F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[PuckChaser]

Could it be that because it was US only, they're being slightly more careful on what is released?

 

[dapaterson]

I seem to recall reading something recently about a failed test - because the OPFOR GBAD couldn't detect the F35.  Perhaps that was part of Red Flag?

 

[tomahawk6]

If there were issues the USAF would not have declared the aircraft to be combat ready.The USMC/USN models still have issues I think.

 

[Good2Golf]

Dapaterson, don't have the link at the moment, but they apparently had to squawk with the civilian Mode-3/A (ATC) transponder in order for GBAD to see them.  That would indicate to me that the GBAD primary radar couldn't find them.  What wasn't mentioned was the AD radar type, nor the ranges that the F-35s were from. AD assets.

On the question upstream a bit, If I were the USAF I wouldn't be in a hurry to blurt out results even if quite favourable.  So long as the head shed knows, then I see no immediate need to placate the media and naysayers with justifications of performance....let all think it still has big issues for all I'd care.  35B and 35A are now IOC, Navy to follow, kicking and screaming with chants of the cancelled A-12 program and languid F/A-XX program echoing I. The background...

 

[PuckChaser]

That's a GBAD failure, and a rousing success for JSR, but how well it did is likely hidden by classified documents about ranges/types that G2G mentioned.

 

[tomahawk6]

Lots of fanfare today at Hill AFB as the 388 Fighter Wing celebrated its 15 F-35A's becoming fully operational.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/08/05/commander-receiving-f-35as-its-going-to-be-an-absolute-monster/

The celebration of the Air Force variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter reaching initial operational capability continued Friday with a ceremony replete with dignitaries at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, where 15 F-35s were declared combat-ready this week.

The crowd in attendance included Utah Gov. Gary Herbert; Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James; Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein; the head of Air Combat Command, Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle; and other top Air Force brass.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Seems about right for the US Airforce.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Not enough USAF money--note older fighters, personnel problems:

US Air Force Boss: Faster F-35 Buy Rate Might Not Be Possible

The head of Air Combat Command wants to see the US Air Force build up its inventory of F-35s quicker than planned, but its civilian head signaled Wednesday that it might not be feasible in the current fiscal climate.

Speaking to the press on Tuesday, Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle said he was concerned about the service’s current F-35 buy rate, which hovers in the 40s until fiscal 2021 when that number jumps up to 60. Carlisle stated he would like the Air Force to buy at least 60 aircraft per year in the near term to replace legacy aircraft that is aging out [emphasis added].

But in an interview with Defense News and sister publication Air Force Times, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said boosting the number of active-duty airmen is currently a bigger priority than ramping up the F-35 buy [emphasis added].

"It's all a matter of money. I would love to increase the buy also, but I don't see that as more urgent than staying the course to increase our end strength, for example,” she said in an interview Wednesday [Aug. 3]. “Increasing that end strength is the top thing. We think it's the top thing for all of our senior leaders.”..

Carlisle noted Aug. 2 that increasing the number of F-35s bought would boost economic order quantity, bringing the cost per jet closer to its $85 million target. On the other hand, moving slowly could lead to the Air Force spending more money upgrading fourth-generation airplanes that would otherwise be removed from service.

“I need more [F-35s] sooner to replace legacy airplanes and airplanes that are going to require money to do service life extension and do capability increases if I don’t replace the F-35,” he said. “So I would like to see the numbers go up to at least 60 if I can. Eighty would be optimum, but given the fiscal constraints that we’re in today, 80 would be very, very hard to get to.”..

Boosting the buy in 2018 is an unlikely prospect because the Air Force would have to take money from other procurement accounts in order to do so, he said. Even then, it has few options. The service cannot make big cuts to its KC-46 tanker program without breaking its fixed-priced contracting agreement. Slashing other procurement programs like the T-X trainer and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System would not yield enough cash to meaningfully increase procurement...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/08/05/f35-buy-rate-air-force-budget-secretary-air-combat-commander/88306140/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

I have to believe that at least one person in the US has done the spreadsheet that says:  increasing the production by one aircraft per year reduces acquisition cost by this much, while retiring one aircraft per year reduces maintenance burden by this much.  Compare and discuss.

Meanwhile, with respect to end strength,  old aircraft need old skills for new technicians, new aircraft need new skills.  So maintaining a legacy fleet means training new technicians twice. 

Also, if new technicians aren't found for old aircraft old aircraft will cease to fly thereby reducing the need for new technicians.

I am assuming that the personnel problems are not pertaining to recruiting flight crew personnel but all the administrative and support positions.

 

[CBH99]

Chris,

I think the recruiting issue is for both types of positions.

I read an article only recently (I'll post a link to it when I'm home) - that the USAF is actually desperate short of pilots & aircrew also.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks CBH

 

[Harrigan]

On the question upstream a bit, If I were the USAF I wouldn't be in a hurry to blurt out results even if quite favourable.  So long as the head shed knows, then I see no immediate need to placate the media and naysayers with justifications of performance....let all think it still has big issues for all I'd care.  35B and 35A are now IOC, Navy to follow, kicking and screaming with chants of the cancelled A-12 program and languid F/A-XX program echoing I. The background...

I laud your optimism, but I don't follow your logic.
Just a month of so ago, the USAF and LM gleefully spread the news that the F35 deployment to Mountain Home had been a huge success, even releasing a graphic that left the impression the F35 had an 8:0 kill ratio vs the F15E (complete with 'pew pews').  They even more recently said they were so stealthy that SAMs couldn't see them.  Then, they participate in a realistic exercise against the same aircraft they are expected to replace, and USAF and LM Public Affairs suddenly develop restraint?

The F35 cannot afford to fail, or more importantly, to be seen as a failure.  It is in a constant fight for funding, and a constant fight to show that the massive amounts of money involved are not a waste.  Carlisle wants to increase the numbers from 40 to 60 per year, and ideally 80.  This doesn't happen without proving it is much better AND cheaper than its replacements. 

The bar is high - LM and F35 supporters are constantly raving about how obviously better it is than everything else.  So when given the opportunity, it has to live up to its own hype.  Clearly, I hope that it does.  Considering the amount of treasure that many countries have poured into the project, it had better be as good as LM says it is, otherwise the west is going to be in a world of hurt (financially, at the very least). 

You could be right.  Perhaps all the awesome news of how the F35 wiped the floor with the F15, F16, and F18 at Red Flag is being kept quiet - Senators, the GAO, influential media, and potential foreign buyers be dam**d -but to believe that they would do that is against all previous evidence.

Harrigan

 

[MarkOttawa]

RAF/Royal Navy and Italy (maybe?) buying F-35B in addition to USMC:

Singapore puts off decision on whether to buy Lockheed’s F-35

Singapore has put on hold a decision to buy as many as 12 of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jets, according to information from the Pentagon’s program office.

The island nation’s permanent secretary of defense development informed the U.S. in mid-June that it was delaying final steps toward purchasing four of the fighters by about 2022, with an option to buy eight more, according to the information presented to Pentagon officials last month as part of their regular reviews of the costliest weapons program.

While Singapore gave no indication of when it might revive efforts to buy the F-35, the U.S. continues to encourage the Asian city-state to buy the fighter. “We welcome Singapore’s interest in purchasing the F-35 aircraft,” President Barack Obama said in opening remarks at a White House press conference last week with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

In December 2014, Singapore submitted a “letter of request” to the U.S. formally seeking information on purchasing the F-35, and it followed up in early 2015 by indicating it wanted the most complex model, the F-35B. Intended for short takeoffs and vertical landings on unimproved airstrips, the F-35B was designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps and has already been ordered by the U.K. and Italy...
http://about.bgov.com/blog/singapore-puts-off-decision-whether-buy-lockheeds-f-35/

No Italian orders for F-35B yet (30 planned plus 60 As)--see end here at LockMart program status report:
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13567/f-35fast_facts4q2015_.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

Is there not a huge security concern, in selling the F-35 to Singapore?  (Along the lines of Chinese intelligence gathering valuable intel about its true capabilities, software, etc?)

For an aircraft the US (and west) is truly relying on to carry us over into the next generation, it seems like the US is doing things a bit prematurely on some fronts.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Chinese seem to be doing pretty well already spying on the F-35 within the US and by cyber :
https://www.google.ca/search?q=f-35+china+spying&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=OiaqV-vbFMT9Ut_Ij4gG

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HB_Pencil]

I laud your optimism, but I don't follow your logic.
Just a month of so ago, the USAF and LM gleefully spread the news that the F35 deployment to Mountain Home had been a huge success, even releasing a graphic that left the impression the F35 had an 8:0 kill ratio vs the F15E (complete with 'pew pews').  They even more recently said they were so stealthy that SAMs couldn't see them.  Then, they participate in a realistic exercise against the same aircraft they are expected to replace, and USAF and LM Public Affairs suddenly develop restraint?

The F35 cannot afford to fail, or more importantly, to be seen as a failure.  It is in a constant fight for funding, and a constant fight to show that the massive amounts of money involved are not a waste.  Carlisle wants to increase the numbers from 40 to 60 per year, and ideally 80.  This doesn't happen without proving it is much better AND cheaper than its replacements. 

The bar is high - LM and F35 supporters are constantly raving about how obviously better it is than everything else.  So when given the opportunity, it has to live up to its own hype.  Clearly, I hope that it does.  Considering the amount of treasure that many countries have poured into the project, it had better be as good as LM says it is, otherwise the west is going to be in a world of hurt (financially, at the very least). 

You could be right.  Perhaps all the awesome news of how the F35 wiped the floor with the F15, F16, and F18 at Red Flag is being kept quiet - Senators, the GAO, influential media, and potential foreign buyers be dam**d -but to believe that they would do that is against all previous evidence.

Harrigan

Uhh, is this what you were looking for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4auM08D-S_E


Frankly, they don't need to "sell" it at every single instance. Its blindingly obvious to everybody internationally (except for the Canadian public) that this aircraft basically is a revolutionary advance over current designs. Talking about how it "wiped the floor" with F-16s ect. misses the point. The next iteration of warfare (which I've harped on here for years) has less to do with can you beat X or Y in one on one combat (which I think the heritage report a few days ago makes clear it is as good if not better than them) but how it operates within the emerging electronic battlespace.

Those other aircraft don't even fight in this space: they will become bit players, subservient to platforms with those capabilities. They are easy to detect, spoof, neutralize because of it... vastly degrading their actual value in the battlespace.

 

[Kirkhill]

I posted this article about Russian artillery capabilities in Ukraine and their implications for NATO operations in the future

http://army.ca/forums/threads/123777/post-1448774.html#msg1448774

The author's argument was that the West's artillery does not supply the same capabilities as Russia's does.

Perhaps the better question is how would the Russian's artillery operate effectively in an environment dominated by aircraft that have to turn on their IFF transponders to be seen and can launch PGMs with >70 km standoff range in salvoes while retiring at Full Military Power.

 

[Harrigan]

Uhh, is this what you were looking for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4auM08D-S_E


Frankly, they don't need to "sell" it at every single instance. Its blindingly obvious to everybody internationally (except for the Canadian public) that this aircraft basically is a revolutionary advance over current designs. Talking about how it "wiped the floor" with F-16s ect. misses the point. The next iteration of warfare (which I've harped on here for years) has less to do with can you beat X or Y in one on one combat (which I think the heritage report a few days ago makes clear it is as good if not better than them) but how it operates within the emerging electronic battlespace.

Those other aircraft don't even fight in this space: they will become bit players, subservient to platforms with those capabilities. They are easy to detect, spoof, neutralize because of it... vastly degrading their actual value in the battlespace.

Thank you for the link, HB.  It is appreciated. 

Despite it being from a Youtube poster that only posts F-35 cheerleading videos, and in a rah-rah speech to a friendly audience, it does give a (sanitized) sense of how the F35 may be used in future combat.  In General Goldfeins own words:

"...thirty minutes before any aircraft crossed into enemy territory, the war was raging full steam in the cyber and space domains, red forces used every trick in the book to take down blue command and control and degrade ISR while blue forces defended key cyber terrain.  Actions in these domains were passed to Capt Hedges (F35 mission commander) to increase his situational awareness, but also to allow him to call audibles.  Real time, based on the status of both enemy and friendly capabilities.  Following a formation of F22's, F35s working in conjunction with F16s took on the enemy both in and from the air, all while cyber and ISR forces were completely and totally engaged."

Some takeaways I get from his speech:
- C2 and ISR assets pass information to the F35 to build their SA, allowing the Msn Comd to make informed tactical decisions
- F16s, 'fighting in this space' (how can it be - you said they don't even fight in this space)
- F22's paving the way for the F35's
- F35's can operate in a package with Gen 4 aircraft
- F35 has excellent onboard tools for synthesizing SA inputs and presenting it to the pilot

Some of those above takeaways are undeniably good ones (such as the last one), but everything else can be and is done by ANY Gen 4 fighter.  The only difference is the onboard systems presumably provide faster SA for the F35 pilot.  However, the F35 is still dependent on those inputs, which are provided primarily by other assets (C2, ISR).  I am not suggesting this is an inconsequential advantage, but you could replace F35 with F16/F18/AV8B in the above scenario, and the result would be the same.  Perhaps not quite as efficient, but the same result. 

The F35 isn't revolutionary, it is evolutionary.  Stealth isn't new.  Aircraft that can land vertically aren't new.  Ability to process SA inputs isn't new.  But it is faster at the latter, like a faster processor on a home computer.  That is good (no question about that) but is that enough of an improvement to justify the costs?  It might over time prove that it is, but LM brochures and press releases touting estimated costs in the future and eventual orders of 2000+ are still just theoretical.  Its not just the "Canadian public" that has concerns about the F35 project, and even suggesting that does a disservice to the readers of this board.

Now that I have unwisely waded into this debate, I want to make it clear that I hope that the F35 is everything that it is said to be.  I hope the price goes down to $85M a copy, I hope that the operating costs are lower than Gen 4 aircraft, I hope that it can provide a performance upgrade over Gen 4 fighters, I hope it is easy to maintain, I hope that infrastructure costs to support it are the same or lower than Gen 4 aircraft.

But until it has actually achieved those things, it will have to fight to prove itself, despite supporters assertions that all is well and its dominance is "obvious".

I still stand by my previous statement: If a country needs a WWIII vs the Russians, First Night door-kicker, then go with the F35.  If you don't need that, Gen 4 fighters might be good enough.
The United States, unquestionably, needs the ability to fight that war.  Does Canada?

Harrigan

 

[Good2Golf]

Harrigan, two points: 

1) Your finally point is a good one, in that Canada, writ large, needs to decide will it be a "WW III participant, if only a sub-set player, not major contributing force" or a bigger fish in a smaller pond (the Gen 5 v Gen 4 fighter issue); and

2) I think the way you phrased the first bullet of your takeaways from the speech doesn't give full justice to the capability of a fully-integrated, high-level network-enabled sensor-strike element in the cyber/physical battle space.  It's not simply that F-35 receives C2 and ISR information to help build SA -- the F-35 is an integral part of the collection/dissemination/action-space.  It's multi-directional - receive, transmit, share, extend, enhance.  The other fighters are not nearly as deeply integrated into the 5th Gen battlespace.

Good assessment and thoughts, though.  Thanks for that.

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

'Nudder capability enhancement milestone:  AIM-9X yesterday

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1694363-f-35-kills-drone-in-air-to-air-missile-attack

Curious what those Sidewinders might do to the stealth profile - may present an interesting conundrum for the pilots and mission planners - go in stealthy without self-defence or go in with self-defence but risk being detected earlier/at all.