don't get me started on the Greens and the other loony tunes pollies too (both left and right).

What I was actually meaning was the pollies in the two major parties that will ever likely form Government, because that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Who gives a rats what the Greens think! Certainly not me!!!
 
T

the road runner

Active Member
John Newman said:
Hi mate, you like me have spent plenty of hours pounding the keyboard to some of the more 'out there' comments on AA.

Does my head in, but still I go back for more!!!

Fight the good fight!!
Click to expand...
Sorry for the late reply i just saw this..
Yeh i have posted on Australian Aviation a few times but its starting to wear thin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM&lc=z13kuxiz2mf5tvz2323uctdqatizy5wus.1486888292438888

I have been battling these morons from the above link for over a year now.. I get notifications when someone posts against my comments . I go by the name on youtube of " RED QUOLL " at least i have the top comment with over 103 thumbs up with close to 200 reply's!

Most people still think the JSF costs $250 million a pop ,,, :eek:nfloorl:
 
C

colay1

Member
The jet is scheduled to have hardware refreshes every other block increment. It was never ever touted or intended to be a "software only upgrade" platform.
 
V

Vanshilar

New Member
Eh IIRC the way it works is that they alternate between hardware (tech refreshes) and software upgrades in the modernization path. IIRC (but I may be wrong) Block 2B was a software upgrade, while Block 3i was a hardware upgrade, then Block 3F will be a software upgrade, etc. There might be for example some hardware changes in a software upgrade but not much. The plan was never that the F-35 would be for example still using current IR sensors for its EODAS and EOTS all the way until the last one is retired in 2070 -- they know technology continues to advance and the F-35 program explicitly designs and plans around it, in contrast to earlier fighter programs.

What the article is talking about is regarding aircraft already delivered. Since Block 3F isn't yet released, existing aircraft are using an older Block standard so naturally need to be upgraded to have Block 3F capability. Though the article doesn't explicitly say so, I'm guessing the 26 aircraft needing software-only upgrades are Block 3i, for example, going on back toward Block 2B and older versions which will need the most extensive upgrades being listed in the article. After all, they've been delivering F-35's since 2008 or something -- there's bound to be some older ones that haven't been upgraded yet, not to mention some changes like the helmet that weren't necessarily with a main Block.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Vanshilar said:
Eh IIRC the way it works is that they alternate between hardware (tech refreshes) and software upgrades in the modernization path. IIRC (but I may be wrong) Block 2B was a software upgrade, while Block 3i was a hardware upgrade, then Block 3F will be a software upgrade, etc. There might be for example some hardware changes in a software upgrade but not much. The plan was never that the F-35 would be for example still using current IR sensors for its EODAS and EOTS all the way until the last one is retired in 2070 -- they know technology continues to advance and the F-35 program explicitly designs and plans around it, in contrast to earlier fighter programs.

What the article is talking about is regarding aircraft already delivered. Since Block 3F isn't yet released, existing aircraft are using an older Block standard so naturally need to be upgraded to have Block 3F capability. Though the article doesn't explicitly say so, I'm guessing the 26 aircraft needing software-only upgrades are Block 3i, for example, going on back toward Block 2B and older versions which will need the most extensive upgrades being listed in the article. After all, they've been delivering F-35's since 2008 or something -- there's bound to be some older ones that haven't been upgraded yet, not to mention some changes like the helmet that weren't necessarily with a main Block.
Click to expand...


Some more commentary on the F35 from the ASPI which may be of interest.
www.aspistrategist.org.au/jsf-time-reality-check-part-1/

Good to hear the army is on board.

regards S
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Boagrius said:
Some pretty unequivocal testimony from the USAF and USMC here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgLjNsB_hyM&t=0s

...and to think that this was achieved using Block 3i software mandating a payload of 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x GBU. Things can only get worse for Red team when Block 3F and Block 4 swing around. :dance
Click to expand...
It is interesting that the USN is pretty quiet on this. Granted the F35C is still working up to IOC and there are issues to resolve but you would think they would be pretty excited about the capability the F35 will provide noting the experience with the USMC F35B integrating with Aegis.
 
Boagrius

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
alexsa said:
It is interesting that the USN is pretty quiet on this. Granted the F35C is still working up to IOC and there are issues to resolve but you would think they would be pretty excited about the capability the F35 will provide noting the experience with the USMC F35B integrating with Aegis.
Click to expand...
I imagine they're hesitant to count their chickens until they've hatched? With the extent and ferocity of the anti-JSF campaign thus far combined with the fact that the C model is the "least complete" version (eg. the recently publicised bouncing on cat launches; not yet IOC) they might be biding their time until it works more as advertised. Perhaps they will become noisier when their own birds reach IOC(?).
 
C

colay1

Member
alexsa said:
It is interesting that the USN is pretty quiet on this. Granted the F35C is still working up to IOC and there are issues to resolve but you would think they would be pretty excited about the capability the F35 will provide noting the experience with the USMC F35B integrating with Aegis.
Click to expand...
Maybe they want to avoid having to explain the acquisition of additional SuperHornets which would fare quite poorly by comparison? They do have a capability gap to bridge with SHs but it is rather awkward having to buy an inferior platform.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
SpazSinbad said:
Perhaps the US ARMY will be networked into NIFC-CA [Navy integrated fire control – counter-air] with the F-35C eventually?

Link Army, Navy Missile Defense Nets: Adm. Harris 21 Feb 2017

Link Army, Navy Missile Defense Nets: Adm. Harris « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Click to expand...
there was a vid doing the rounds some time ago which said just that - which is why the US was fairly impressed with Plan Jericho as it fits in with their future vision
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
NIFC-CA Advances Could Allow The Navy To Use Cheaper ‘Dumb’ Weapons 22 Feb 2017
"...PEO IWS major program manager for future combat systems Anant Patel said the Navy had had success integrating the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, F-35B Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) into NIFC-CA and that PEO IWS would look to integrate the F-35C, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the future...."
Click to expand...
https://news.usni.org/2017/02/22/nifc-ca-advances-could-allow-the-navy-to-use-cheaper-dumb-weapons
 
C

colay1

Member
By "dumb" they mean a weapon sans seeker but still having enough brainpower to be guided to the target via data link. It presumes the data link cannot be messed with and that the sensor platform can penetrate an IADS and hang around in hostile airspace guiding ordnance to target.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
colay1 said:
By "dumb" they mean a weapon sans seeker but still having enough brainpower to be guided to the target via data link. It presumes the data link cannot be messed with and that the sensor platform can penetrate an IADS and hang around in hostile airspace guiding ordnance to target.
Click to expand...
which will in the main mean targeting static or slow responding mobile targets
 
C

colay1

Member
Would it be more cost-effective for the US to employ a mass fires solution in lieu of swarms of PGMs in some scenarios? I was unaware of the following engagement but the Russians apparently employed thermobaric weapons to good effect.

How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia - Defense One

Munitions have advanced incredibly since then. One of the most terrifying weapons that the Russians are using on the battlefield are thermobaric warheads, weapons that are composed almost entirely of fuel and burn longer and with more intensity than other types of munitions.

“In a 3-minute period…a Russian fire strike wiped out two mechanized battalions [with] a combination of top-attack munitions and thermobaric warheads,” said Karber. “If you have not experienced or seen the effects of thermobaric warheads, start taking a hard look. They might soon be coming to a theater near you.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top