Lets talk air to air combat...

First up is Beesley.  Probably the most frustrated man in America when it comes to the F-35 and the 'points' that critics attempt to make about its air to air combat prowess.





Next up Spudman WP...

Sensors and VLO are two sides of the same coin, the ability to be the first to see the other guy.

High altitude and supercruise are not features unique to "pure A2A" fighters. For example the F-35 can go above 50k and both Euro-cards claim super-cruise above M1.2 in A2A config.

While the F-22 has a kinematic advantage over current fighter/weapon configs, that will soon be changing as newer weapons are introduced at a faster rate than the F-22 can compensate (without changing it s own weapons).

I do not want you to forget 60 years of fighter combat history; I want you to learn from it. The in the 1st combat jets, maneuverability was absolute as you needed to get your target into a very small cone in order for your cannons to hit. Later, the need for absolute maneuverability was relaxed due to the cone becoming larger due to the introduction of AAMs. That cone expanded up to 180 degrees with the latest HOBS missiles like AIM-9x, ASRAAM, etc. Throughout these changes the need for absolute maneuverability was relaxed as the sensors & weapons became better (ie the latest F-16C Blk50 is not as maneuverable as the first F-16A).

The F-35 is just the next evolution in this process. It gives up nothing to previous generations, but gains much in terms of combat persistence, situational awareness and weapons capability. Maneuverability is still important due to the need (in a WVR fight) to keep from being in front of the enemy (and taking an AAM up the arse), but you only need to keep that up for a few seconds till your AAM hits.

As an example of how sensor & weapons upgrades will counter fighter generations at a faster pace, look at weapon integration. UAI allows new weapons to be used, fleet wide, with a few months of being developed. Far example; when ATK is done working on the AIM-120D+ s new motor and they complete whatever other changes they create as part of it s IOC capabilities, it can be shipped to any F-35, F-15E, and F-16 within 3 months of testing being done. No block upgrade needed. The same will be true of NGM, MALD, NGJ, etc.

Last but not least SMSGT Mac (Elements of Power Blogger)...

A couple of/three points if I may,

1. BB1984 and Privateer:
Please read carefully and try to grasp my point as I typed it without overlaying emotion. I indicated that that increasing maneuverability does not bring much military advantage. I believe my use of a form of the verb 'increase' without any modifiers such as 'in relation to' or 'compared to x', to most people, would have immediately indicated that I was speaking in relation to current state. That should have in no way, shape, or form, indicated to any reasonable person implied anything other than what I typed. If you would like an aeronautical and operational explanation as to why what I typed was true, just ask. But don't twist other's words just to create an opening for making cr*p up.

2. I've noticed the question as to which version of the F-18 the F-35B maneuverability is being compared. Does it matter? The F-35B is replacing the Harrier, not the F-18. What kind of maneuverability does the AV-8 have at Mach 1+? Oh....(yeah).

3. A data point for the ‘hobbyists’:
------
The F-15 was larger and more visible than its predecessor the F-4, wrote Sprey, making it vulnerable in daylight close-in dogfighting. He claimed the Eagle was too dependent on radar guided missiles, which “are not likely to be more effective than those used in Vietnam.”
Since 1960, Sprey wrote in the 1981 piece, too much of the Air Force tactitcal aviation budget had been devoted to complex night/all-weather systems “of highly questionable capability.” Sprey urged the Air Force to emphasize the F-16 over the F-15 because “in visual combat, the F-16 has been demonstrated to be the superior aircraft.”
This was the point where the military reformers misfired.
Future air combat would not, as they assumed, take place largely in daytime, close-in engagements. The F-15 would go on to become the dominant air-to-air force in the skies precisely because of its radar missiles and long reach.
In the first Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of 40 Air Force aerial victories. Of those, 28 involved radar guided missiles. Worldwide, the Eagle has racked up an unprecedented kill ratio of 104-to-zero.
Writing in 2004, David R. Mets of Air University summed it up this way:
“The Korea-style dogfight seems to have all but disappeared from the air-to-air battle. The agility of both [the F-15 and F-16] remains highly useful in dodging surface-to-air missiles, but that is not what Boyd and the [military reform] acolytes had in mind.”
------
ref: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August%202010/0810failures.aspx

Just a data point.

Suffice it to say that in my mind this debate is dead.  The F-35 will be a potent air to air platform and the critics are clutching at straws and depending on Korean War type solutions (invalid tactics) to solve modern combat problems.

Pic of the day. May 18, 2011. Eurocopter Tigre.

US Marines/Canadians perform joint recovery of downed CH-47.

KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan-A Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461 CH-53E Super Stallion lands next to a downed Canadian Forces CH-47 Chinook during a tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel mission in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, May 17. Utilizing a trio CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461, with assistance from 2nd Marine Logistics Group’s helicopter support team, the Canadian and American team was able to transport the injured aircraft back to its home at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan., Cpl. Rashaun X. James, 5/17/2011 1:22 AM

KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan-Helicopter support team Marines with 2nd Marine Logistics Group prepare the rigging for a transport of a Canadian Forces CH-47 Chinook helicopter during a tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel mission in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, May 17. The Marines and Canadian Forces were able to transport the injured aircraft back home safely to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan., Cpl. Rashaun X. James, 5/17/2011 1:12 AM

KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan-A Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461 CH-53E Super Stallion transports a Canadian Forces CH-47 Chinook during a tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel mission in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, May 17. Utilizing a trio CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461, with assistance from 2nd Marine Logistics Group’s helicopter support team, the Canadian and American team was able to transport the injured aircraft back to its home at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan., Sgt. Thomas W. Dowd, 5/17/2011 2:42 AM

David's after a stealth Chinook now!

Interesting read....

Since the officials confirmed that 3 Chinooks were involved and given that a mixed formation of stealth and non-stealth helos would have rendered the entire formation clearly visible on radars and audible from distance, I believe that there must be also a modified MH-47 flying with the 160 SOAR. Unlike the Black Hawk, we have no photographic evidences of it, but I think that their existence is somehow confirmed by the fact that the officers admitted their presence on the scene. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that the sources are trying to deceive the public opinion when they say to the AP journalist that:

Read it all here.  I don't quite buy it but ...

CSI's Mountain Lion.

Thanks Jonathan for sending me this!  Much appreciated.  

Looks like CSI is trying to step up there game.  A few month ago when I wrote asking for specifications on the "Mountain Lion" they were quite closed lipped.  Polite, but politely refusing to give me any info.  Now they have out front for the whole world to see.  Refreshing if a little late.

NOTE:

Looks like this product has undergone a few design changes since the last time I saw pics of it.  Probably just cosmetic but changes never the less.  I'll try and find the pics.

ML

Special Forces Descend on Camp Atterbury

All photos by Staff Sgt D. Bruce.

Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descend to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group descends to earth after jumping out of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 9. The airborne operation is just one of many tasks the 2nd-19th SFG must perform to maintain their credentials and accreditation.

Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provide security along likely avenues of approach the rest of their team can cross a trail during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The 2nd-19th SFG were recently at Camp Atterbury for a week-long drill period.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group covers the rearguard as his team moves out after a break during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained Soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible.

A soldier with 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group provides security for his team during a foot patrol while training at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind., May 12. The foot patrol, while a basic infantry task, is just one of several tasks these highly trained soldiers have to maintain in addition to advanced skills, often traveling through the most inhospitable route possible.

The US Navy has lost its freaking mind.

From the USNI Blog...

“The last of the 14 Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships that General Dynamics NASSCO is building in San Diego will be named after Cesar Chavez, the late civil rights and labor leader. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will visit NASSCO on Tuesday afternoon to make the formal announcement. Some members of the Chavez family are expected to be in attendance, says NASSCO, which recently laid the keel of the ship.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/16/navy-ship-be-named-after-cesar-chavez/


My opposition to this is definitely not racial.  Its not about not wanting to honor a person that some consider a civil rights leader and a union activist.

Its about not naming a naval vessel after a controversial figure.  What if an extremely conservative President is elected and he wants to name a ship after David Duke?

Sounds extreme but we're opening up the door with nonsense like this.  Time to set some kind of limit on this.  Unless the person was killed in combat then he must be dead for at least 100 years before he can be honored this way.

Something has to give on this stupidity!

But whats worse is that this smacks of using the Navy in an overtly political way.

How can I say that you ask?  Because the President's support among Hispanics is ebbing.  He's delivered a speech to them and received no bounce in his support.  Am I off the mark when I suspect that this is a bone tossed to a valued constituency?

Pic of the day. May 17, 2011.

F-35B 100th Vertical Landing

The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing variant test program achieved its 100th vertical landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on May 12, 2011. All four F-35B aircraft at NAS Patuxent River have contributed to the milestone.

Thompson muscles in on the F-35 cost debate...

Loren Thompson, never one to miss a good fight, adds his two cents to the current debate on F-35 costs.  Read it below...

Pentagon Planning To Spend $25 Billion On Music Bands

Actually, this posting is about the F-35 fighter. But the headline is correct -- the nation's military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years. In fact, if you add inflation and indirect costs like retirement benefits, the "then-year" cost of military bands is more like $50 billion. But here's the catch: I'm talking about the cumulative cost for military bands between now and the year 2065.
Ridiculous, right? By the time we get to 2065, the bands will probably be unmanned (robotic) anyway. But that hasn't stopped various news organizations from reporting that the after-inflation "life-cycle cost" of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter through 2065 has risen above a trillion dollars. The story generated a lot of buzz, mainly because few of the reporters who cover the Pentagon know anything about economics. If they did, they'd realize that in the 1970s you could buy a new Mustang convertible for less than $5,000 and half a century is a very long time in economic terms.
I imagine a few grizzled editors actually did know this, but they just couldn't resist attaching a trillion-dollar pricetag to the F-35 because it was a sure-fire way of attracting readers. So how come they never apply the same bogus methodology to other government expenditures -- like music bands? Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post on September 6, 2010 that the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines were spending around $500 million annually on bands. Multiply that number by 50 years and then add in a modest inflation factor -- say 2.5 percent per year, compounded -- and half a century later you're talking real money, as the late Senator Everett Dirkson might have put it. Many tens of billions of dollars, it turns out.
It's hard to measure the benefit of spending so much money on music, but the stakes in the F-35 debate are a bit clearer. If the joint force doesn't field a more survivable fighter sometime soon, we can forget about operating our aircraft over places like Iran and North Korea in the future. And the fact that no U.S. soldier has been killed by an enemy aircraft since the Korean War will be a thing of the past. Air superiority is one of those things that is hard to fully appreciate until you've lost it, and then you really, really miss it. So maybe we should set aside all the imaginative ways that pundits dream up to try to discredit a plane that actually won't cost much more to own than current fighters, and just do what we need to do to stay on top.
Incidentally, did I mention that the "then-year" cost of illegal drugs in the U.S. through 2065 is likely to be around $20 trillion?
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

Wow.

The issue of the F-35's costs is getting pounded harder than a thief caught trying to break into a police station.

F-35 critics...you want answers?  You've been given the answer-- something tells me you can't handle the truth.

BlackFive responds to the chart.

Below you'll see the update that BlackFive posted on there website today...

Update May 15:  I have received a few emails about the chart being incorrect.   Here is one good post about the perceived error.  I don't believe it is an error.  I could be wrong, but here is why I think some folks are misunderstanding it.
In my opinion, APUC and PAUC both contain exactly what they should.
What some people reading the chart don't seem to understand is if you take you finger and run it along the line of a particular cost - where the line stops is above the column that particular cost adds to what's already to its left.
In other words, if you look a PUAC, it adds RTD&E plus MILCON to the APUC, weapons system cost, total fly away cost and URF costs to its left.   The cost structure builds as you go to the right.  TOC then adds the things in the final column to everything (cost) to its left.
PAUC is defined as:
PAUC (Program Acquisition Unit Cost) = RDT&E $ + Procurement $ + unique MILCON $ (in program base year dollars)/Total procurement quantity + RDT&E prototypes that are production reps used for IOT&E (if any)
Run your finger over the PAUC line and it stops right above the column that says "RTD&E" and "MILCON".
I hope that helps.  It's a difficult issue and I am trying to explain costs as clearly as I can.
I know that doesn't matter to some who are against the F35 for various efficacy reasons, but let's all be clear about the cost.

Awesome.

Finally, answers to this vexing cost question.

Oh and Bill, I'm still waiting for your response.  Heck, to be honest Sean, Bill, Ares Team...we're all waiting for your response.  Love you guys but this is getting much too big to ignore.

So my friends where does that leave Bill right now?  I imagine he's having a Bill Paxton moment in Aliens.  See the video below.

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.
Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.
Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said.
Stealth will allow the F-35 to go into the teeth of enemy air defenses, which are becoming increasingly lethal, Thomas said. The Marines intend to operate the F-35 for 30 to 40 years, when stealth may be required even for close-air support.
"Stealth is going to be a requirement," Thomas said, echoing a point one normally hears mostly from U.S. Air Force officials.
Alongside stealth, the sensors and networking are crucial to the F-35 program.
To that end, Kelly said that mission systems testing for the jet's radar and infrared sensors have been going well. He offered unqualified praise for the F-35's APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar.

F-35 Production Ramps Up Nicely.

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 16, 2011 – The second F-35A Lightning II production aircraft flies above the compass rose of Rogers Dry Lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., May 13. The aircraft, designated AF-6, ferried to Edwards AFB from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base following the Air Force formally accepting the fighter into its inventory May 12. The first production jet, AF-7, was delivered to Edwards AFB May 6.

Notice how quickly the delivery dates are between the first and second F-35A!  Learning curve gentlemen.  Learning curve!