F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Baz]

If any of our communities are unable to adapt to the most effective way of meeting the threat with the minimum resources, then our Force Generation model is very broken...

Oh wait, I think there might be some other reasons that's the case...

Certainly what we did in Libya might not of been the best way to deal with it, and there were some voices way out in the wilderness saying so (like a JTAC I know that said he was wondering why we picked the same side that he fought in Afghanistan when it was supposed to be a no-fly and embargo against anyone who threatened civilians); but hey, we knew how to bomb them into a failed state, so we did... and everyone knows that only Fighter communities know how to run Air Forces, because the rest of us just don't UNDERSTAND.  How is this relevant to the discussion: because thinking of what set of capabilities we can afford to meet the most likely threats is what the next fighter choice should be about... but its not, its "we need the F-35," and the cost might mean we give up some other things, or "the F-35 is too expensive so let's get a cheaper fighter to do the same things."

I could make a good argument to extend to F-18 for the NORAD role only (and restrict its maneuvering to extend it, and limit its available armament to what it needs for that), and with the saved money buy:
- something like Reapers
- something like Global Hawks
- attack helicipters
- Tomahawks for the ships, and upgrade the Harpoons to Slammers
There's a lot flexibility there, but I'm not sure if its affordable, and there are certainly threats it doesn't meet.  But the core question is whether there is less risk than getting a 5th Gen fighter with the money we have???

But what do I know, I'm just an ACSO who doesn't understand modern warfare.

So I'll go back to my box: ping, ping, ping... a box which according to the RCAF isn't very important anyway.

 

[MAJONES]

Stirring the stick here, looking at the current new mission and last few, it seems the majority of our missions need a bomb truck, with good range and a good targeting system. In fact the "fighter" bit almost seems to be a far distant nice to have.

...sure.....I'm quite certain that Mr Putin will stop sending escorted bears into our ADIZ if we just ask him nicely.......

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Max,

I will preface this by saying that I have no desire anymore to do fast jet time. It is a young man's game and well out of my system.

That said, fighters are not rocket science. It is no harder than night dipping ASW from a ship or getting 14 people in an Aurora to work together to prosecute a contact. Each have their challenges.

Stop making it out like you have the toughest job in the CF.

I have no clue if the F35 is the right fighter for Canada (or if there even is such a thing). But given who some of the F35 champions are that I know, I am beginning to wonder...

 

[Baz]

SeaKingTACCO,

My issue isn't with Max or how hard it is to be a fighter pilot.  They are the most highly selected and trained aircrew in Canada, and it does take a special skillset to strap on a single seat aircraft and deal with all that info (does that mean it should be unmanned or dual seat... I don't know).  I've met some very good ones: my French Air Force LtCol (but he preferred to be called a bomber pilot), an USN F/A-18 Cdr, a German Phantom and Eurofighter Col, and acouple of CF-18 guys (NORAD and at their software working group) all stand out.  I've also met some very egotistical ones...

I know what we do in MH isn't rocket science either, given the right training and experience.  I am somewhat narcissistic, which you probably know, but without that I'm not sure I'd still be in.

My issue is that there are a lot of people in a lot of Air Forces that refuse to consider there might be another way to do anything; which is not surprising since that's how they're taught.

My first exposure to this was at AAOC.  Ironically, the course scenario was to put a Task Group and Brigade into Libya with supporting air.  At one point we planned air strikes; the way that all of the pieces were brought together in a single point and time by the people on the syndicate that knew how to do that was impressive.  We also had to plan a maritime strike.  What did those same people want to do?  The exact same thing; they couldn't even understand you might want an MPA to find your target.  How did they want to support a Brigade advance... same thing again, even though the Brigade plan didn't call for that.  They weren't just fighter pilots, they were AWCs and I think Int as well.

Flexibility is the key to airpower.  However, a lot of Air Forces have come to believe that means one thing.

So I also have no idea if the F-35 is the right aircraft for Canada; I tend to think it is if they way forward for national power projection is expeditionary strike (like Libya) and not Joint action, and we need to choose now.

If that is the way we, and NATO and other allies, are going, then we better understand what capabilities we'll not have to get there.  A look at what's happening in the US will highlight the discussion... that's where the USAF thinks its going, but not so much the USA, USN, and USMC.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

...sure.....I'm quite certain that Mr Putin will stop sending escorted bears into our ADIZ if we just ask him nicely.......

Are they escorted? I understood that the flights are multiple Bears, not Bears with escort. Basically I am pointing out that the majority of the fights we get into in the last 20 years need a bomb truck and not a fighter. My worry is we are going to get an aircraft that might not do either all that well.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P--this from Sept. 23:

MiG-31 interception near North America suggests Russia changing offensive air ops

The appearance of two Mikoyan MiG-31 fighter interceptors in a group of six Russian Air Force (VVS) military aircraft intercepted by Canadian and US air force aircraft on 17-18 September suggests a change in Russia's approach to offensive operations.

According to US officials, the aircraft included the two MiG-31s, two Tupolev Tu-95 strategic bombers, and two Ilyushin Il-78 tankers - a modified version of the Il-76 military transport. The intercepts were the latest in about 50 such incidents over the past five years.

While fairly common during the Cold War, VVS exercises and simulated attack runs against North America dropped off with the collapse of the USSR. They have picked up again in recent years as relations between Washington and Moscow deteriorated.

The first intercept was at 1900 local time on 17 September by two US Air Force (USAF) Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptors operating about 55 n miles from the Alaskan coast. The second, at 0130 hours on 18 September, was by two Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) McDonnell-Douglas CF-18 fighters about 40 n miles from the Canadian coast in the Beaufort Sea.

Both intercepts were well inside the 200-mile air defence identification zone, although in neither case did the Russian aircraft enter US or Canadian airspace...
http://www.janes.com/article/43640/mig-31-interception-near-north-america-suggests-russia-changing-offensive-air-ops

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

More about the engine controversy:

Defense News

Pentagon, Pratt Cut Deal for F-35 Engines, Modifications
Oct. 15, 2014 - 07:13AM  |  By AARON MEHTA

WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint program office (JPO) announced Tuesday evening that it has reached an agreement with engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney on two key milestones — identifying the root cause of an engine issue that caused a fire in June, and on a contract for the next lot of engines for the stealthy fighter.

It hasn’t been an easy summer for Pratt. In June, a fire broke out on an F-35A model, eventually leading the grounding of the fleet and a missed opportunity to give the jet an international debut at the Farnborough International Airshow.

Eventually, investigators concluded the cause of the fire were “microcracks” in the engine caused by certain flight maneuvers. The fleet has since resumed flying, albeit under restrictions that Bogdan has warned could lead to test delays if they are not resolved in short order.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

Military.com

Marine Squadron Receives First F-35B Aircraft

Marine Corps News | Oct 13, 2014 | by Cpl. Kathy Nunez
WASHINGTON -- Marine Operational and Evaluation Squadron 22 received its first F-35B aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, California for operational testing Oct. 9, 2014.

“VMX-22’s mission is to conduct operational testing and evaluation of U.S. Marine Corps’ fixed, tiltrotor, and rotary-wing aircraft, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and Marine Air Command and Control Systems, support concept development, and assist in the creation of Marine aviation tactics, techniques and procedures through experimentation and support to tactical demonstrations,” said Col. Robert L. Rauenhorst, commanding officer of Marine Operational and Evaluation Squadron 22.

Previously, VMX-22 only consisted of MV-22 and CH-53 aircraft, but the arrival of the F-35B marks the start of VMX-22 fixed wing flight operations. This is the first of four F-35B aircraft that will arrive over the upcoming months at Edwards Air Force Base.
“The addition of the F-35B at VMX-22 will help to develop increased capabilities and interoperability of the Aviation Combat Elements to support the Marine Air/Ground Task Force of the 21st century,” Rauenhorst said.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If the problem is internal to the engine that is great and likely fixable, if the problem is caused by airframe flexing causing the engine to torque then not so good...

 

[stonington]

But we can't put ACSOs there; CFAWC has told us, in an official document no less, that we're a dying trade; apparently endorsed by the current RCAF leadership.

Replaced by AWCs (oe whatever they're called now) and Int apparently; I'm told that's how modern ISR works...

Could you post a link to this document? Thanks.

 

[Baz]

Could you post a link to this document? Thanks.

I can't unfortunately.  It was in one of the CFAWCs periodicals which I only saw in hard copy... and I obviously wasn't happy enough with it to keep a copy.

As I remember it, though, it pointed out that the AECs will be needed for Air Battle Management, and the ACSOs will be phased out as ISR aircraft modernize.  What it seemed to miss is that ACSOs are also Airborne Battle Managers, just a different battle.  Although I do prefer ACSO to Nav, we could have done better: I would have actually perferred some derivitive of Airborne Battle Manager, as what we do is about C2, not systems.

However, this is exactly my point... my memory of the article is that it was biased towards that part of the Air Force that doesn't understand what Maritme Air, and other Air capabilities, do, and how they should be controlled.

... and don't get me started on the term ISR being applied to Maritime Air platforms... C2ISR maybe, but ISR completely minimizes our battle management and weapons delivery roles, which is exactly why we continue to have ACSOs on the aircraft.

 

[Kirkhill]

Baz - Does it really matter if your butt is moving at the speed of sound or sitting idle in a seaborne CIC or a terrestial Command Post?  Isn't the Battle Management job pretty much the same these days?

 

[Baz]

My opinion, yes.

Which is why when I was the Surveillance Officer in the Alliance Ground Surveillance Implementation Office (Global Hawk for NATO), and helping write the ConOps, the surveillance crew (as opposed to the Int crew) were planned to come from numerous trades from all three services; in Canadian terms: AESOP, NCIOP, AWC, Combat Arms with CP experience.  By that time the battle managagement role of the aircraft was limited, but in supervisor and limited battle management roles there was ACSOs, AECs, MARS, and combat arms officers.

Editted to add: but even though the concepts are generally similar, you need to specialize by environment and platform, or you're too much of a generalist and can't leverage own strengths and enemy weaknesses.

 

[a_majoor]

I appreciate that you're a legend and I respect your views; I just happen to think this one is a non starter. The pod itself would be on a centreline for the Hornet; this space is already occupied by the -35's internal weapons bay.

Plus I don't think that Boeing would play nice and share tech with Lockheed Martin...but I could be wrong. 

Either way...I'd say that an F-15 of either Strike Eagle variant that I mentioned above would give the F-35 a run for its money.  I just don't see Boeing changing what it's offering and, while I understand that they want to keep the Super Hornet line open longer, by doing so they are really doing themselves a disservice.

What I'd like to see is an honest balls to the wall competition between a Strike Eagle and an F-35.  I know what the differences on paper are...but I'd like to see an eval based on quantified facts rather than just speculation.

Lots of traffic between our posts:

The EWP as currently envisioned may not work on a CF-35, but something similar can certainly be developed for that specific application. Boeing will sell their manager's mothers if that will generate a profit, and it certainly seems that the idea of the EWP is clever enough that many air forces may start looking for something along these lines for their particular platforms. There will probably be lines of EWP's for all kinds of aircraft soon.

The Strike Eagle, or even the "Silent Eagle" is probably the epitome of 1970 era airframe design, but I have seen no appetite for the RCAF to examine this option, so sadly it is a non starter (even though I agree with you that a large, long range platform that can be used as a bomb truck probably has more utility for what we do than a small fighter jet). I also wonder just how much retrofitting the F-15 platform can undergo to incorporate the sorts of integrated systems the CF-35 will have? Would that be cost effective as well?

Certainly the management of the F-35 program overall leaves a lot to be desired, but considering that the possible competitors date back several decades, and we are looking for a platform that can last into the 2040's (if not longer) then our choices are limited.

 

[Kirkhill]

Understood.

That business of specialization can be a bit of a two-edged sword though. You could specialize by environment, or by means of transport, or by weapons, or by sensors, or by effect.

But somebody has to specialize in pulling all the pieces of the puzzle together: a generalist if you will.

 

[Baz]

That business of specialization can be a bit of a two-edged sword though.

Agreed.

AGS was a good example.  Its radar could do land and maritme work, plus support air land interdiction and air maritime strike.  So you need a bunch of specialists.  However, you need to prioritize all of that, so you need some generalists...

 

[WingsofFury]

Lots of traffic between our posts:

The EWP as currently envisioned may not work on a CF-35, but something similar can certainly be developed for that specific application. Boeing will sell their manager's mothers if that will generate a profit, and it certainly seems that the idea of the EWP is clever enough that many air forces may start looking for something along these lines for their particular platforms. There will probably be lines of EWP's for all kinds of aircraft soon.

The Strike Eagle, or even the "Silent Eagle" is probably the epitome of 1970 era airframe design, but I have seen no appetite for the RCAF to examine this option, so sadly it is a non starter (even though I agree with you that a large, long range platform that can be used as a bomb truck probably has more utility for what we do than a small fighter jet). I also wonder just how much retrofitting the F-15 platform can undergo to incorporate the sorts of integrated systems the CF-35 will have? Would that be cost effective as well?

Certainly the management of the F-35 program overall leaves a lot to be desired, but considering that the possible competitors date back several decades, and we are looking for a platform that can last into the 2040's (if not longer) then our choices are limited.

I appreciate your response especially given all the traffic.

While it is an interesting notion, I doubt that EWP’s will be created for multiple airframes apart from the Super Hornet.  The reasons are various, but ultimately the goal here is to make a 4th or 4.5 generation platform into a low observable platform through additional airframe alterations.  The Silent Eagle, or SE for the sake of future acronyms, wouldn’t receive any such pod as it is designed to have its weaponry loaded into areas which are used as conformal fuel tanks. Hanging anything on the wing would defeat the purpose of a low observable platform with all ordnance carried internally and would lead to a greater reduction in performance in the event of a dogfight.  The same hindrance could be viewed if a EWP were put on the wings of a Typhoon, Rafale, or any other airframe.

As to integrating the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) onto any other platform…not likely.  This is by far the most advanced sensor array ever developed and why put it onto other platforms when you can have it on your own and sell the package together.  In my mind, why part with what really makes the F -35 a standout amongst its opponents…and that’s not even talking about its low observability. 

In my mind the political side of the acquisition has been handled very poorly.  The competitors may date back a couple of decades, but really, the airframes in question (even the Eagle and Hornet types) are proven airframes that, in the hands of capable pilots, can be used with extreme effectiveness.  I’ve heard from many that a legacy Hornet can outturn and outgun a Super any day of the week. We’ve seen Strike Eagle’s do a lot of hauling throughout Desert Storms 1 and 2, the Afghan and Iraq campaign, and not to mention Libya.  And we also know that several countries which are in the thick of geopolitical wrangling such as Israel and Singapore rely on the Strike Eagle to fulfill an essential strike and escort role.

The platform, in my opinion, will be in use by countries until at least 2050 and in several instances be flown alongside the F-35 instead of being replaced by it.

 

[a_majoor]

I think the EWP or something like it will become popular for several reasons:

1. It is versatile, since you can load bombs, missiles or rockets aboard, depending on the mission you are conducting
2. Clustering all the weaponry in a clean, low observable pod will do a lot to improve the performance of an airplane, even one which is not LO at all. Most aircraft could be configured for three pods if they can carry a centreline hard point and two wing tanks.
3. Being able to preload pods will also facilitate turn around, generating much higher sortie rates. The IDF flew hundreds of sorties in the recent Gaza conflict against Hamas as an extreme case, and rapid turnaround probably would have generated even more sorties up to the point that the pilots reached the limit.

I agree that the F-15 Strike Eagle already has conformal carriage for much of its weaponry, but even in that case the F-15 has hard points on the wing, so two EWP's could possibly be carried in addition to the internal bays (most likely to carry the AAM's for self defense). The cleaning up of the Strike Eagle would provide some extra range or performance in this case.

As for what sorts of aircraft the RCAF need, I would argue that a "CF-15E Snow Eagle" might actually be on the small end of what we need, a B-1B would have been more useful for most of the missions we were conducting for the last decade (and a B-1B could be fitted with a large number of AAMs in the weapons bay, or anti ship weapons, covering two other applications of airpower, as well as having the ability to carry a large sensor suite). Of course if we are allowed to dream, then the FB-23 version of the YF-23 "Black Widow" could serve as the 21rst century version of the Strike Eagle.... 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to this post,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1332710.html#msg1332710

more on Foxhounds, Bears. and ALCMs:

Opinion: Nuclear Deterrence Back On The Policy Menu
...
Four years ago, a North American Aerospace Defense Command officer sang the praises of a joint exercise with Russian forces, named Vigilant Eagle. “This exercise is one milestone in working together. Our folks are proud to be a part of such an important event and are passionate about partaking in efforts to protect our borders,” said Lt. Col. John Oberst, the 176th Air Control Sqdn. operations officer.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, but lessons learned from Vigilant Eagle likely aided in the execution of a more-recent exercise, its name unknown. Russian Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound long-range fighters (photo)—a type that Russian forces flew in Vigilant Eagle—accompanied two Tupolev Tu-95MS bombers to a point 55 nm from the Alaskan coast on Sept. 17. Two Ilyushin Il-78 tankers supported the formation, which turned back when it was intercepted by a pair of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors.

The nuclear-attack drill was part of an escalation in long-range Russian operations worldwide, and showed a developing tactic in which MiG-31s escorted Tu-95s and Tu-142 reconnaissance aircraft. The change follows the introduction of the modernized MiG-31BM, now due to be flying until 2029. Also entering service is the Tu-95MSM, armed with the new Kh-101/102 cruise missile that has a reported range of up to 2,700 nm [emphasis added] (AW&ST Sept. 15, p. 47). This weapons mix offers the attacker new tactical options—including a reconnaissance-strike complex with the MiGs as shooters—and poses corresponding challenges for the defender...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-nuclear-deterrence-back-policy-menu

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Defense News

First Weapons Crew Certified on F-35A
Oct. 23, 2014 - 10:03AM  |  By BRIAN EVERSTINE 

The latest milestone in the F-35A program belongs to airmen on the ground.

The first operational weapons load crew with the 58th Aircraft Maintenance Unit qualified on the aircraft during a load Oct. 10 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, the base announced this week. The airmen, crew chief Staff Sgt. Zachary Watts and Airmen 1st Class Robert Hughes and Reece Zoller, completed the training munitions load after technical training and load training at the base.

“Before us, there was no weapons capability,” Watts said in a 33rd Fighter Wing release. “We’re making it from an airline into the Air Force.”

(...SNIPPED)