Above is the vid of the ferry flight of the F-35C to Florida.
The pilot of this airplane said something that caught me short and has me scratching my head..
He said the "plane will provide day one strike...a capability the Navy desperately needs..." It caught me short because there is a parallel development of the X-47 that is also to provide day one strike
Did the pilot misspeak or do we have two programs that are tailored to do the same job?
What is "day one strike"? I tried Google, but even with quotes, all it gave me was your site and things which were totally unrelated.
ReplyDeletemy understanding which could EASILY be incorrect is that day one strike is when you launch air attacks against fully functioning air defenses. its always the yardstick. once day one is over then most other airplanes can fly in that airspace with no problem...but you have to get past day one and the need to roll back anti-air.
DeleteIn theory, it is the first days of conflict when the stealth/high performance aircraft attack and suppress/destroy enemy air force and air defense. After which cheaper/more numerous "bomb trucks" can provide volume for strategic bombing and air support.
DeleteIn practice modern/competent air defense systems can be survivable, mobile and even stealthy enough to wait out those first few days, preserve themselves and do "shoot and run" attacks on targets of opportunity for a prolonged period.
Unless there is an external event that forces them to act, like an incoming amphibious/ground force. Or political reasons.
In general, if the attacker cannot reliably find and target the defender or contest the territory the defender resides in, then the defender can choose when and how to engage.
Which makes me skeptical about all those scenarios that just assume the IADS will turn on all their radars and start shooting at every blip once the conflict starts.
Back on topic, I think "capability the Navy desperately needs" is the more significant part of the quote, as it basically acknowledges that the current air wing is not considered survivable against a modern IADS, even by its users.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat has always been a common marketing term for the Navy re: F-35. In some more optimistic circles of Navy Air, they think that is possible against emerging IADS. It was a common carry-over term going back to the failed A-12. It conflicts the USAF where the F-35 is supposed to work as a balanced team with the F-22 which takes out big IADS threats leaving some X-band, Ku-Band smaller-shorter range battlefield interdiction threats to deal with. This is the most optimistic view of F-22/F-35 complimentary ability. http://goo.gl/oEmQz Both the F-22 and F-35 are multi-role. The F-22 is more balanced against IADS threats. The F-35 is more balanced against interdiction and close air support (in theory).
ReplyDeleteThe X-47B follow on, UCAS-D, has a main role for ISR and strike is secondary. This is far more about the USN getting into the business of being able to do continuous ISR orbits from the carriers than anything else.
ReplyDeleteThe term first day has come to mean low observable aircraft that can fly within an enemies air defenses during those day(s) till the air defenses are rolled back. Consider Gulf War I where the only aircraft flying over Baghdad with F-117's; however, a range of aircraft were operating over other parts of the theater. It's also worth considering that Israel seems able to turn Syria's air defenses on and off whenever they want to enter Syria and bomb something. They did it 3 times this year and a few years back to hit a nuclear facility.
When you're electronic attack, counter measures, and hacking is that effective I'm not sure the term day one/first day has the same meaning. The USN has traditionally relied more upon EW and cruise missiles while the USAF took the lead in low observable aircraft. The USAF gave up escort jamming to the USN long ago and while they were supposed to stand off jamming they never bothered to fund the EA-52 (it was cancelled twice).
Low observable aircraft are obviously more able to survive various threats but given air defenses are going to be taken down in days, including enemy air bases, it's not clear how cost effective all low observable tactical air fleets happen to be? The F-35 will normally operate with external systems/weapons and at that point it's not clear it's cost effective vs say an A-10 once enemy air defense are rolled back? There's a reason the USN has been comfortable not operating LO aircraft and isn't planning to bother till the end of the decade.