F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Brumby]

speaking of the C, LOL this is wild "The funding would come from truncating the Navy’s planned F-35C order after half the aircraft are delivered, he says, but the development phase should begin now."
CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Feb 7, 2019

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I like the work produced by Bryan Clark because he focusses on strategic matters on the chess board. However in the story mentioned in Aviation week, I think he is off course. The premise of the story is based off Clark's research article published in CSBA in December of last year titled "REGAINING THE HIGH GROUND AT SEA: Transforming the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Air Wing for Great Power Competition".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

IMO, Clark is conflating two issues, viz : range and the need for a naval air superiority fighter through a remodeled F-35C. First off, the air superiority role was to be an outcome of the F/A XX program and not from the JSF program. Secondly, the issue of range in the Western Pacific is a geographical reality and the solution is not necessarily going for greater range in the airframe. It is an asymmetrical cost equation that cannot be won. The A2D2 bubble will continue to grow with ever increasing missile range and will easily outpace economically whatever increasing range that can be put on a plane. All you end up is ever increasing cost and a degrading sortie generation rate. The solution is not conventional but outside the box.

 

[Jura The idiot]

... The solution is not conventional but outside the box.

please post specifics of your solution

 

[Brumby]

please post specifics of your solution

I will post specifics after I retire as Chief Strategist of the Pentagon. LOL.

I am mindful that forum rules don't allow specific discussions unless you are trying to get me banned. Jeff gave me a warning once just because I posted a scenario of how a blockade could be conducted. At that time I was merely sharing a RAND study.

 

[Brumby]

I will however talk about some key principles in general terms.

1)The vastness of the Western Pacific presents many obstacles but for every threat there is equal opportunity. This is basic 101 in business school. Look at how they conduct the island campaigns during WW2.
2)There is an optimal distance from land whereby a carrier should operate to generate maximum sortie rates. The further it is, the greater its degradation and effectiveness.
3)There is an overall asymmetrical cost disadvantage between an airplane and anti access missile range. There is no point in even trying to compete. Look for solutions elsewhere.
4)The emphasis is too platform centric rather than effects driven. There are other ways to generate the same effects.

 

[Jura The idiot]

I will however talk about some key principles in general terms.

1)The vastness of the Western Pacific presents many obstacles but for every threat there is equal opportunity. This is basic 101 in business school. Look at how they conduct the island campaigns during WW2.
2)There is an optimal distance from land whereby a carrier should operate to generate maximum sortie rates. The further it is, the greater its degradation and effectiveness.
3)There is an overall asymmetrical cost disadvantage between an airplane and anti access missile range. There is no point in even trying to compete. Look for solutions elsewhere.
4)The emphasis is too platform centric rather than effects driven. There are other ways to generate the same effects.

OK you said close to nothing, so I'll try something specific without, hopefully, offending anyone:

if now some USN CVBG was ordered to hit, it'd start with volleys of TLAMs against radar installations and airfields in the area,

followed by the triple (Super Hornet + Growler + Hawkeye) to get wherever needed, and this wave should be able to defend itself in the air;

on the sea there would be AEGIS (TM LM) vessels, shooting SM-n missiles, presumably taking care of the hail of incoming air-threats, plus

the CVGB would be dashing at >30 knots, making it unlikely it could be attacked by Opfor subs;

in my comfortable chair I don't think it'd matter on a strategic level how close the CVGB sailed to the hostile shore (of course there'd tactical considerations though)

since we're in
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
I add the F-35C is so delayed (originally promised for 2012 EDIT if I'm not mistaken) there's little interest in the USN to spend money on it now, while the USN struggles to keep together what I've just described above, among other things

anyway I'm interested in what you meant by your point #4

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

4)The emphasis is too platform centric rather than effects driven. There are other ways to generate the same effects

My answer would be a combination of LO tankers in the form of drones and KB21. Long range weapons, including cruise missiles, hypersonic weapons potentially even sub orbital.

 

[Brumby]

OK you said close to nothing, so I'll try something specific without, hopefully, offending anyone:

if now some USN CVBG was ordered to hit, it'd start with volleys of TLAMs against radar installations and airfields in the area,

followed by the triple (Super Hornet + Growler + Hawkeye) to get wherever needed, and this wave should be able to defend itself in the air;

on the sea there would be AEGIS (TM LM) vessels, shooting SM-n missiles, presumably taking care of the hail of incoming air-threats, plus

the CVGB would be dashing at >30 knots, making it unlikely it could be attacked by Opfor subs;

in my comfortable chair I don't think it'd matter on a strategic level how close the CVGB sailed to the hostile shore (of course there'd tactical considerations though)

since we're in
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
I add the F-35C is so delayed (originally promised for 2012 EDIT if I'm not mistaken) there's little interest in the USN to spend money on it now, while the USN struggles to keep together what I've just described above, among other things

anyway I'm interested in what you meant by your point #4

In any modern conflict, the initial opening moves are to disrupt and degrade the opposing C2ISR infrastructure. The intended effects are to make them ineffectual. There are many ways to deliver that effect and will probably require a combination especially when there are significant aim points involved. CVBG and the aviation wing is just one in many. In the case where there is a credible A2AD bubble, deploying a CVBG for that intended purpose is very risky and likely not a preferred option. This is merely responding to your question and is a very different conversation from what I posted earlier. Historically and that is from a number of recent conflicts, the strategic bombing arm delivers 50 to 60 % of the munition even though its proportion in terms of asset deployment is closer to 5 %. I personally think that the B-21 program is an important future asset in the high end fight and they should build more of them rather than spending money on any remodeling of the F-35C.

P.S. The threat of the DF's are overrated in terms of effectiveness because in the kill chain it has significant vulnerabilities .

 

[Jura The idiot]

In any modern conflict, ...

OK let's leave it, Yesterday at 8:46 PM I left out (to be brief) the USAF role etc.

 

[bd popeye]

OK you said close to nothing, so I'll try something specific without, hopefully, offending anyone:

if now some USN CVBG was ordered to hit, it'd start with volleys of TLAMs against radar installations and airfields in the area,

followed by the triple (Super Hornet + Growler + Hawkeye) to get wherever needed, and this wave should be able to defend itself in the air;

on the sea there would be AEGIS (TM LM) vessels, shooting SM-n missiles, presumably taking care of the hail of incoming air-threats, plus

the CVGB would be dashing at >30 knots, making it unlikely it could be attacked by Opfor subs;

in my comfortable chair I don't think it'd matter on a strategic level how close the CVGB sailed to the hostile shore (of course there'd tactical considerations though)

since we're in
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
I add the F-35C is so delayed (originally promised for 2012 EDIT if I'm not mistaken) there's little interest in the USN to spend money on it now, while the USN struggles to keep together what I've just described above, among other things

anyway I'm interested in what you meant by your point #4

 

[Jura The idiot]

it's dated 12 Feb 2019 what I've now read:
F-35Bs Conduct Strikes in 'Beast Mode' for First Time in Pacific Region

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

'

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

achieved another first in recent weeks during an at-sea

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

when the aircraft conducted training strikes with an external ordnance load.

The 5th-generation fighters launched from the deck of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

over the Philippine and East China Seas with a load of inert and live ordnance for a first-of-its-kind training mission, according to a news release from the deployed 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. The training took place between Jan. 26 and Feb. 6, officials said.

The Joint Strike Fighter, which has variants specific to the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and Marine Corps, is designed to operate in stealth mode, carrying only internal ordnance to make the aircraft less detectable, and in what manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. calls "beast mode," with a full complement of internal and external weapons.

In full "beast mode" loadout, according to Lockheed, the aircraft can carry 22,000 pounds of bombs and missiles.

According to the 31st MEU release, the F-35Bs in the recent training evolution were loaded with CATM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles; 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II bombs; and 1,000-pound GBU-32

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[JDAM] ordnance. The aircraft dropped inert and high-explosive externally loaded ordnance during the exercise.

"We achieved mission success by using the full capabilities of the F-35B at sea," Lt. Col. Michael Rountree, the F-35B detachment officer-in-charge with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (Reinforced), said in a statement.

Rountree added that the F-35s were able to engage role-player adversary aircraft, hit simulated targets with internally and externally loaded precision-guided weapons, and complete the training mission by executing a vertical landing on the Wasp. Only the F-35B has vertical-landing capability, thanks to a powerful lift fan in the body of the aircraft.

Officials said this was the first time the F-35B executed strikes in the region with ordnance fully loaded.

"The combination of stealth tactics and fully loaded strike aircraft increases the lethality of the F-35B, enabling greater contribution and combat effectiveness by the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit Team," said Col. Robert Brodie, commander of the 31st MEU and an

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

pilot, in a statement. "The formidable and versatile capability of the F-35B provides a premier platform to support the Marine Air-Ground Task Force's ability to own the fight in the dynamic and evolving Indo-Pacific environment."

The F-35B

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with the Pacific-based 31st MEU in March 2018, marking the first maritime operational deployment for the aircraft.