Amy Butler has a tantalizing article hidden behind a pay wall that gives the impression that the US Navy is about to jump on the Ultra Hornet.
After years of courting from afar, Boeing seems to finally have caught the U.S. Navy's attention—and support—for a series of upgrades for the F/A-18E/F designed to improve its stealthiness and keep it relevant against threats well beyond 2030.If it is what it appears to be then NAVAIR and the Carrier Mafia have just revealed their chips and my thinking is confirmed.
With 25 hr. of flight time on new, stealthy F/A-18 fuel tanks and more upgrade trials planned, the company has shed any pretense of targeting the Defense Department.
NAVAIR was chilled out, laughing their asses off at the USMC and USAF.
Seriously though. What it means is that the Navy will fight to keep its carriers and squadrons. The Chief Of Naval Operations has been pushing one concept over all others...Presence. The different Combatant Commanders will insist that carriers are needed and that eight are too few. China threat gurus will state the same. Air-Sea Battle just hit its first bump...are aircraft carriers necessary to fight the anti-access threats or is stealth the uber tool that proponents claim. Either way, the battle over the F-35 just headed out to sea.
Go Navy! Way to play it smart!
ReplyDeletewithout a doubt it appears to be a fiscally responsible move...but is it tactically smart? we really don't know because we don't know what the secret tech that the Navy is working into the Super Hornet is all about. Sweetman needs to get it in gear and get us an article or two about what they're working on. if the classified stuff is any good then the Uber Hornet will be the bridge to the 6th gen Navy fighter.
Deletein a way this is good news for the Marines. the F-35 will hit a cost spiral and they'll need to back out of the F-35C to afford any number of F-35B's. the solution? but Uber Hornets instead.
That will be fun to watch. From what I hear the Marine Corps hated the idea of buying Super Hornets so much that they said they would rather take ex-Navy Legacy F/A-18Cs and use those as replacement aircraft until the F-35B was ready. The Marines Corps even published a false report about problems with the Super Hornet that simply never existed when it looked like the Navy was going to force them to buy it.
DeleteBy the way have you heard anything about a report saying that the Rebels admitted that the chemical gas attack was a result of their doing and that they claimed it was an accident?
Here's one article: http://intellihub.com/2013/09/01/syrian-rebels-anonymously-admit-responsibility-chemical-gas-attack-damascus-claiming-accident/
Of the 3 services, the USN, in my book, always had it right. They kept buying SHs and Growlers, they never just depended on F35, USAF should have kept buying a few F15s just to keep LMT honest.Doesn't do any good to have 12 F35C and 4 E2C on a carrier, sure lot of real estate for nothing....you have to have some numbers of jets on board. They can stick with SHs for a few more years, replace them with a new UAV that will cover the deep strike part and partner up with USAF for 6th gen fighter and forget F35C, or at least wait until it proves itself....
ReplyDelete25 WHOLE HOURS of flight time in non-functioning mock-ups of the "stealth" pods...... Shit, we should just put the whole damn JET in a "stealth" pod......
ReplyDeleteHoly shit, cancel the F-35, lets but this warmed over Super Hornet instead.
S-300s are overrated anyway.....
are you just reacting or are you reading? whether you like it or not, affordability is an issue. its becoming an even bigger issue everyday.
Deletehave you noticed something about the runup to the war in Syria? no one is talking about taking sequestration off the table. let the libertarian wing of the Republican party lose and they along with the Tea partiers will make sure it stays. major cuts are coming and people are deciding whether the F-35 is worth the costs of every other weapon system or if we can take our time with that jet and get what we really need.
Or USAF could have kept buying new build F-16's for the AFNG so they'd have a reserve built up.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the only reason why the Ultra super Hornet is the US Navy's fall back is because if the F-35C becomes a flop and a disaster. The Super Hornet can be upgraded and is ready to take the place of the fleet. Maybe the USAF should wise up and buy into the Silent Eagle and upgrade the F-16s to Block 60 standards
ReplyDeleteSilent Eagle may have its foot in the door in South Korea, because F-35 came in over budget and there are no other candidates.
Deletenews report:
Boeing Co., the world’s largest aerospace company, is downplaying reports that it won a $7 billion deal to supply South Korea with 60 fighter jets. “Boeing has not received an official notification from the Republic of Korea regarding a decision in the F-X competition,” Amy Horton, a spokeswoman for the Chicago-based company, said in an e-mail. “We await word on the next steps in the selection process and will continue to work closely with the Republic of Korea in meeting their defense requirements.”
who said F35 couldn't be beaten by S300 ? Nobody know how it's effective : Something is sure, an older Sam killed an F117 in yougoslavia, and every country over the world got his F117 stealth part.
ReplyDeleteSometime I see the F35 like that new Iphone with just a bigger screen.
That F-117 was lost due to bad tactical management and dumb luck.
Delete1. It used the same ingress & egress routes for several days
2. It had very poor situational awareness
3. It had no IR MAWS
4. It flew too close to the SAM and was shot down at 8km
Even given all that, only one of the two missiles fired at the non-maneuvering F-117 actually hit.
a fifty percent hit rate using an elderly sa2 against a stealth airplane? damn good if you ask me.
DeleteNot from 8km it's not. NOBODY has ever said that ANY VLO aircraft from the F-22 thru the B-2 could survive at such a close range. The F-117's main problem was that it did not know the SA-2 was looking for it. The F-22 & F-35 will not suffer from this problem.
Deleteok, you want to play that game? cool. fast forward to today, add in infrared tracking or targeting, phased array systems, integrated air defenses plus 4th gen ++ fighters and finally add in the issue with the S-400/500 quadrupling the range of the old missiles and what do you say now?
Deletei say you're not going to send aircraft against a target like that unless its the X-47 or another attack drone.
Correction:
DeleteIt was 13km, not 8km (Still basically point blank range, especially when talking about SAMs)
The V-601P SAM used has a range of 35km, so the range was about a third of it's range.
More telling was that the F-117 was detected at 10% of the max range of the search radar, which is exactly what VLO RCS treatments are supposed to do. Remember that "stealth" means a much reduced detection range, not invisibility. This F-117 just had the dumb lock to fly directly at a SAM battery.
btw, only 1 of 24 F-117s was shot down that night and no other F-117s were hit for the rest of the war. So much for an effective anti-stealth system.
Yes, let’s fast forward.
DeleteThe VLO assets will be geolocating any emitters and sharing the data in real time. Automatic route planning and threat avoidance is built in. Standoff munitions specifically designed to deal with these threats exist and the F-35 has the SA to understand and deal with the threat.
It looks like you are talking about the Advanced Super Hornet...
DeleteGeolocation and all that SA stuff if available in any new build 4th gen fighter...
Stand off munitions?...then why full stealth?
And in case you dont know,during the 1st Gulf War ,British Destroyers Exeter, Gloucester, and Norfolk (with obsolete E-Band radars) found themselves detecting and tracking F-117 Nighthawks at up to 80 miles away...
"during the 1st Gulf War ,British Destroyers Exeter, Gloucester, and Norfolk (with obsolete E-Band radars) found themselves detecting and tracking F-117 Nighthawks at up to 80 miles away"
DeleteYeah so could our old F-4G's until the first real day off war and the F-117's radar reflectors were removed... We could also see them when they had the air refueling doors open.
This was reported during operations...Iraqui radars also give first warning and knew that the F-117s were flying over iraqui air space...but the signal was too weak to generate a firing solution for SAMs...wath i meant was that stealth and stealth alone does not hold up to emerging sensors...
DeleteAnd to the record,non stealth aircraft also operate in Bagdad since the 1st night...
IIRC ASH does not have Geo-Location capabilities, only the Growler.
DeleteVLO assets are required, even with standoff munitions, to get close enough to correctly ID the target. VLO is also needed to weave in and out of the degraded IADS network. Here is a simple graphic that explains it.
Btw, They tried to send 4th gen assets into downtown Baghdad on the 3rd night (19th of Jan, 1991), ended up with the PackagQ problems, and never sent them back after that. While they continued to use 4th gen assets on the outskirts of Baghdad, then never sent them back “downtown” into the toughest of the IADS.
Sorry, forgot the link to the graphic.
DeleteV-601P (as Spudman points out) is the SA-3 Goa, not the SA-2 Guideline.
ReplyDeleteWhat is left out of the story is the tactics the Serbians employed: they used decoy emitters, moved frequently and practiced EMCON. These were all major factors not only in the shoot down but in the battery surviving long enough to take the shot in the first place. NATO didn't know where the battery was because of good tactics, it's not just dumb luck.
The "The VLO assets will be geolocating any emitters and sharing the data in real time. Automatic route planning and threat avoidance is built in." works in the F-35 videos when the enemy is dumb enough to sit in place with all his radars turned on, waiting to be killed (which you notice is what they do in all the F-35 videos). When the enemy is moving missiles, using decoys and using non-emitting systems to cue SAM batteries to turn on, shoot and scoot in a few minutes, it's a whole different ball game.
Finally, the Serbians only shot down one F-117 true, but the whole air campaign was hugely degraded by their efforts. The damage claims from the USAF were vastly overblown. The number one mission of IADS is to keep the airplanes from being successful, not to shoot them down. The Serbians largely succeeded in this despite the F-117.
This is interesting: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-aerospace-defense-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE9831BL20130905
ReplyDeleteFrank Kendall just said that he expects the Navy's plan to buy F-35C's will not experience significant changes. I don't know if that means he is expecting some changes to take place (such as the Navy buying the Super Hornet upgrades) or if this was meant to completely kill any ambition the Navy had to buy the Ultra Hornet in the first place.
The article does note that "One possibility under discussion has been a two-year pause in orders for the F-35C carrier variant, a move that could increase the cost of the remaining aircraft to be bought by the Marine Corps and the Air Force, according to four sources familiar with the issue."
One of the areas where the F-35 shines, even more that the F-22, is in the area of threat identification. It came out during the Australian Parliamentary Testimony that the F-35 uses over 600 data point to ID a target. For comparison, the F-22 used only 200 and 4th gen “around a few dozen”. MADL plays a key factor in this as it allows every F-35 to share data freely without the fear of giving it’s position away.
ReplyDeleteDecoys will also be less effective since it can be determined easily that it is a broadcast-type of signal rather than a rotating radar dish. Also, emitters do not need to “stay on” for any appreciable length of time in order to geo-locate, especially in a multi-ship situation.
Shoot and scoot is effective, but it only applies to short ranges systems. The larger IADS pieces take a very long time to setup.
No one trusts anything you say about the F-35...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell, it's a good thing that I can back up what I say with direct quotes:
Delete-------Page 62 (66 in the PDF)-------
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
FRIDAY, 16 MARCH 2012
--------------------------------------
Air Vice Marshal Osley: And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance.
-----------------------------------------------
No one cares about you anymore...
Delete@Andrew: Congrats on being "No One"...
Delete;)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpudman. serous question. i held off fire but i've got to ask. you and your boys over at F.16.net pretty much drug me through the mud, questioned my service and talked shit about me. i let it go but with all that going on, why do you even comment here?
DeleteI've never, to my knowledge, said anything derogatory about you. I've followed you for a very long time and like your open-mindedness. I have never felt the desire from you to stop posting so I continue whenever I think that I have something positive to contribute to the conversation.
Deletei enjoy watching the discussion between you and Andrew. its just the "issue" with that site has been a burr in my saddle so i had to ask. you're more than welcome to stay. it was on my mind so i voiced it.
Deleteits done as far as i'm concerned.
Fair enough.
DeleteOne of the main reasons I post anywhere is to inject understanding of what many people do not grasp, that is “tactics”. They look at the paper specs and think A is better than B because of a single aspect of a design. The completely discount HOW the designs are meant to interact. For example, take a look at Rep-SIM videos about the F-35. Did you notice how both sides just flew directly towards each other? That makes no tactical sense whatsoever.
It reminds me of an online game I play with my son, World of Tanks. In it, I see many Anti-Tank Guns running off into the cities to hunt tanks. AT-Guns are vehicles with a larger (often fixed position) gun but less armor than a same-tier regular tank. Then they get surprised that a regular tank with a smaller gun beat them. They failed to realize that while they had a bigger gun, the tank had a turret that allowed it to fire at any angle without rotating or exposing its entire much tougher hull to enemy fire. They failed to use the AT-Gun in a manner in which it was designed, but instead they try to make it fit their pre-conceived concept of how tank combat should progress.
good enough. then explain this to me. how is an airplane that accelerates and turns poorly, has less range than the X-47, yet costs more than two F-18's the right airplane for the USAF.
Deletenot only does is an aerodynamic dog but it also is saddled with a missile that lacks the range of enemy missiles and even if it launches first, its missiles can be evaded and then the airplane ran down....so how is the F-35 the airplane that can sweep the enemy from the skies.
There won't be many more discussions between me and SpudmanWP. I can't take anything he says seriously because of his blatant lies.
DeleteBy the way, SpudmanWP, what's your name on World of Tanks? I'm going to hunt you down.
Accelerates & turns poorly compared to what?
DeleteAre you comparing combat loaded or clean config?
While “today’s” LRIP F-35s cost twice as much, FRP jets will be much less expensive than today’s jets. Everyone involved, from LM, the JPO, CAPE, etc all say that. However, how far down the learning curve the final price will be is still being debated. Take a look at the latest LRIP announcements. Without any increase in annual build rates, the contracted cost was a 4% drop per year. Imagine the drop once the build rate for the F-35A goes from 20 to close to 80.
As far as weapons goes, the Aim-120D is a fine, long ranged weapon. It is constantly being updated and even now has a new motor in the works.
In any engagement, tactics will play a key role. Here again are some excerpts from the above linked Australian Testimony.
Delete----------- (“On notice” means that it is classified and could not be talked about in a public forum)----------
Mr Liberson: Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.
…/…
Dr JENSEN: I would not have thought what simulation software and what threats were analysed would have been a problem. Details of your knowledge of those threats clearly would be classified, but I do not think 'Hey, we did a run against a Su-35 would have been a problem.' On notice, if you cannot answer it here, have you done differential simulations of, once again, Su-35, 2V2, 4V4, 8V8, 4V2 and 2V4, for instance?
Air Vice Marshal Osley: The short answer is that the fighting unit for a F35 is four aircraft or more. The simulations will cover multiaircraft versus multithreats. So all of what you have mentioned would be within the realms of what has been tested in our simulations.
Dr JENSEN: I would like as much detail as you can give me on that. Have you done that using widely different engagement geometries and sensor weapon mixes—in other words, not head-to-head co-altitude? If so, what sort of runs have you conducted in that regard? Have you done simulations of F35s versus any aircraft that have HF over-the-horizon radar, working with your threat group in terms of their integrated air defence system?
Have you done any simulations, using adversary HF over-the-horizon radar equipped naval surface vessels as a component of IADS? Have you done any simulations using current generation passive detection systems, incorporated as additional constructive elements of an adversary IADS against the F35 scenarios?
Air Vice Marshal Osley: I will take the detailed questions there on the sensors on notice. What I would like to say is that the simulation that has been done was actually done using highly trained fighter pilots, acting as Red Air, using to the best of their knowledge, the best capability they could to defeat the F35. The point I would like to make here is that if you use the F35 and play to its strengths, not its weaknesses, you can prevail in air combat.
Winning in air combat late in this decade and into the 2020s is not going to be easy. I am not saying that the F35 will answer all our prayers. If you use the F35 incorrectly and do not play to its strengths, you will probably lose. But the same could be said for the F18 and the F16. If we play to the F35's strengths, and it has a lot of strengths of stealth, good sensors and exceptional situation awareness. For instance, the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability. It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. If you have the right weapons on board, and they will need to be upgraded, if you have good training, good tactics and good supporting capabilities, the F35 will prevail.
Air Vice Marshal Osley: Is the same as stealth. Stealth is not invisible; stealth is low-observable.
@Andrew: Same as here.. SpudmanWP
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI use the NA West server and play a couple of hours a day (I am a night owl).
DeleteI’ve only been playing a month and I rotate between my T1_LoLTraktor. T4_Su-85B, and T7_Su-152.
Okay, I use the T1_MS-1, T8_T-44, and the T10_T-62A.
DeleteFor the most part though I only play with the MS-1 and the T-44. Although the T-62A is my pride and glory tier 10 tank, I absolutely hate using it. The cost to repair that tank after battle is often more money than gained while using it, unless by some miracle I get a bunch of idiots on the opposing side.
Trying to work your way up to that ISU-152 I take it? How close are you?
I have a T7 SU-152 with an upgraded engine and the rest stock.. Lord it's slow but you have to love the Derp gun. I just got to T7 last week.
DeleteI'll stick with the SU-152 till I get my crew's base skill @ 100% & Camo @ 100%. If they still need work, I'll keep them there till Brother in Arms get's to 100%. They are in the mid 90s now with their base skill, IIRC.
oh hell SpudmanWP, Andrew aka BlackOwl18E is a NOTORIOUS Boeing shill over at DefenseTech.
DeleteWatch out
and what are you?
DeleteIsn't it funny how F-35 supporters are quick to call those that want the Advanced Super Hornet shills for Boeing, but no one calls those adamant about the F-35 shills for Lockheed? Seems like double standards to me.
ReplyDeleteActually, David, I may or may not be the same BlackOwl18E. What if I told you that BlackOwl18E was now not simply an identity of an account, but had now become a symbol in cyberspace for all those of us that want the Advanced Super Hornet over the F-35C/F-35B? BlackOwl18E's audacity to keep fighting on Dtech and DoDBuzz, even though he was always doing it without anyone's help and he took on seemingly everyone in the discussions section relentlessly, has actually left many people asking the same questions and wondering if the F-35 is too expensive to fix and operate as opposed to upgrading the Super Hornet to do the job. I may or may not be one of those whom he convinced.