Compare this loadout to the legacy F/A-18 Hornet below...
If the USAF, USMC, Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin weren't being so obvious it would be funny.
They're scared shitless and are trying desperately to build momentum for the program going forward. Unfortunately for them, too many people know the truth and won't be impressed by the first pic. That is far from impressive and if I tossed in a few pics of what the Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter or even SU-35 carries then it would look even worse than my comparison of the Hornet vs. F-35.
But I've finally hit on why the USMC is pushing the IOC so hard for this year. Again, its all about budgets. They're trying desperately to clear the train wreck that is the Marine Corps budget and the easiest way to do it is to get items off the table. The F-35 is the most expensive so its going first. They'll take a break from the MV-22 (and that's why getting the Navy, Israeli and Japanese buys were so important...they take the Marine Corps place in line) and focus all program dollars on that airplane. That also explains why the CH-53K was again "slowed down" and the push to make the Marine Corps the seagoing 101st.
Reports have already stated that (as I suspected) the JLTV is going to be canceled and with the latest from Marine Corps officials you can look for the Marine Personnel Carrier to either be slow walked so much that it should be canceled (the defense industry won't take the project seriously...I think General Dynamics senses this) or they'll bite the bullet and take the public relations hit and do it outright.
This will be an interesting year. Failure on all fronts is floating from the Pentagon.
What so interesting about this year?
ReplyDeleteI can tell what will happen - new bugs will be found out, the date of IOC will be pushed back aaandd....nothing will happen.
F-35 is here to stay.
In regards of payload :
''It is not 1968 anymore, an era where we had to send the better part of an entire Carrier Air Wing after a single strategic target, such as a bridge, in order to hopefully score a direct gravity bomb hit. Guided munitions mean that even a relatively small attack aircraft can obliterate multiple strategic targets on a single mission with great certainty. A pair of 2,000lb class bombs, the heaviest general purpose bombs in the USAF's inventory which includes the BLU-109 penetrator, is a highly relevant payload for a tactical strike aircraft and was the same as the purpose-built and legendary F-117 Nighthawk.
Although 2,000lb bombs can take down an entire multi-story buildings, smaller munitions that pack a serious punch are the future, and the F-35 can carry many more than two inside of its weapons bays. Even the GBU-39/53 Small Diemeter Bomb has a penetrator version that can take out hardened aircraft shelters and other well armored structures. The F-35 can carry eight of these internally, potentially 12 in the future, which means that it can hit that many targets with great accuracy on a single sortie, all from close to 50 miles away from its target.
The SDB is by no means the only small munition that the F-35 could benefit from, and many others that are even smaller are in the works. By mixing SDBs, JDAMs and even smaller micro-munitions, just a small force of the F-35s, can theoretically take down an entire airfield. ''
you are so wrong. the trend toward small weapons is a hold over from the war on terror. as soon as nations start fighting (and its going to happen, have you been keeping up with the multiple arms races going on around this planet????) then you're going to see the move back to larger warheads. when you're fighting a COIN then it pays to have small munitions that will avoid collateral damage.
Deletedon't confuse fighting the last war with whats needed for the next. the entire DoD is making that mistake, unfortunately the Marine Corps is making that mistake. SNAFU! blog won't which is why i think the USMC needs to get its armor house in order. what is the future i see? another invasion over land because its necessary for the security of the US and maybe Europe. fully supported at home and abroad. and this time it will not only be hectic like in 2003 but it will be much more bloody. that's the future i see.
Sol, think he's "quoting". Does not mean he agrees, just that "someone said xyz".
DeletePersonally I agree with you, the Small Diameter stuff was worries over collateral damage and PR, when a real war kicks off, you don't want to kill one man out of a party, you want the whole platoon gone. Which means big booms. And small diameter stuff don't do much to the bridge used as an example, you need something to take down the whole bridge or at least a span, not cause damage that can be fixed with some cement and wooden boards.
I also think you're on to something when you say they want to get the F-35 off the budget first, once that is over, they'll have a lot more room to play with. For better or worse, the F-35 is here to stay. If it's a widowmaker, then tough shit, we got a widowmaker, just have to figure out how to make lemonade from an artery. No point complaining about it, we're stuck with it. We just have to figure out the best way to use it.
that meme is false though. we (the USMC) thought the EFV was here to stay and it was canned. the Army thought the Comanche, FCS and even Sgt York were here to stay ... and they all got canceled. that meme...its here we have to deal with it...is a favorite of the defense establishment, LM, JPO, HQMC, and HQ AF. its not true and this bastard can still be killed.
DeleteThen that's the job of the eggheads way above us. We just use what they issue.
DeleteWasn't there an old Marine saying? "Arm the man, not man the gun" or something like that?
As a more serious POV on cancelling the F-35, there is going to be a time gap when all we (the West) are going to have are the old stuff until a newly designed plane can take over, which means a "capability gap", and even then, there is no firm confirmation that any new plane is going to be any better than the F-35, which unfortunately is saying a lot about US R&D. I took a gander at the Next Gen Tacair objectives and it's crazy. Lots of overreach. Laser weapons (it's spelled laSer, not laZer. :P ), adaptive engine etc etc. I strongly suspect that the F-35 Mk II is going to end up like the F-35 Mk I.
Those guys should stop trying to design the Starship Enterprise and simply concentrate on incremental improvements to mature tech. At least they'll end up with a working fighter and not a display piece. *cough.. Zumwalt...cough*...
What.
DeleteYou do realize that with that statement you are rendering the last 20 years of munition development and research meaningless - everything is ''guided'' nowadays. The only thing that is of question is the charge or warhead.And even then they are also built or planned with ''guided'' capability - see LRASM,JASSM-ER. Even stuff like CBU105 is stuffed with electronics,making it more deadly than what was done back in Vietnam days or even Gulf War.
Aimless,indiscrimante shelling like whats happening in Ukraine is really just a relic of warfare, considering that both sides are armed just a little bit better than average Somalian gang.
When we talk about potential standoff between China vs. Japan+local allies+US - its all guided. Every single mentioned nation is going for precision munitions.
Eldererr, precision LARGE weapons, not SDBs. SDBs in a real war does not have the punch to do much damage. It was primarily developed to reduce damage, not cause a lot of it.
DeleteWhat do you suppose with large wars?
DeleteI wager there will be no meatgrinders like WW2 - very short conflicts, most likely taking form of proxies with a purpose of maiming the enemy - like destroying main infrastructure hubs - not obliterating it.
For that, we have ballistic weapons.
And by the way F-35 will be able to carry stuff like LRASM,Brimstone internally, with future version of JASSM-ER inevitably made to fit in internally.
Ability to carry 2000-lb JDAM internalyl is not joke, that thing is enough to level any comm-center for example.
And a JDAM is definitely not "Small Diameter".
DeleteThere is no way to clear a JASSM-ER internally. None. There are no "future versions" of JASSM that are smaller. As for SDB: I am pro SDB. SDB I could always penetrate: as well as a BLU-109. So yes, carrying 8 SDBs are good for big wars. Many kinds of targets will die by SDB. It is also a lousy close-air-support weapon because even with a software fix, its time-of-flight is too long. It also never came down on price. So, using it against dirt-insurgents isn't very cost effective. Cost effective for dirt insurgents would be AC-27 and Super Tuccano...at night. VTOL? USMC Yankees and Zulus Back to SDB...the F-35 is likely to get shot down against many emerging and some existing threats. If it is a high threat against first nights of the war, only F-22 with SDB, JASSM-ER and Tomahawk Block 4 will get it done....where most...if not all...targets are fixed. Otherwise...if it is first nights of the war... I want this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofIRiXb-90 There is no justification for the F-35. Its operational requirement document...is obsolete.
DeleteSDB can be very useful. A worry in Korea is all the artillery the North has along the DMZ built into harden bunkers. Good news is that we've had plenty of time to target all of them. 3-4 B-1's loaded down with a 100+ SDB's could wipe out most of them in a few minutes.
DeleteSeal, true, but there are a lot of different types of targets in a war. SDBs will work well against small bunkers and tanks, but not too well vs infantry, runways and trench networks. You'll still need something with large explosive power and area of effect for some targets.
DeleteMight be cruel of me but if I'm slated to assault a trench network, I'd want a groundburst 2,000 pounder dropped on it first, collapse as much of the network as possible, live bury as many of the bastards as possible, this way, there are less of them to shoot at me as I come round a corner.
Besides all that , considering that kind of hemorrhoid the fallout of A-12 and the lawsuit was for USAF,Pentagon and government - they wont do it.
ReplyDeleteLockheed knows that cancelling F-35 is impossible and thats why they are riding on with such a confidence.
I was looking at the weapons and apart from the upgraded sensors in the weapons themselves, this really does seem like a step backwards in terms of capability for combat aircraft. The Soviet's made more intimidating photos with the weapons sprawled out infront of the MiG-29 and Su-27 and it's important to keep in mind that they too have upgraded versions of their arsenals with more advanced sensors and the all their Fulcrum and Flanker series are able to carry them:
ReplyDeleteMiG-29: http://i.imgur.com/7SWkETD.jpg
Su-27: http://www.mycity-military.com/thumbs2/139754_tmb_102142287_SU-27%2085%20RED%20VVS%20WEAPONS.jpg
F/A-18: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18-load-out.jpg
http://youtu.be/n1nD7zzrwdo
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/Op3dupMZfz4
Those photos with lots of weapons in front of the plane are meant to impress people who know nothing about airplanes but in reality they do not really show aircraft capability.
ReplyDeleteOld F4 prototype
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e2/e1/ab/e2e1ab427f0c02f0b13a32b4ea151cf9.jpg
These are better as they present the number of stations and weapons that can be used on each.
The thing that gen4+ fighters have is lots of stations 10+ now days m while bombs can be clustered in multiple carriage racks many missiles and pods can't. So those 6 hardpoints are hardly impresive.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
http://www.aviationinsurors.com/load.html
$180M for a plane with worse kinematics than current frontline fighters that claims stealth only to load out wing stations and make itself visible.
ReplyDeleteBINGO!!!
DeleteReflection: Back in the 70s some claimed the F/A-18 had inferior maneuvering and range compared to the A-4 - at many times the cost.
Deleteassessment. they were right.
DeleteLet me rephrase a Mig-29/Gripen pilot I talked to a few years ago: "If I fly for fun, I choose Mig. If I go to war I choose Gripen". Point being: The Mig has superior kinematics, but the Gripen is a superior weapons platform.
Deleteyou're moving goal posts but i'll play. are you saying the F-35 is the superior "go to war" platform? if so then once again i say you're smoking crack. all open source material indicates that the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, F-15, F-16 etc...are all superior.
Deleteif the price was right then i could support the F-35 for limited USMC service. emphasis on the word limited. but it isn't. it definitely doens't meet the needs of the USN, USAF and our allies.
this plane is a failure and i refuse to be politically correct about it.
Well Sol, I won't argue with your opinion there. However, I can say I've been through the archives and it's remarkable how similar the debate in the 70s about the F-16 is of the debate about the F-35 today. You can pretty much pin it down argument-by-argument: price escalating, too much multirole, performance etc.
Deleteoh, and make sure you don't turn to hard, the engine might explode.
ReplyDeleteThis pictures pretty funny when compared to an A-10... Still nothing better at CAS.
ReplyDeleteBack to that marking photo that shows end of SDD capability. It is watered down compared to 2006. Even more watered down since 2001-2002 which showed... L --- O --- L ................. HARM.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why multi impact saturation with light weapons is important-
DeleteQuick Kill APS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0Hr1RrV-8
HEL-MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_2smcvpBl0
If you can protect a battalion sized area or an individual tank from various weapons up to a Katyusha rocket or Kornet ATGW, you can also tackle freefalling guided weapons dropping on a high value building target. These (GBU-10/24/31/32) will be coming in at anything up to 1.2-1.5 Mach if the release point is high and fast enough. Ironically, the nature of the SDB's glide kit restricts it's own dive speeds somewhat but in turn you can space them out around the compass to force the laser to service, turn, cool, reacquire, service. Which is frankly beyond the abilities of the MEL-MD to adequately achieve using a Gameboy style controller on multiple inbounds.
Some modifications will be required (Mk.84 has a much larger blast globe and so cannot be defeated at <10m distances without still causing close-aboard damage); but these two systems: APS and SSLs, under automated terminal defense control will largely remove manned attack options with guided ballistic fall ordnance before 2025.
Just as importantly, they will remove the goalkeeper defense requirement (SA-15/19/22) which means you can move them out into the field to protect combat formations or act as ambush predators along likely ingress routes (such will require a shift from Rapier sized munitions to AMRAAM or MALI equivalents, to reach altitude. With a concomittant cost rise.)
Something else to keep in mind: WHile it is often useful to constrict or channelize movement by destroying a bridge or airfield with heavy weapons in an MRC warfare conditions like Serbia or Iraq, and it -can- be a 'demonstration of resolve' to blow up infrastructure like power and water supplies to emphasize who has the dominant leverage in an SSC, _where you don't want to invade_; as soon as you commit yourself to a Major Theater War like the Ukraine is unfortunately shaping up to be, anything you blow up becomes unusable to you as well.
Killing threats as they pop up (with loitering-persistent UCAVs and A-UAVs) is it the easiest way to KNOW that X percentage of the threat force is /gone/. People will recall the NATO JFACC who 'with confidence' stated that the Serbian AF was finished, two weeks into the 1999 air campaign. Only to have a streaming takeoff of 20+ MiG-21, heading north, from the Yugoslav's ultra hardened HAS complexes in the Kosovo area at the end of OAF operations there.
Sometimes, both from the perspective of maintaining a constant push that alleviates the need for ground forces to directly engage high level threatfors (a balancing act between numbers of munitions per jet and number of jets through the tanker bottleneck with 20-30 minutes of station time and 'unknown' encounter frequency), and from the strategic vantage of not wrecking a country you then have to pay to rebuild; it becomes more viable to engage systems discretely than try for a five rings attack ala Warden. If nothing else, the number of interconnecting node links vs. the absolute effects on -critical- escalatory systems like Al Abbas/Al Hussein is too larger and nebulous (i.e. you end of killing threats 'just in case' or 'because they are in the way' anyway, and this prolongs the campaign and its' costs).
While all of the above could be applied to the Lightning, where the F-35 fails is in the particulars of it's mission capability as a survivable asset, first night of war.
DeleteUNLESS, there is something about Gen-3 stealth which we do not know (adaptive active loading at the surface skin level as opposed the French Spectra's 'jamming' equivalent) there is nothing inherent to the F-35 mission systems capabilities to spot active targets and 'route around' them, which will also enable it to detect and defeat popup threats cued to it's presence from distant, long wave, Early Warning Radars.
Not every snake rattles before it bites and where the terminal defense systems I mentioned would essentially 'already be there' to intercept A2G muntions coming towards their protected targets, the SEAD/DEAD mission is different in that a threat must be engaged before it either completes the guidance phase of the intercept (SARH), before turning off it's engagement radar. Or leave the launch signature area altogether (ARH).
In this, the F-35 is disappointing, not so much because of what it doesn't carry that other jets do (being automatically limited to dropfire ordnance doesn't help here). But what is not even on the drawing boards for development. Namely a Mach 3, 20-30nm capable, miniature, missile that can engage -either- air or ground targets with dual mode ARH/ARM/IIR capabilities. The mission of the Gen-5 is not to serve as bomb trucks but to act as point target snipers, eliminating threats, not just to themselves but to followon legacy aircraft forces.
With the GBAD out of the way and with IRST hunting A2A threats at least competively shot-counted, you can bomb with whatever is in the dump and at least have no greater chance of being shot down than having your weapon blown up on approach.
Let's get real, if you are gonna compare the F35 SDD load out then at least show us the F18 SDD load out...
ReplyDeleteTo do that we should put 3 of them
DeleteF-35 will still need F-16, F-15E, Hornet and Super Hornet 'escort', as the thing is simply inadequate to bring the mix munitions required to respond to various contingencies and target points.
ReplyDeleteF-35 is clearly lacking HARM, essential for SEAD role, as well as stand-off strike munitions which are essential for putting offensive counter air and strategic strike targets at threat in a highly defended battle space.
Also, for maritime role, the F-35 can't even bring a simple Harpoon type munition to the table, as can old geriatric legacy platforms which will need to be maintained at least until F-35 block V maturity, in order to fulfill that capability.
Moreover, the F-35 can't even employ the very basic Maverick AGM - essential for hunting and eliminating fast-moving terrorist trucks and armored vehicles et al out in the desert! Yep, call in the hornets and F-16 for that mission too. Pretty sad really.
F-35 will be totally dependent on 'SLEP'/upgraded existing legacy tactical aviation at least until F-35 block 4 is mature and fully operational. The only problem however, is that USMC and other air forces will be retiring many of their existing airframes prior to such a date -- thus creating only increased capability gap, hollow-force-structure and illusion of deterrence. In other words: staying the 'recap course' has always implied an imminent threat to national defense by default.