F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC)

ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
damn! this becomes even more interesting when you factor in inherent Link 16 and Link 22 connectivity, NIFC-CA and the US army "Cross Domain Fires" warfighting proposals and developments

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/22/lo...230391997&mc_cid=5163eb9c76&mc_eid=802226e4dd
Click to expand...
I enjoyed the comment re the superior performance of the JSF linkages c.f. The E2D Hawkeye.
Some time ago I commented that maybe the JSF would be a superior capability for the RN rather than Using a rotary asset such as that planned for the QE CVAs. It received a lukewarm response and from that I gathered that it was a halfwit suggestion, does this development make that prospect more feasible and reduce the aircraft types carried? Or am I missing something?
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
USMC are not replacing their EW assets because 'networking with F-35s' and their gear on ships/ashore/UAVs. Meanwhile some good news for F-35C lightweight catapulting.
[F-35C Nose Gear/Catapulting Fix] 22 Mar 2017 Oriana Pawlyk
“...Babione [LM company’s general manager overseeing the F-35 program] said the company is moving quickly to repair the F-35C after it experienced rough acceleration during catapult-assisted takeoffs from Navy carriers — a hit on the most-expensive variant in the program, which was esti-mated to take months to fix, according to an Inside Defense report.

Babione said Lockheed and partners recently finished some testing at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey, “trying two different techniques. One was changing the way the pilot straps in — how they get into the seat, how do they pull their harnesses,” he said. [amazing]

Additionally, he said, “we changed the hold-back fixture... a little less load holding the airplane back when it launches” which reduces the stored energy in the nose gear.

Engineers haven’t yet determined whether one of or both techniques will be implemented, Babione said. Testing crews “will want to go back out to the carrier... sometime this fall,” he said....”
Click to expand...
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/03/22/next-f-35-contract-lrip-11-expected/
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
I enjoyed the comment re the superior performance of the JSF linkages c.f. The E2D Hawkeye.
Some time ago I commented that maybe the JSF would be a superior capability for the RN rather than Using a rotary asset such as that planned for the QE CVAs. It received a lukewarm response and from that I gathered that it was a halfwit suggestion, does this development make that prospect more feasible and reduce the aircraft types carried? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
mate, you should never doubt your insights.... the track record for members in here making force development predictions that come true is pretty high :)

as most know about NIFC-CA I'll post the "Cross Domain Fires" article in here as well

Cross-Domain Fires: US Military's Master Plan to Win the Wars of the Future | The National Interest Blog

I cannot believe how quickly the sensor fusion and NCW cross domain capabilities are moving along.

the next wild cards will be the unmanned equivs of the E-2D's

when you look at what the US is doing for NCW across the services and into the purple space, they are a golden mile ahead of anyone else.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
mate, you should never doubt your insights.... the track record for members in here making force development predictions that come true is pretty high :)

as most know about NIFC-CA I'll post the "Cross Domain Fires" article in here as well

Cross-Domain Fires: US Military's Master Plan to Win the Wars of the Future | The National Interest Blog

I cannot believe how quickly the sensor fusion and NCW cross domain capabilities are moving along.

the next wild cards will be the unmanned equivs of the E-2D's

when you look at what the US is doing for NCW across the services and into the purple space, they are a golden mile ahead of anyone else.
Click to expand...
Has the ADF made overtures to plan for NIFC-CA considering our expanding capabilities and our stated aim to take part in large scale amphibious ops with the USN?
Second, will the E2D always be needed to provide the link between the F35s other gen 4 assets and the seaborne commanders? The way I interpret the current thinking there appears to be an enduring need for this halfway house.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
Has the ADF made overtures to plan for NIFC-CA considering our expanding capabilities and our stated aim to take part in large scale amphibious ops with the USN?
Second, will the E2D always be needed to provide the link between the F35s other gen 4 assets and the seaborne commanders? The way I interpret the current thinking there appears to be an enduring need for this halfway house.
Click to expand...
unsure, a lot of the stuff that I had visibility and participation with all got changed due to a series of bad QDR's that then flowed into RAN side effects.

everyone has seen Plan Jericho as the exemplar, so I know there's a push for everyone to get their act together.

we're in the lucky position of having seats at the table for a lot of the critical elements, so its hard to say how it evolves
 
R

r3mu511

New Member
ASSAIL said:
... Second, will the E2D always be needed to provide the link between the F35s other gen 4 assets and the seaborne commanders? ...
Click to expand...
the USNI article link posted by @GF provides some info on this^:

F-35, however, uses a Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) instead, which would require a new antenna on the destroyers that will launch a missile based on what the F-35B senses. Sheridan said Lockheed Martin has conceptual designs for where to put the MADL antenna on the ship but needs to refine and test those ideas.
Click to expand...
assuming the USN pushes through with the above LockMart proposal for a shipborne MADL antenna, then this would give a method for direct linkage to an F-35 without needing to go through the CEC DDS USG antenna of the E-2 (fwiw, the Sep 2016 land-based test of F-35 with NIFCCA-Aegis used a prototype MADL antenna installed on test "ship" LLS-1)
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
r3mu511 said:
the USNI article link posted by @GF provides some info on this^:



assuming the USN pushes through with the above LockMart proposal for a shipborne MADL antenna, then this would give a method for direct linkage to an F-35 without needing to go through the CEC DDS USG antenna of the E-2 (fwiw, the Sep 2016 land-based test of F-35 with NIFCCA-Aegis used a prototype MADL antenna installed on test "ship" LLS-1)
Click to expand...
Thanks r3, I assume that At extreme range the link can be repeated via sat? Or must it be LOS.
 
R

r3mu511

New Member
ASSAIL said:
Thanks r3, I assume that At extreme range the link can be repeated via sat? Or must it be LOS.
Click to expand...
I haven't come across any info on direct satellite linkage for MADL, so my guess would be that the F-35 must be at an altitude such that it is within the RF horizon of the shipborne MADL antenna to maintain "LOS"...
 
C

colay1

Member
JAnother possibility.. A distant F-35 can pass off the data to another F-35 closer to he ship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top