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

[SpudmanWP]

B Declares IOC

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/u.s.-marine-corps-declares-the-b-operational

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX03lzyOVew

Gen Davis interview RE: F-35B IOC

http://youtu.be/kSa424EhC24

 

[barney41]

The NGJ better be happening at some point as the JSF's stealth is not likely to be viable in the longer term with new advances in radar likely in 10-15 years.

No, not really. Gen. Mike Hostage, former ACC Chief, is famously quoted as saying in the opening days of a conflict he wouldn't want any Growlers near his 5Gen platf orms. Their jamming would interfere with the AF jets sensors and degrade their SA which would be crucial in detecting and dealing with the enemy IADS.

Rather, the AF strategy is based on advanced 5Gen EW suites, working in collaboration with one another, providing sophisticated selective jamming and cyber .eg spoofing effects. These would be complemented by other assets such as MALD in decoy/jammer modes and other disruptive tech.eg CHAMP.

Once the IADS has been sufficiently degraded, NGJ could play a role to help protect vulnerable legacy jets joining the fray.

The fact is LO aircraft enjoy a big advantage now and in the future vs a non-LO platform regardless of advances in detection methods. Stealth and SA will enable smaller strike packages to detect and penetrate inevitable gaps in any IADS benefiting from the element of surprise. The AF took away important lessons from the Package Q episode over Baghdad.

The Navy OTOH has no recourse but to go with NGJ as it is so heavily invested in it's vulnerable SuperHornet fleet. NGJ gives the Navy a story to counter criticism to it's CVN-centric model.

 

[Bonza]

The fact is LO aircraft enjoy a big advantage now and in the future vs a non-LO platform regardless of advances in detection methods. Stealth and SA will enable smaller strike packages to detect and penetrate inevitable gaps in any IADS benefiting from the element of surprise. The AF took away important lessons from the Package Q episode over Baghdad.

Have to agree with this. LO is a series of measures, not just radar and IR evasion, and when combined with superior networking and situational awareness, will continue to prove viable. On an individual level perhaps LO capability gets degraded but when you bring datalinks and long-range missiles into the equation then detecting platforms one by one becomes less useful as you're going to be taking missile shots from other planes you didn't see as soon as one networked platform becomes aware of you.

I think of it in similar terms when it comes to the F-35's sometimes questioned air-to-air payload of 4x AMRAAMs - while on a platform for platform basis that's a somewhat light loadout, it doesn't take into account the fact that these aircraft will be operating in a network with other fighters and AEW&C platforms means you have to look at the total missile shots available to a package, from multiple platforms. One emitting F-35 could cue missiles from multiple sources and thus the number of available missile shots in the battlespace goes far beyond what a single fighter brings to the table.

As for the LO capabilities, they still interfere with an enemy's ability to detect, fix, and find a firing solution for the platform in question. They can be detected at times, certainly, but detection of a small radar signature doesn't necessarily mean that detection is of a high enough quality to pass to another radar for a firing solution. The whole thing constricts the enemy's OODA loop, leaving them with far less time to detect, compute firing solutions, and so on, before the targeted platform and its mates become aware of the emitting radar and do something JDAMish about it. And your 4.5 generation fighters, with an appropriate weapon system (say JASSM-ER, Storm Shadow, etc), can still hang back at standoff distances and provide strikes based on datalinked targeting information gathered by 5th gen fighters further in.

That's how I see it anyway. There's many different forms of LO that can be taken - we'll see what the future brings.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Have to agree with this. LO is a series of measures, not just radar and IR evasion, and when combined with superior networking and situational awareness, will continue to prove viable. On an individual level perhaps LO capability gets degraded but when you bring datalinks and long-range missiles into the equation then detecting platforms one by one becomes less useful as you're going to be taking missile shots from other planes you didn't see as soon as one networked platform becomes aware of you.

I think of it in similar terms when it comes to the F-35's sometimes questioned air-to-air payload of 4x AMRAAMs - while on a platform for platform basis that's a somewhat light loadout, it doesn't take into account the fact that these aircraft will be operating in a network with other fighters and AEW&C platforms means you have to look at the total missile shots available to a package, from multiple platforms. One emitting F-35 could cue missiles from multiple sources and thus the number of available missile shots in the battlespace goes far beyond what a single fighter brings to the table.

As for the LO capabilities, they still interfere with an enemy's ability to detect, fix, and find a firing solution for the platform in question. They can be detected at times, certainly, but detection of a small radar signature doesn't necessarily mean that detection is of a high enough quality to pass to another radar for a firing solution. The whole thing constricts the enemy's OODA loop, leaving them with far less time to detect, compute firing solutions, and so on, before the targeted platform and its mates become aware of the emitting radar and do something JDAMish about it. And your 4.5 generation fighters, with an appropriate weapon system (say JASSM-ER, Storm Shadow, etc), can still hang back at standoff distances and provide strikes based on datalinked targeting information gathered by 5th gen fighters further in.

That's how I see it anyway. There's many different forms of LO that can be taken - we'll see what the future brings.

barney41 and Bonza, very fine, well thought posts gentlemen, without doubt the F-35 will be a game changer, bringing LO to Marines, USAF, and Navy Airmen, the Marines and USAF are charging ahead to bring this very fine aircraft into operational status ASAP. Although many challenges remain, this fine aircraft will counter the OPFOR and make them think twice before pulling the plug on peace?

gentlemen, each of your posts are outstanding, informative, and accurate, well done, and keep up the good work, brat.

 

[ADMk2]

Further to the LO discussion, F-35 will also enable ALL LO strike / air defence packages for the first time, whereas previously that simply hasn't been possible.

Previously you might have had lone LO strike assets or air defenders escorting non-LO packages.

Now the entire package becomes feasible as an LO construct and delamination of ANY part of the package just became that much harder for the red team...

Which for Blue force is obviously all to the good.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Another F-35 LO better than F-22 quote

Further to the LO discussion, F-35 will also enable ALL LO strike / air defence packages for the first time, whereas previously that simply hasn't been possible.

Previously you might have had lone LO strike assets or air defenders escorting non-LO packages.

Now the entire package becomes feasible as an LO construct and delamination of ANY part of the package just became that much harder for the red team...

Which for Blue force is obviously all to the good.

USAF Gen. Hostage made a similar claim some time back now:

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff
“...During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors....”

 

[barney41]

The Navy envisions a large fleet of SuperHornet "trucks" complemented by a much smaller number of F-35Cs. A recent CSBA study shows a very high preponderance of PGMs procured during 2001-2014 were of the short range direct attack variety eg. JDAMS, SDB, Hellfire, etc.( comprising 96% of nearly 320,000 total) which have roughly 50nm range. In a high intensity conflict, using vulnerable trucks to deliver the bulk of ordnance may mean flying into the teeth of lethal point defenses. A lot of Naval Aviators will be betting their lives on NGJ meeting expectations. Preferably the SHs could employ longer range stand off weapons but these cost more and comprise a small fraction (4%) of the inventory.

 

[RobWilliams]

It'll just be a spectrum like it was before, except with a more 'active' form of SEAD/DEAD in the form of the F-35C/UCLASS rather than F/A-18 E/F.

That's not to say SHornet's can't do that, not at all, but if a more sophisticated IADS is the target then the VLO nature of the F-35 means that it can get closer and be safer than a SHornet and deploy JDAMs/SDB II or whatever for mobile launcher sites. Heavier stand of weapons (SLAM-ER, JASSM or TLAM) for the heavier sites.

Then when the shell is cracked, the rest of the CAW (including Growler with NGJ) pour in bombed up.

Plus if there's an ARG nearby then USMC F-35Bs can take a more active role on day 1.

 

[barney41]

Yes, Navy will do what it must with what it has. Mission planning may be a bit more complex though to accommodate Growlers. Even a delaminated IADS can still be a serious and persistent threat long after the door has been kicked in. F-35B should fit seamlessly.

 

[RobWilliams]

You make it seem as though the USN is having to deal with a bad situation, "do what it must with what it has"? You mean a striking force more powerful than most national armed forces can do?

A delaminated IADS can be quantified and the risks identified. I have no doubt that the USN can and will deploy E/F SHornets if the assessments support it.

 

[barney41]

You make it seem as though the USN is having to deal with a bad situation, "do what it must with what it has"? You mean a striking force more powerful than most national armed forces can do?

A delaminated IADS can be quantified and the risks identified. I have no doubt that the USN can and will deploy E/F SHornets if the assessments support it.

Not bad, different.

 

[ADMk2]

The Navy envisions a large fleet of SuperHornet "trucks" complemented by a much smaller number of F-35Cs. A recent CSBA study shows a very high preponderance of PGMs procured during 2001-2014 were of the short range direct attack variety eg. JDAMS, SDB, Hellfire, etc.( comprising 96% of nearly 320,000 total) which have roughly 50nm range. In a high intensity conflict, using vulnerable trucks to deliver the bulk of ordnance may mean flying into the teeth of lethal point defenses. A lot of Naval Aviators will be betting their lives on NGJ meeting expectations. Preferably the SHs could employ longer range stand off weapons but these cost more and comprise a small fraction (4%) of the inventory.

USN is still ordering 260 odd F-35C's and USMC are getting 80 to fly off the carriers, so a total force of 340 aircraft is nothing to sneeze at...

Combat coded, maybe 220 'operational' C models is still a larger total fighter force than most entire airforces these days...

Super Hornet has (IIRC) around 500 confirmed USN orders (not counting Growler) with a combat coded fleet of (perhaps) 400?

Its not a 'vastly' smaller planned fleet.

 

[RobWilliams]

Not bad, different.

Yes, towards a better position with respect to threats from IADS. The fleet in 10 years will be far more capable in such an environment than the one 10 years past.

If you're concerned about operations in non-permissive (I think I have the garb right) airspace, then a CAW with the F-35 is better than one without.

 

[barney41]

USN is still ordering 260 odd F-35C's and USMC are getting 80 to fly off the carriers, so a total force of 340 aircraft is nothing to sneeze at...

Combat coded, maybe 220 'operational' C models is still a larger total fighter force than most entire airforces these days...

Super Hornet has (IIRC) around 500 confirmed USN orders (not counting Growler) with a combat coded fleet of (perhaps) 400?

Its not a 'vastly' smaller planned fleet.

AFAIK the CAW will have 1 X F-35C, 1 X Growler and 2 X SH squadrons plus some UCLASS.

 

[RobWilliams]

AFAIK the CAW will have 1 X F-35C, 1 X Growler and 2 X SH squadrons plus some UCLASS.

Which is more survivable against a peer enemy than 1 X Growler, 3 X SH + UCLASS.

 

[barney41]

Which is more survivable against a peer enemy than 1 X Growler, 3 X SH + UCLASS.

No doubt. Lessens dependence on Growler somewhat. Navy tests indicate optimum protection of a strike package is having 3 X Growlers in attendance. Having those F-35Cs adds a lot of flexibility as they can self-escort into otherwise denied airspace.

 

[RobWilliams]

No doubt. Lessens dependence on Growler somewhat. Navy tests indicate optimum protection of a strike package is having 3 X Growlers in attendance. Having those F-35Cs adds a lot of flexibility as they can self-escort into otherwise denied airspace.

Agreed, I'm quite interested in what direction UCLASS (I think it got an RAQ-25 designator at some point?) will actually go. Will it be a strike, ISR or tanker.

 

[barney41]

Agreed, I'm quite interested in what direction UCLASS (I think it got an RAQ-25 designator at some point?) will actually go. Will it be a strike, ISR or tanker.

Congress Hawks should stop meddling. They want UCLASS to be a magic bullet enabling the CAW to perform long-range strike from day one. This is an incredibly risky bet. The Navy is in the best position to appreciate the benefits and challenges involved. If it is taking a very meaasured approach for the F-35C, expect even more caution with UCLASS. Crawl-walk-run seems the sensible appeach.

The delay has pissed off the aerospace companies. That RAQ-25 tag has spawned the usual conspiracy theories, including Bill Sweetman's take that Boeing has secretly gotten DoD's nod and actually built the thing. If true, then the other 3 vendors will be more than pissed.

 

[t68]

with the recent uproar of how the F35 was a pig of a plane in dogfight, I came across this computer sim on a flight of four F-35Bs going up against four of Sukhoi Su-35S.

I've never played a computer sim so I'll have to leave it to you people to pick over it to see if he is being realistic or not.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/do...-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4

 

[OPSSG]

with the recent uproar of how the F35 was a pig of a plane in dogfight, I came across this computer sim on a flight of four F-35Bs going up against four of Sukhoi Su-35S.

I've never played a computer sim so I'll have to leave it to you people to pick over it to see if he is being realistic or not.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/do...-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4

Second warning issued for another attempt at thread derailment.

It is a commercial computer game (for fun), and if you descend to this level of discussion where you blur the line between reality and fantasy, there would have no interest by others in keeping discussions here grounded in reality. Please think about the quality of your posts and what remains of your credibility to other members of the forum.

Edit: Discussion moved to a F-35 fantasy discussion thread.