F-35 Lightning info

[Breckey]

Lack of sparkle & VDL is a big deal for some mission sets due to GFC requirements. Can the -35 push/receive CoT? Also, if it doesn't have a pod I assume no LST?

Requirements creep has already strangled this program. Adding yet another one is not what the program needs.

[Lawman]

So the gun is able to be used currently with current production models?

How long has Raptor been IOC? Still doesn't have JHMCS despite it being our premiere air dominance platform.

My point is this needling and sharpshooting of any detail in the program viewed as a "serious flaw" is either ignorant of the rest of the aircraft in the inventories problem or just dredging up crap to dredge up crap. It's like screaming "new F-35 can't fly inverted" because they were still on the ground taxi phase of testing. It's not true but it makes a good headline. Now if there was something like Guns removed and plugged due to catastrophic failures in testing... Or the redesign hat was needed on the tail hook of the C model after landing tests that would be a worthy article. But that's the problem, so many people and sources are jumping on anything they think they can spin as negatives of the program that any real big deal issues get lost in the noise.

I fly the E model Apache... It's currently 5 years behind the D model as far as software and avionics but nobody is screaming it's an inferior platform. Because that gets fixed in late 16 with lot 4. Till then we wait.

[Breckey]

"It doesnt carry any short-range, dogfighting missiles like the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder when its in a stealthy configuration."

Wait, what?

And neither can the current F-22s. Edit with link.

One of the main reasons for this delay is that the AIM-9X Block I currently lacks the ability to lock on before launch when carried internally, as it would be on the F-22, though this capability is planned for the datalinked Block II missile.

Another reason is that the full 'high off-boresight' capabilities of the missile will not be fully realised until the F-22 is equipped with the JHMCS, which is planned to take place in 2017 under the Increment 3.2 upgrade (which also includes AIM-9X, AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, and multiple Small Diameter Bomb carriage), though the JHMCS may now be deferred until Increment 3.3 (even without the helmet-mounted cueing system though, the AIM-9X still represents a quantum leap in capability over previous generation AIM-9 missiles).

Edited January 1, 2015 by Breckey

[Danger41]

You think a CAS aircraft being able to do an LST and target off datalink is mission creep? Interesting.

[di1630]

Th problem when it takes 20 years from design to IOC is a lot changes in the works and technology. Hell when the F-22 initial design rolled out in 1986, the Aim-120 was still 6 yrs out, top gun was number 1 at the box office and we were going to be dogfighting 5th gen Russian fighters with thrust vectoring....now we use it against ISIS lobbing SDBs.

My question is really what role the F-35 fills in future warfare other than costly supplementing of superior role focused aircraft. A/A king is the F-22 supplemented with 15C's, CAS king is the A-10 with F-16s, 15E's doing well also.

Seems future AI is probably going to go the way of stealth UCAVs and cruise missiles.

So where can the JSF fill a role and excel? I really wish we had bought more F-22s and block 60 vipers.

[xcraftllc]

...I really wish we had bought more F-22s and block 60 vipers.

Word... and overhauled the A-10s.

Hindsight's 20/20 and all, but yeah, it would have been nice if they just filled the original order for Raptors (I think it was something like 600). The Raptors could do the missions that require stealth and A/A, with the upgraded legacy air-frames taking care of everything else. The Block 60s are amazing, especially with the 32,500lb GE engines.

The funny part is that would totally have been affordable with the budget that was given to the JSF program. Lockheed and PW would have made plenty of money too.

Oh well, I guess we gotta work with what we got now.

[brabus]

The answer/work around may eventually be an LO Sniper Pod like the weapons pod on an International Roadmap Hornet or an LO UAV wingman who gets to carry ATP & VDL making himself more of a target instead of the manned platform.

Non-factor because we're not doing CAS in a threat environment that actually requires LO assets.

And neither can the current F-22s

To be more precise, the Raptor does carry AIM-9s, they're just not 9Xs. Yes the 9X is way better, but the Raptors still use 9Ms effectively (this is not to say they shouldn't get the 9X capability ASAP).

My question is really what role the F-35 fills in future warfare other than costly supplementing of superior role focused aircraft

It will play the Viper/Strike Eagle role where those 4th gen aircraft do not have a chance in hell of operating successfully. This is a reality right now, I'm not even talking about future threats. Along with the Raptor and other LO assets, it will "open the gap" to allow 4th gen assets into bad guy land to continue the air war. The program is all kinds of FUBAR, but reality is we NEED the F-35. I hate to say it, but the days of 4th Gen ragefest on night one is already over in some places in this world, and on a short leash in other parts.

[di1630]

.....but reality is we NEED the F-35. I hate to say it, but the days of 4th Gen ragefest on night one is already over in some places in this world, and on a short leash in other parts.

I'm just not so sure we can't do the F-35s job better with newer stealthier weapons we've developed in the past 15 years. 4th gen fighters have been on a leash for decades now (ref losses during the gw1) vs any country that can afford good SAMs, this "need" isn't new (which is why we should have bought more -22s)

Everyone talks China....not gonna happen. Russia...not gonna happen. I'm willing to bet even without the F-35 our existing 18 B-2s/tomahawks and 180 F-22s could fit the bill day 1-3 vs any other defenses. I think the WW3 "we need 1k+ F-35 scenario) is pretty far fetched given today's geo political situation.

I know us and our allies will get it. I just have a lot of doubts on how useful it really will fit with our strategy and real needs.

[busdriver]

Everyone talks China....not gonna happen. Russia...not gonna happen.

I agree, I think the problem is more along the lines of being able to operate in pick-a-shithole when double digit SAMs have proliferated to just about everywhere.

[brabus]

I'm just not so sure we can't do the F-35s job better with newer stealthier weapons we've developed in the past 15 years. 4th gen fighters have been on a leash for decades now (ref losses during the gw1) vs any country that can afford good SAMs, this "need" isn't new (which is why we should have bought more -22s)

There's always something newer in development that's "better," but then how long do we kick the can down the road continuously chasing the next best thing and never actually end up with something IOC? I fully realize this need is not new, but we've gone long enough on the backs of 4th gen aircraft. Busdriver nailed it - the "need" has now reached the point where we can't ignore it anymore.

[di1630]

After seeing a JSF marketing video showing an F-35 weaving between SAM rings on its way to strike a target....then showing the same rings from a 4th gen perspective....I really question the type of scenario that would drive AI in a double digit SAM environment. Oh, and all that trouble to drop its payload of 2 bombs....from a single engine $110 mil jet.

Just saying we are spending a lot of money and resources to prep for a scenario that likely never happens. I know it needs to be done...but it could face been done smarter and I blame our leadership and politicians.

The F-35 made a lot of sense 20 yrs ago at $30 mil per copy.

[tac airlifter]

Brabus, what does the JSF do that is worth the cost? Cost being: not just monetary but also second order effects of no funding available for other programs more relevant to current events. I keep hearing "it's expensive, but we need it." For what?

Edited January 2, 2015 by tac airlifter

[Lawman]

Brabus, what does the JSF do that is worth the cost? Cost being: not just monetary but also second order effects of no funding available for other programs more relevant to current events. I keep hearing "it's expensive, but we need it." For what?

Well for 1, you can't just keep flying the current fleet forever.

That's the thing that boggles the mind when I hear people say "let's just build more _____s" Silent Eagles are up over the hundred mil mark at last check. The A-10 tooling is gone, along with rooms full of file cabinets to actually make the tooling and the engineers are retired by now. Yes we could buy Blk 60 Vipers or even say F it and go to a land version of the next gen Super Hornet Boeing is pimping if one wanted to.

Here's the big problem though, the money on F-35 is already spent. Any "cost savings" at this point will be massively cut into by all the country partners in the program wanting their money back. So we will spend near the same money and now not have a 5th gen jet fleet.

[SurelySerious]

Everyone talks China....not gonna happen. Russia...not gonna happen.

No one thought WWII was going to happen either. The world was less than 20 years removed from a war so terrible that it wasn't plausible mankind would result to warfare again.

The Chinese are posturing and expanding in a similar manner to 1930s Japan, and Putin, who thinks the break up of the USSR was the greatest atrocity of the 20th century, is trying to rebuild Russia as a force. They're both waiting for the right environment to swing their influence to their advantage (ref Crimea or the Chinese claims near the Phillipenes/Vietnam); the more we let them close the military capability gap, the more attractive the use of military force becomes for them.

[brabus]

Brabus, what does the JSF do that is worth the cost? Cost being: not just monetary but also second order effects of no funding available for other programs more relevant to current events. I keep hearing "it's expensive, but we need it." For what?

Lawman and SurelySerious covered some big picture points. A healthy time spent on JWICS doing some true threat study (well beyond 3-1.threat) will provide a lot of supporting evidence as to why we need the F-35 (or 5th gen capes period), in addition to the big picture things already mentioned. Additionally, this is NOT a jab at all, just a simple observation: you don't know what you don't know. This is applicable to a whole shit ton of people who continuously ask, "why do we need it and what's so great about it anyways? Can't we just do this with Block 60 vipers?" I can assure you it is very necessary and no Block X viper, Silent Eagle, etc. will match what it will bring.

Despite my support for the program's existence and necessity, I by no means am trying to downplay the heinous running of the program at all levels. I completely agree it could and should have been ran much better, on a quicker timeline and at a lower cost. It is the poster child for how fucked our acquisition process is and ludicrous levels of mismanagment on multiple parties' accounts. That said, we are way too far into it to go back/start over with something else - this is our 5th gen multi-role fighter; the 6th gen boat has essentially left the dock (i.e. no use in arguing adding things to the F-35 to make it closer to "6th gen") - we need the F-35 ASAP because God only knows how many decades it will be until 6th gen is even worth talking about.

[Champ Kind]

Despite my support for the program's existence and necessity, I by no means am trying to downplay the heinous running of the program at all levels. I completely agree it could and should have been ran much better, on a quicker timeline and at a lower cost. It is the poster child for how fucked our acquisition process is and ludicrous levels of mismanagment on multiple parties' accounts. That said, we are way too far into it to go back/start over with something else - this is our 5th gen multi-role fighter; the 6th gen boat has essentially left the dock (i.e. no use in arguing adding things to the F-35 to make it closer to "6th gen") - we need the F-35 ASAP because God only knows how many decades it will be until 6th gen is even worth talking about.

Nailed it.

[busdriver]

Adding to brabus' point: Algeria Air Defenses I'm not claiming we need to be worried about Algeria, but it makes the point about proliferation of advanced SAMs into what is clearly not China/Russia.

I do think the AF has woefully underfunded self protection jammers and EA/EP in general, let's face it the legacy fleet is going to be flying for a very long time before the F-35 has fully taken over. 25 years ago was GF1, that's almost how much into the future we can expect to have 4th gen fighters around.

I think a large part of the current thrash is preserving the F-35 timeline. Acquisition delays will drive up cost, and start the project down the rising unit cost death spiral. This is a direct result of learning from the F-22 experience. Or I could be totally wrong, sure as fuck wouldn't be the first time.

[Masshole]

No one thought WWII was going to happen either. The world was less than 20 years removed from a war so terrible that it wasn't plausible mankind would result to warfare again.

The Chinese are posturing and expanding in a similar manner to 1930s Japan, and Putin, who thinks the break up of the USSR was the greatest atrocity of the 20th century, is trying to rebuild Russia as a force. They're both waiting for the right environment to swing their influence to their advantage (ref Crimea or the Chinese claims near the Phillipenes/Vietnam); the more we let them close the military capability gap, the more attractive the use of military force becomes for them.

I lived most of my life in China and near China, and have been granted great opportunities to work with the intelligence community on the issue, so I like to have this discussion.

The ability to project force does not say anything about China's willingness to use it. Chinese leaders seemed very set on raising forces to prepare for what they called "limited war" with Taiwan, and they had expected for the United States to enter the conflict if it happened. They planned to fight an enemy much more technologically superior, but nothing came to fruition.

Now it is China's aim to develop capability and doctrine to proctect the expanding global interests. Chinese military documents are now more focused on broader range of military operations to secure the territorial integrity and global interests. They have called for the defensive of their people, infrastructure, and investments in many of the same dangerous places we focus our attention.

China is most definitely seeking ability to defend itself overseas but that does not mean the United States and China are on collision course. While there is deep strategic distrust between the United States and China as China's economic growth, military modernization, and nationalistic propaganda limit the possibilities of compromising with foreign powers, conflict with the PRC is not inevitable. There is much recognition that both sides engage each other to avoid a conflict, mostly on the most contentious points such as Taiwan and American maritime surveillance operations inside China's exclusive economic zone.

I can see China expanding in the Pacific as they are not shy about seeking to move past the "first island chain" consisting of the imaginary line from Japan through Okinawa and Taiwan and further south to the Philippines and South China Sea onward towards the "second island chain," which is the imaginary line from Japan through Guam to Australia. However there is no chatter from Chinese strategists about expansion as far as the establishment of foreign bases, outpost, or supply stations. Maybe in the future they will be wanting to receive overseas basing agreements with allies where they can position forces but that is not happening now.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Masshole

[Lawman]

I can see China expanding in the Pacific as they are not shy about seeking to move past the "first island chain" consisting of the imaginary line from Japan through Okinawa and Taiwan and further south to the Philippines and South China Sea onward towards the "second island chain," which is the imaginary line from Japan through Guam to Australia. However there is no chatter from Chinese strategists about expansion as far as the establishment of foreign bases, outpost, or supply stations. Maybe in the future they will be wanting to receive overseas basing agreements with allies where they can position forces but that is not happening now.

The Phil's seemed bottom to top very of the opinion that this fight is going to happen and that they are counting on our involvement.

Seeing the island expeditionary airfields that the Chinese are building on Philippine Islands because they view it as something we won't get in a fight over is dangerous as hell too. Eventually this complacency toward Chinese expansion is going to lead to their leadership feeling so emboldened that they do something more provocative. Combine that with them trying to interpret when the US civil opinion is "f it not my problem" and you have conditions for a real no kidding shooting war, or for the failure of US projection and the reversal of roles between us and China.

[xcraftllc]

An interesting counter to the "outdated EOTS" news:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535

Some other stuff I thought of while reading it:

It will actually end up being essentially free for us to use pods on F-35s since we've already bought a ton of them, so no sweat really.

-relatively inexpensive when compared to other aspects of the program (edited for reality check)

Having a dedicated external pod will add a bit of redundancy for maintenance issues.

The EOTS can be used for flight/navigation while the pod view is kept on the target. The nice big screen that's in the cockpit is probably big enough to take advantage of having two views. You could even use the EOTS as a wide field of view of the overall area while the pod is used to zoom in and look at individual items.

Still a bit concerned though. I'm not sure how "seamlessly" this software is going to work in the beginning, but I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually. At the rate things have been going, we'll probably find out that the F-35 actually can't accept external pods without serious modification and money. Hell, Block 30 F-16s don't even have the wiring to view the full resolution of the Gen 4 litening pods.

Edited January 3, 2015 by xcraftllc

[di1630]

So in 2019 we'll have a top of the line 1999 jet only 3x the original cost ....awesome.

Side question: anyone know of the have the JSF hmcs problems fixed? In '09 I did a paper on the system and was able to sit with engineers and they admitted many "technical" issues they hoped to work through.

In 2011 a test pilot in the program said they still had issues and were looking at alternatives but I have not heard since how the no hud is working out.

But then again, developed 15 yrs ago at staggering cost..now we have hogs and vipers with $50k scorpion full color nvg compatible hmcs.

Despite all its problems one must look at the program accomplishments. In 2013 it was able to fly at night and I think the no flying within 25nm of thunderstorms has been lifted.

[tac airlifter]

Lawman and SurelySerious covered some big picture points. A healthy time spent on JWICS......... Additionally, this is NOT a jab at all, just a simple observation: you don't know what you don't know

You're right, I don't know what I don't know, which is why I asked. Thanks for the answers. I will say my SOIS/JWICS time is fully occupied by studying actual threats, not theoretical ones. And that's not meant as a jab either, I mention it because the JSF has drained funding we desperately need to combat current threats. We're running out of hellfires (the good ones) and SOPGMs. That has consequences now. Would be nice if we didn't have to sacrifice the current war IOT prepare for what might be the next one. Again, thanks for the answers, I have a very small niche world of F3 and am unfamiliar with other aspects of requirements.

ETA: I havent been on BODN for a while, this is a good thread and reminds me of why I initially came here-- it's cool hearing POVs from other communities.

Edited January 3, 2015 by tac airlifter

[Masshole]

The Phil's seemed bottom to top very of the opinion that this fight is going to happen and that they are counting on our involvement.

Seeing the island expeditionary airfields that the Chinese are building on Philippine Islands because they view it as something we won't get in a fight over is dangerous as hell too. Eventually this complacency toward Chinese expansion is going to lead to their leadership feeling so emboldened that they do something more provocative. Combine that with them trying to interpret when the US civil opinion is "f it not my problem" and you have conditions for a real no kidding shooting war, or for the failure of US projection and the reversal of roles between us and China.

I am not so sure the Philippines so much expect us to become involved but they are strengthening their ties with us as deterrent in the very least, along with many other nations in the region currently having issues with China's seemingly provocative expansion. What the PRC is doing is stupid and dangerous and if they truly do not mean to start military conflict they need to be more proactive with diplomacy than they are currently. There has been a lot of miscommunication between China and the U.S. recently, especially with meaning of words from Secretary Kerry. I think that is what they are seeing as "f it not my problem now."

With the airfields I think they were trying to pass it off as a benefit to tourism, which is laughable but they have not been very clear with it either way. Japan and ASEAN are being pushed closer together, and the last thing China wants is a unified front encircling them along with the awakening of smouldering nationalism and other right-wing Japanese hostility. Their stubborness is creating more problems than they can resolve right now. As you made mention of a failure of U.S. projection, there needs to be a harsher stance with China since they saw some of our weaknesses exposed with Russia and Syria. They very much want to be the dominant Pacific power, and in a way they already are. I think in the near future they will start to seize ports.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Masshole

[Masshole]

I am not so sure the Philippines so much expect us to become involved but they are strengthening their ties with us as deterrent in the very least, along with many other nations in the region currently having issues with China's seemingly provocative expansion. What the PRC is doing is stupid and dangerous and if they truly do not mean to start military conflict they need to be more proactive with diplomacy than they are currently. There has been a lot of miscommunication between China and the U.S. recently, especially with meaning of words from Secretary Kerry. I think that is what they are seeing as "f it not my problem now."

With the airfields I think they were trying to pass it off as a benefit to tourism, which is laughable but they have not been very clear with it either way. Japan and ASEAN are being pushed closer together, and the last thing China wants is a unified front encircling them along with the awakening of smouldering nationalism and other right-wing Japanese hostility. Their stubborness is creating more problems than they can resolve right now. As you made mention of a failure of U.S. projection, there needs to be a harsher stance with China since they saw some of our weaknesses exposed with Russia and Syria. They very much want to be the dominant Pacific power, and in a way they already are. I think in the near future they will start to seize ports.

I want to add that President Obama and President Xi just recently reached agreement announcing military intentions and operations but some are still sceptic that it will actually alleviate tensions.

[BB Stacker]

"It doesnt carry any short-range, dogfighting missiles like the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder when its in a stealthy configuration."

Wait, what?

-9X integration isn't coming until the Block 3F software, notionally programmed to hit the field in the 2018/2019 timeframe (same OFP build that will give the gun functionality). Until then the only A2A weapon is AIM-120s, period. That would be in contrast to the Raptor which can at least carry -9Ms even if it is still waiting for the next OFP to get -9X functionality.

e: I should say -9X internal carry integration isn't coming until Block 3F. They've done some external captive carry with -9X's and I think external carry capability is notionally supposed to be part of one of the earlier OFP releases but I can't say for sure whether or not that's something that got moved to the right to help alleviate schedule slippage.

e2: busdriver's point about the thrash being due in part to schedule slippage is pretty accurate I think. Some of it is due to other things or isn't really thrash since it's been designed into the schedule/program for some time, but given the issues that are cropping up with finishing Block 2B testing (particularly with weapons), you can bet that the JPO and LockMart are going to move heaven and earth to ensure they don't bust the threshold for the -B's IOC (Dec '15). Having to explain an APB schedule breach to Congress is the last thing they want to be doing.

Edited January 4, 2015 by BB Stacker