JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[NRao]

^^^^^
^^^^^

The USAF budget for 2107 or so looks normal. Lot of such adjustments will stop.

Also, when one includes newer technologies, like the engine that is designed to save 25% on fuel bills, it will make a huge difference.

[Viv S]

C-130s aren't stealthy as far as I know. Neither are Apaches. Or Blackhawks. Or... you get the point. How do these aircraft operate in or near contested airspace without stand-off jammers and dedicated Wild Weasel birds providing support?

The C-130s and Blackhawks don't usually operate in contested airspace. And assuming there is a mission requiring standoff jamming, the F-35 will be able to carry out standoff jamming - APG-81 plus NGJ. Same for the 'Wild Weasel' role - ASQ-239 plus AGM-88E and/or SDB II.

Not every problem can be solved by a stealth fighter flying at 35,000 feet dropping a GPS-guided bomb on a stationary target or loosing of a long-range AAM at an unsuspecting enemy. But when all you have is a hammer...

In terms of escort jamming or SEAD, there's nothing else in the hardware store - Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-35, PAK FA, J-20, J-31 - that can do the job as well as the F-35.

[Philip]

It's easy to blame "sequestration" for all ills,but the underlining truth of the word is "unaffordable" for whatever purpose.The last decade of US warmongering around the globe has beggared it.It simply cannot afford to continue the fight and fund its forces at previous levels.Many months ago I posted details of the huge cuts in the USN's force structure,carrier aviation,and that its carrier task forces available were at their lowest level/numbers for decades.

As JSF costs escalate with reduced orders,the "one for one" replacement of legacy aircraft with JSFs is becoming a problem.What has been the most asinine role for this hugely expensive and very delicate strike fighter ,has been allocating it the role of the A-10,a flying tank,meant to absorb a good % of anti-air fire from ground troops and survive.The fragility of the JSF and inability to even fly in lightning has been exposed in the Pentagon GAO reports.It would've been far more preferable to have kept the A-10s,built new ones or acquired a new close-support aircraft and preserving the JSF for the penetration of enemy defences ,knocking out the principal targets of choice.But the JSF sumo appetite for funds has eaten up funds which would've kept the A-10 and some other types in service.It may have been the DOD's missive,to accommodate just 2 bombs/PGMs internally,but that was at the inception of the programme when it was thought that thousands of JSFs would be available! Unfortunately,those numbers planned for will never materialise due to the costs which have doubled and the operating and maintenance costs which are spiralling upward out of control.

The US will have to preserve the newest assets of legacy aircraft and equip them with long range PGMs while acquiring as much of precious stealth species as it can afford.As Adm.Greenert said,the time has come for "payload centric ,not platform centric" priorities."Why buy a luxury car when a bomb truck will do?" For the really tough ops,LR long endurance UCAVs will be the weapon of choice.

[NRao]

Philip,

No two ways about it. It is funds. But, the "funds" are related to the economy. And, as I have posted, the Pentagon is not even factoring in this "sequestration" beyond 2016/17.

And, countries that have reduced the purchase have done so due to budgetary issues. Not technical issues. If and when their economies grow, they may opt for more F-35s.

Meanwhile, have the totals shrunk?

Perhaps all this is too logical.

Mihir,

There is a corresponding change in how future wars are intended to be fought. The Army has shrunk, partly due to "sequestration" and mostly due to changes in thinking.

Will all this work? Dunno. Like the thinking that a plane does no longer need gun, it may all backfire, but, the fact remains that the F-35 is not pictured as a conventional plane that we are used to picturing one.

“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.

[Mihir]

The C-130s and Blackhawks don't usually operate in contested airspace.

Against Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't. Mostly. But against an adversary like Russia or China, all bets are off.

the F-35 will be able to carry out standoff jamming - APG-81 plus NGJ. Same for the 'Wild Weasel' role - ASQ-239 plus AGM-88E and/or SDB II.

The ASQ-239 is a defensive suite. It doesn't come anywhere close to the ALQ-218/ALQ-99/INCANS combo, especially one that is mounted on a dedicated airframe. As for the NGJ, we shall see. It is a long way off, and as of now, and there has been little beyond a news blurb regarding F-35 integration.

In any case, avionics is just a part of the package. You also need a rugged-ish airframe that can take a little bit of punishment, good flight performance - which the F-35 will always lack, and the capability to carry a heavy payload. In otherwords, your APQRX/G/VY-9467RTB can only go so far before the problems inherent to shoe-horning a platform into a role it is fudamentally ill-suited for make themselves felt.

In terms of escort jamming or SEAD, there's nothing else in the hardware store - Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-35, PAK FA, J-20, J-31 - that can do the job as well as the F-35.

E/A-18G Growler. Let's not dismiss SPECTRA so quickly, shall we?

[Viv S]

It's easy to blame "sequestration" for all ills,but the underlining truth of the word is "unaffordable" for whatever purpose.
.
.
As JSF costs escalate with reduced orders,the "one for one" replacement of legacy aircraft with JSFs is becoming a problem.

Unaffordable?

Original flyaway cost: $67 million ($50M in 2001)

Final flyaway cost: $75 million ($84M in 2019)

11% increase in cost over 18 years.

Unaffordable?

What has been the most asinine role for this hugely expensive and very delicate strike fighter ,has been allocating it the role of the A-10,a flying tank,meant to absorb a good % of anti-air fire from ground troops and survive.

Its not supposed to carry out low altitude firing runs. Even the A-10 stopped doing that in a MANPAD rich environment during the Balkans campaigns.

EOTS + DAS + HMDS + JAGM/Brimstone/SDB-II from medium altitude is how it engages.

The fragility of the JSF and inability to even fly in lightning has been exposed in the Pentagon GAO reports.

Nothing's been 'exposed'. Litening testing is to take place in 2015. Last phase of flight certification to ensure the aircraft is near final spec during the tests.

It would've been far more preferable to have kept the A-10s,built new ones or acquired a new close-support aircraft and preserving the JSF for the penetration of enemy defences ,knocking out the principal targets of choice.

How do the Brits, French, Germans, rest of NATO, Israelis, Koreans, Chinese and us Indians conduct CAS missions without a dedicated close-support aircraft? Ponder on it. If all these air forces can manage without the A-10/Su-25, so can the USAF.

But the JSF sumo appetite for funds has eaten up funds which would've kept the A-10 and some other types in service.

The sequestration wasn't caused by the F-35.

It may have been the DOD's missive,to accommodate just 2 bombs/PGMs internally,but that was at the inception of the programme when it was thought that thousands of JSFs would be available!

Thousands of F-35s will continue to be available. The 2443 order for the US military has NOT been downsized AT ALL.

Also FYI its can accommodate upto eight PGMs internally.

Unfortunately,those numbers planned for will never materialise due to the costs which have doubled and the operating and maintenance costs which are spiralling upward out of control.

Current flyaway cost: $112M
Final flyaway cost: $75M

[Viv S]

The C-130s and Blackhawks don't usually operate in contested airspace.

Against Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't. Mostly. But against an adversary like Russia or China, all bets are off.

The C-130 and Blackhawks do/did operate in Afghanistan and Iraq. Uncontested airspace. No significant MANPAD threat. Against Russia or China on the other hand, C-130 or Blackhawk operations are not feasible. Standoff jamming is of no use against MANPADS or IR based SAM/AAA threats.

the F-35 will be able to carry out standoff jamming - APG-81 plus NGJ. Same for the 'Wild Weasel' role - ASQ-239 plus AGM-88E and/or SDB II.

The ASQ-239 is a defensive suite. It doesn't come anywhere close to the ALQ-218/ALQ-99/INCANS combo, especially one that is mounted on a dedicated airframe. As for the NGJ, we shall see. It is a long way off, and as of now, and there has been little beyond a news blurb regarding F-35 integration.

Wild Weasels don't carry the ALQ-99 AFAIK. F-35 pilots will be able to employ the MADL for inflight comms. And I haven't seen anything to suggest that the ALQ-218 is superior to the Barracuda when it comes to passive geolocation.

As far as NGJ integration is concerned, if the USAF/USMC want it they'll get it, there are no fundamental constraints against it. Alternatively, they might find the APG-81 adequate for EW tasks.


In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 2009, Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed—a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s entire avionics system—engaged a mixed force of F-22s and Boeing F-15s and was able to locate and jam F-22 radars, according to researchers.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-s-st ... d-defenses

[The F-22s involved were probably not equipped with the newer APG-77v(1)s though].

In any case, avionics is just a part of the package. You also need a rugged-ish airframe that can take a little bit of punishment, good flight performance - which the F-35 will always lack, and the capability to carry a heavy payload. In otherwords, your APQRX/G/VY-9467RTB can only go so far before the problems inherent to shoe-horning a platform into a role it is fudamentally ill-suited for make themselves felt.

It can carry over 8 tons of payload internally and externally. That's pretty heavy. Load any of the Eurocanards with a similar fuel fraction and external payload, and their thrust-to-drag ratio would be as bad with a worse thrust-to-weight ratio.

E/A-18G Growler. Let's not dismiss SPECTRA so quickly, shall we?

Vis a vis the EA-18G, its simply a matter of NGJ integration. The EA-18G will get their first but the APG-81 might swing it for the F-35.

As for the Rafale, I have never heard the SPECTRA being advertised as a tool for standoff jamming. The new F3Rs will have improved performance with its GaN antennas but unlike the F-35, EW applications for the radar will be limited by the RBE's small antenna.

[brar_w]

The USAF however is planning to use over a thousand stealthy F-35s, 185 F-22's, B-2's, UAV's, UCAV's and 150 or so Next Generation Bomber, therefore for them standoff EW is not required as the stealth RF target is extremely low (Massive reduction in SAM rings) and that the USAF can tackle with inbuilt organic EW ability that is more tactical in nature as opposed to being stand off.

If there is a more succinct paragraph outlining the root of the problem, I have yet to see it. A fighter-centric culture that obsesses over tactical fighters and fighter pilots to a point where it begins to get ridiculous.

C-130s aren't stealthy as far as I know. Neither are Apaches. Or Blackhawks. Or... you get the point. How do these aircraft operate in or near contested airspace without stand-off jammers and dedicated Wild Weasel birds providing support? Not every problem can be solved by a stealth fighter flying at 35,000 feet dropping a GPS-guided bomb on a stationary target or loosing of a long-range AAM at an unsuspecting enemy. But when all you have is a hammer...

The recent problems in ICBM squadrons can also be traced back to this phenomenon. The problem is doctrine, organisational culture, and the USAF's self-image; it won't be solved by throwing technology at it, that's for sure.

You are confusing various JAMMING needs. A need for the army (apache) is much different to the need for the Air force to have escort Jamming. The USAF's plans are quite secretive regarding their future of EW, but no matter what scenarios you game out, tactical fighter based assets look the least impressive given what it has and what it will be getting.

If you want to send C-130's and other larger aircraft in initial phases of war, then you need persistence long range jamming. The F-16, F-15 or even the F-18 Growler is an ill suited platform for such a need. Perhaps re-visiting the B-52 EW program post Next gen jammer fielding may be a more suitable way. But today, you can do this well from that platform.



http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/mal ... nched.html

I suspect the B-3 CONOPS and capabilities will lead the way for the USAF and not putting a jammer on a tac fighter, which is clearly a compromise solution due to carrier needs. Having said all of this, The Next Gen jammer is fully funded and will have a multi year production run. If the USAF wants to they can pay to integrate it onto a tac fighter platform. Even in such a hypothetical case the F-35 will not be the preferred platform. Upgraded F-15E's perhaps for a more stand off role. Many have reported on an EW gap between strategic and tactical elements within the USAF and the overreliance on the USN (as the USN is not reliant on the USAF itself), however some have pointed to a "black" effort to develop such a capability. There is a lot more than meats the eye.

[brar_w]

It's easy to blame "sequestration" for all ills,but the underlining truth of the word is "unaffordable" for whatever purpose

Now that the 1 Trillion Dollar Myth has been busted we can continue to discuss this in a civil manner.

Sequestration does have a key role to play. The USN could afford to buy X number of fighters over the next 5 years. A chart they had laid out in their future budget proposals, and that had money appropriated for it. They were not going to list out the aircraft and then see from where they'll get the money. Despite being expensive due to the C being the least mature model and the LRIP nature of the production process they had a number and had money in the budget for them. Now sequestration has made them re think all programs that require large amounts of money. Out of all the options the Navy has, deferring 30 odd F-35C's to a POST-SEQUESTER era is the least damaging position. The F-35 will do well, ITT goals at PAX will not suffer. IOC will not suffer. The ramp up is going to be least effective given other foreign parties are to pick up some of the 2018 and 2019 production slots.

What has been the most asinine role for this hugely expensive and very delicate strike fighter ,has been allocating it the role of the A-10,a flying tank,meant to absorb a good % of anti-air fire from ground troops and survive

A better understanding of modern day CAS is required. The A-10 can act as a "flying tank" against the taliban, do that against the chinese and forget about ever seeing the A-10 fleet. Billions have been poured into taking CAS to the mid and high altitudes (especially mid) and despite of the challenges (Most overcome, some remain) they are not going to LOW and slow EVER. Not with those odds.

The fragility of the JSF and inability to even fly in lightning has been exposed in the Pentagon GAO reports.

And the reason for it, and measures taken to solve it have been explained by the program head who regards this is a non-issue

But the JSF sumo appetite for funds has eaten up funds which would've kept the A-10 and some other types in service.It may have been the DOD's missive,to accommodate just 2 bombs/PGMs internally,but that was at the inception of the programme when it was thought that thousands of JSFs would be available! Unfortunately,those numbers planned for will never materialise due to the costs which have doubled and the operating and maintenance costs which are spiralling upward out of control.

Slow down. 2 Bombs internally is just for a certain munition. No one uses the 2000 lb LGB as CAS weapon. You can fit many more A2G munitions for CAS missions. You also completely miss the point of the A2G requirements. Show me which other stealth fighter carries more than 2 x 2000 lb (Just show me one that can carry this weapon internally). The requirements for stealthy penetrative strike are different from CAS, which are different from your generic ground support in un-contested areas. Each requirement is built on logical need from a tactical fighter and not some fantasy where the F-35 should have been a mini-B-2 bomber. Its increasingly evident that the USAF and USN will be moving towards the SDB II as the main CAS weapon of choice. It offers all weather capability, is cheap (er), allows for saturation and is resistant to RF and GPS denied environments due its multi sensor capability. The JSF carries 8 of them internally along with the standard 2 Aim-120D's. You also have other weapons such as the Brimstone which will be integrated as well. The F-22 drivers are not going to be dropping 2000 lb bombs on a CAS run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhlqr9pYhig

A-10 and its GUN brings a very good capability as far as CAS is concerned. Its flexibility will go unmatched even with PGM advances, however the A-10 does not even "get to the fight" for CAS in order to do what it does once there. The main threat is not AAA fire, but the host of rather Cheap IR weapons that can be lobbed at it from all directions. Its ok in iraq, but not against the chinese or the russians that can field high tech weapons that will make LOW and SLOW extremely difficult, and a rather wasteful capability for an expeditionary force that can NEVER afford one-for-one parity. For CAS the future is Mid altitude Precision strike. Challenges are to effectively target (EOTS+EODAS and APG-81 synergy) and getting the weapon down range in time (critical). Some of these are solved through the F-35 and SDB II (All F-35's have embedded multi spectral targeting for A2G and the SDBII has all weather capability) and others will continue to be advanced reform as weapons and COMS improve with time.

So in a nutshell, the A-10's capability once it enters the battle is not under debate. Its keeping the aircraft survivable at such altitudes and doing a long hard look at how to do this vs alternatives is what eventually results in a stragic shift away from a certain "way of doing things" to a "new way of doing things". Its a shift in air-warfare due to newer capability with oneself, and higher capability that has proliferated with projected threats. The F-16 was a departure from its predecessors in the way it was designed, and the concept of the way it was to operate. It was bashed for years because of this. The F-35 is clearly a departure from the F-16, had the USAF wanted a proper F-16 replacement they would have sought a light weight, small stealthy fighter. The requirements for the JSF and capability sought reflects the change in the outlook to air warfare and what missions the USAF expects to use its most widely available fighter. Despite of what the Arm chair bloggers have to say, the USAF has not operated SPREY's beloved F-16 for many years. Realities of war, newer capabilities and emerging threats have changed the current f-16 (block 50/60) far from what it was originally designed to (as championed by Sprey).

Now coming to the biggest SPIN that the armchair bloggers are projecting and that is :

F-35 funding is killing the A-10

The USAF has not increased its F-35 investment or the projected investment in the next decade. They will be spending exactly the same amount (perhaps a little less) that they had budgeted for the program. They also planned and funded to operate the A-10 CAS platform till 2030 or so (iirc). The Congress brought the sequester and forced it on them. The USAF much like the navy and the army was forced to PRIORITIZE its funding on programs that are most critical. Clearly the F-35, which is something that will form close to 80% of the US tac fighter fleet is more important than the A-10. The USAF head clearly said that they would like to save it but it must go as they have found that retiring the A-10's is the "least disruptive" way to meet financial obligations brought on by sequester.

As things stand now, the A-10 will live and be in service as planned. Congress has moved on to bring additional funding to the DOD to ensure the same. The future A-10 Mission will be handed over to the F-35, and other unmanned assets. The decision to offload CAS to the mid-altitude PGM was taken in the 90's and not just recently. Find a way to make a fixed wing aircraft survivable while going low and slow against a peer adversary armed with a full load of denial weapons such as guns, IR missiles, SAM's etc and then perhaps the mission platform can be looked at. The USAF has had a long hard look at it and have adjusted the mission and the mission platform.

The US will have to preserve the newest assets of legacy aircraft and equip them with long range PGMs while acquiring as much of precious stealth species as it can afford.As Adm.Greenert said,the time has come for "payload centric ,not platform centric" priorities."Why buy a luxury car when a bomb truck will do?" For the really tough ops,LR long endurance UCAVs will be the weapon of choice.

Long range SO weaponry is operational, with UAI it wont require platform specific integration. The US has initiated AESA programs for the F-16 fleet along with the F-15E fleet. The point still remains that the F-35 in most of those missions is better even in uncontested airspace on support costs alons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOwKKV-i-bg

Expensive, LONG RANGE stand off weapons are already certified and integrated onto the legacy fleet. The US can also afford to use its non-stealthy bombers to lob long range Stand off weapons. The problem is with targeting, Stand off Long range strike is not an alternative to penetrating TARGETING strike, where you have to use sensors to locate the targets and launch weapons in a time critical fashion. SO weapons are great for C2C targets, fixed targets etc but not an alternative to going in and finding movable radars for example, or destroying tank coulums etc.



http://www.aviationnews.eu/2012/07/26/l ... ight-test/

[brar_w]

The ASQ-239 is a defensive suite. It doesn't come anywhere close to the ALQ-218/ALQ-99/INCANS combo, especially one that is mounted on a dedicated airframe. As for the NGJ, we shall see. It is a long way off, and as of now, and there has been little beyond a news blurb regarding F-35 integration.

In any case, avionics is just a part of the package. You also need a rugged-ish airframe that can take a little bit of punishment, good flight performance - which the F-35 will always lack, and the capability to carry a heavy payload. In otherwords, your APQRX/G/VY-9467RTB can only go so far before the problems inherent to shoe-horning a platform into a role it is fudamentally ill-suited for make themselves felt.

The F-35 is not a Stand off Jamming aircraft. Nor is it well suited for such a mission, nor does the service wish to use it as such. The design goals follow a clear progression and maturity of EW. While the F-22 received its primary X band jamming through block increments in mission software for the apg-77, the F-35 Apg-81 will be able to do that role when it IOC's with the US Navy and international partners (block 3F configuration). Much on the 239 and the 94 is classified but they are an advancement of the ATF EW studies is quite clear. Active jamming has taken a back seat for stealth fighters, and rightly so.

As far as lack of payload is concerned, its mission dependent. Show me another stealth fighter that can carry more bombs (more types) internally than it.


Coming to the Next gen jammer. For the Navy it declares Initial operational capability one year after the JSF (F35C). The Navy will not fund the Next gen jammer integration into the F-35. For one, it would be a waste of money (growler already has it), defeat the purpose of stealth (the way the Navy plans on using the F-35C). The main reason however is that the Navy would try its level best to keep the refueling mission and the jamming mission away from the F-35. They do not want to shoot themselves in the foot by giving all this capability to the F-35 and then turning around and asking the congress for 20 billion dollars to develop a dedicated F-18E/F/G replacement. The congress will say "what for".

The only service that can "use" the Next gen jammer onto the F-35 is perhaps the USMC, but they are unlikely to do it in the short term. That the F-35 does not have the inherent EW capabilities of a dedicated Growler is not a design failure but a GOAL. Require it to a similar mission, and you will get what you want. Strap on the Next gen jammer on it you will get the capability, at the cost of stealth.

E/A-18G Growler. Let's not dismiss SPECTRA so quickly, shall we?

The E/A 18G is the best, if you can get it there especially with the NGJ. It opens up the air for others like nothing else. SPECTRA is an active+passive suite meant for the rafale, its not meant to jam at stand off distances the air for legacy mammoths following behind (or ahead). Another point about the EA 18, its a SEAD weapon but not a multi role fighter, the USN has no plans to use it as such. Its role would be restricted to Electronic attack and employing the HARM missile, because of this its comparison to any multi-role fighter is unwarranted. Its a dedicated Jammer and as such has its unique place. That place according to the Navy will be reserved for a new platform that ultimately replaces the Super Hornet and Growler family.

It costs money to build a version of the jet that is specifically focused on employing the Next generation jammer as the program is outside of the UAI program. The F-35 can be kitted with a proper investment and do the same mission but that investment seems rather foolish given that the growler is affordable, already into the electronic attack mission. The aircraft that replaces it would most likely be 6th gen, with 6th propulsion and sub systems. Perhaps it would be possible to get more Power from these engines to power many of the features of the Jammer through internal power thereby making it more conformal to the airframe. Raytheon, Bae and Northrop responded to the Next Gen Jammer program with a scalable and adaptable proposal.

[brar_w]

As far as NGJ integration is concerned, if the USAF/USMC want it they'll get it, there are no fundamental constraints against it. Alternatively, they might find the APG-81 adequate for EW tasks.

EW capability will be available starting with the Block 3F and the capability will no doubt be enhanced as the software moves head towards the block 5 (still not fully firmed up). The Apg-81 is the primary, emitting element of the EW suite. Its not something that was to be developed to be in that role (like the apg-77) but something that was always expected to do it from the start. It has its limits, its X-band, directional etc, but that is precisely why it is certified OK for stealth. The Baracuda is just one system that is responsible for the EW mission, its passive (from what is known) but is integrated for the EW mission with the X band Apg-81, and the software rolls out with the first complete block 3, is enhanced with the block 4.

If emissions are the benchmark for EW suite, then even the F-16 Block 60's Falcon Edge trumps the F-22 and F-35. The problem is with CONOPS, doctrine and marrying stealth with EW to achieve a desired task. That the F-22's EW capability was so complicated to develop was not because it provides some crazy capability as far as multi-spectral jamming, but precisely because it achieves the EW goals without doing precisely that. Emission control is in direct conflict with active jamming and it is a basic design (just as LO airframe) for any stealth aircraft, be it the flying wing B-2 or the F-22/F-35 fighters. The pentagon has spent billions to marry the two conflicts. It started with the B-2, has the same concept has advanced with the F-35.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... he-174510/

[NRao]

May 16, 2014 :: Australia heaps praise on F-35, says rivals years behind

May 16 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp is well on the way to fixing the F-35s performance and helmet problems, Australian military chiefs said on Thursday, rejecting criticism the troubled jet will be overmatched by newer Russian and Chinese aircraft.

In testimony to parliament on the F-35, for which Australia is one of the largest international buyers with plans for up to 100, Australia's air force chief Air Marshal Geoff Brown said rivals were years behind the Lightning II's development.

Critics of the F-35 have predicted the aircraft, for which many performance data are classified, will be outflown by emerging aircraft like Russia's Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA and China's J-20, as well as existing fighters like the Su-35, citing computer modelling of known abilities.

"Let me tell you, I don't think that they have the level of stealth that's available in U.S. fifth generation aircraft, and it's by a significant factor," Air Marshal Brown told lawmakers.

He ought to know.

The kickker:

"Both PAK FA, J-20 and J-31 are possibly where we were in excess of 10-12 years ago in their development time frames, so all those aeroplanes have still got a long, long way to go," Brown said.

Data point to support IAF's assertion about the PAK-FA.

Brown said the F-35's stealth and integrated sensors gave a "God's eye view of the world", while Australia's F-35 program chief Air Vice-Marshal Kym Osley said helmet issues including sensor light clouding displays, ineffective night vision and image "jitter" were being steadily overcome.

[Viv S]

With regard to the 'export F-35 variant' discussion on the PAK FA thread.


Reality Check: JSF’s Phantom Export Variant


The JSF Program Office says no “dumbed-down” F-35s are planned for international partners, but Lockheed Martin has been awarded contracts worth $737 million to develop one. (JSF Team photo) PARIS --- Are the United States developing a “dumbed-down” version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for export customers, or not?

Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, rejected a claim by Boeing executives that Washington was selling a "dumbed down" version of the F-35 to international partners, Reuters reported June 16 from the Paris Air Show.

"I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today," Reuters quoted Heinz as saying in an interview. He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but [that] the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.

"So for Boeing to make statements about a 'dumbed down' variant ... is absolutely incorrect and it is speculative and I believe, a very disappointing marketing ploy to drum up business" [for its F-15 Silent Eagle], Heinz added.

Heinz appears to be suffering a bad case of memory lapse, however, as the Pentagon has in fact awarded Lockheed Martin two separate contracts, worth a total of $737 million, to develop such an export version of JSF or, in Pentagon-speak, to “design, develop, verify and test a version of the JSF air system that is as common as possible to the U.S. air system within the National Disclosure Policy.” This version is designated “International Partner Version.” (see below).

As we noted in a Nov. 26, 2007 story on the subject, “This raises the question of exactly how this degraded “Delta SDD” version will differ from the standard US version, and which capabilities and features will be removed to comply with US national disclosure policy. Given that the JSF’s high-tech features, including stealth, and the capabilities of its electronic systems are the prime reasons which attracted foreign partners in the first place, it remains to be seen whether they will remain as committed to a degraded, less capable yet more expensive aircraft.” This still stands today.

Heinz’s categorical June 16 statement to Reuters can be read to imply either that work on the JSF export version has been dropped as quietly as it was originally launched, or that the JSF program office is trying to keep it secret so as not to scare off potential export customers who might not be interested in a “dumbed-down,” less capable aircraft.

In any case, a clarification is urgently needed.

(Update: Asked to clarify the issue of the Delta SDD, Gen. David Heinz provided the following response on June 30:

“Delta SDD deals with the unique national requirements such as Crypto. Additionally, it does the design and testing necessary to assure critical technologies are protected and therefore exportable.”

The implication is that, although export aircraft will in fact differ from those built for the US armed forces, they will not be “dumbed-down,” but adapted to buyers’ national requirements. (end of update)

[NRao]

April Marks New F-35 Flying Records

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 8, 2014 – The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft fleet, which surpassed 16,000 program cumulative flight hours to date in April, flew a monthly record high for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) with 282 flight hours and 153 flights in April.

“The SDD fleet achieving more than 150 flights in one month speaks to the quality of this aircraft and the commitment of this team,” said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin's vice president for F-35 Test & Verification. “We’re nearly complete with Block 2B software flight science testing on the F-35As, and we’ll move forward with Block 3 software testing this summer. The SDD program is scheduled to complete Block 2B testing for the F-35B this year in support of the U.S. Marine Corps’ Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015 with its F-35B fleet.”

In April, operational F-35s fleet-wide flew 812 hours, with SDD F-35 aircraft flying 282 flight hours in one month. In 2014, through April, F-35A test aircraft flew 420 hours; F-35B test aircraft flew 281 hours; and F-35C test aircraft flew 222 hours. Operational F-35s of all three variants flew 2,790 hours for the year.

Operational F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., flew 515 flight hours in April, and operational F-35 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., flew 172 hours in April. Eglin’s 33rd Fighter Wing is home to 48 F-35A/B/Cs and provides training for U.S. military and program partner nation pilots and maintenance personnel. Yuma is home to the Marine Corps’ first operational F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing aircraft.

Among the record SDD flights, the F-35B version completed its 700th vertical landing, and it began crosswind takeoffs and landings and expeditionary operations.

[Viv S]

On the F-35's 6 AMRAAM question. The CUDA has the same diameter as the AMRAAM with half the length (70in to 144in), one can tell what a 6 Aim-120 payload would look like. From a Lockheed Martin model -





The Aim-120D's fins are about 1-2 inches wider, so it'll take a little bit of nudging but should be a clean fit.

[NRao]

While sailing the internet, here are a few things of interest:

Code: Select all

3. F-16 vs. F-35 vs. F-22 - stats:

Aircraft   Length    Span     Wing Area     Internal Fuel
F-16       49.7 Ft   31.0 Ft  300.2 Ft**2    7,162 lbs
F-35       51.4 Ft   35.0 Ft  460.0 Ft**2   18,483 Lbs
F-22       62.1 Ft   44.5 Ft  840.0 Ft**2   18,448 Lbs

And, I thought someone said that the F-35 had stubby wings!!!! Too wide to fly, ...................

Code: Select all

1. VLO Stealth must be Designed-In. Fundamental 5th Gen Design Features can NOT be retrofitted
     a. Embedded Internal Antennas / Sensors
     b. Low Observable seams / RAM Seals
     c. Low-Emission Radar and Avionics
     d. Reduced Signatures (Nozzle, etc)
     e. Aircraft Shaping and Edge Alignment
     f. A few other items

2. "5th Generation Fighters":
     a. Advanced Stealth with Fighter Performance
     b. Integrated Sensor Fusion
     c. Net-Enabled Ops

[TSJones]

18,483 lbs.!? That's huge. I used to fill up A-4M's at 10,000lbs of fuel. And that was with two drop tanks full.

[NRao]

18K for the size of a F-16 or so.

Data points:

And, add to that the next gen engine is being designed to be 25% more efficient + greater thrust.

And, this "6th Gen" engine is expected to be ready when the "definitive" engine for the PAK-FA will be ready.

[brar_w]

18,483 lbs.!? That's huge. I used to fill up A-4M's at 10,000lbs of fuel. And that was with two drop tanks full.

The F-35 is expected to do what the F-16 blk 50/52's do with CFT's and/or huge external drop tanks on internal fuel and then quite a bit on top of that. The main boost comes from the huge amount of internal fuel, but also from the mission profile given that it would not need to get in so low and fast as non-stealthy strike aircraft.

On the point of F-35's Stealth. Here are some of the advances made post the F-22 raptor:

"It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program." He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs. The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 80e3609ae1

Everyone knows that the F-35 is a stealth aircraft. This is one element of what makes it a fifth-generation aircraft. But what is not widely known is that the stealth or low observable (LO) character of the aircraft is significantly different from other stealth aircraft like the F-22. The F-35 LO capability is significantly more robust than legacy stealth, if one might call it that. Indeed, the F-35 stealth is designed to leave the factory and to be maintained in the field, rather than having to come back to depot or the Fort Worth factory. In addition, the training of the maintainers for the LO repairs are being done at the partner level. That is, if a coalition partner buys an F-35 it will be able to maintain it with the proper training (such as the one to be received at the Eglin AFB facility) and to do so in the field.

Full Interview:

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-obs ... -aviation/

Having a design house that has produced prototypes and mass produced stealth aircraft for more than 3 decades, certainly helps

The legacy stealth programs – which to a lesser or greater degrees had to invent the technology in a stovepipe fashion – were on their own and they all essentially had to reinvent the wheel. In the F-35 program, we are partnered with Northrop Grumman and, as such, our team represents a 100 percent of the operational stealth experience in the industry in the world.

There was a reason why the F-22 never made it beyond the concept stage for the USN N-ATF program. Stealth was still not mature enough to a point where it was "maintenance" friendly for carrier ops. As the article points out the F-35's maintenance for LO was designed by the USMC and the USN, the two services that will put the most amount of abuse on the outer LO of the fighter. The USAF took a back seat here. This was also hinted to by the pilots in the one hour long interview I posted a few weeks back. As has been shown in the F-22 to F-35 transition, stealth design, stealth application, stealth testing, stealth durability, stealth maintenance is a matter of design-experience, testing experience, and operational experience. Having competed in stealth design and FLY OFFS pretty much since the late 70's, and having operated stealth types since the mid 80 both Lockheed Martin (F-117, F-22 and RQ 170 heritage) and Northrop Grumman (B-2, YF23, RQ180) bring together the level of experience and expertise that is to be found no where else. One other point that does not get a mention all that often, is taking the stealth design from the lab and industrializing it. The production line, automation, building to strict tolerances and rigorous testing throughout the industrial process is not EASY. Even with decades of experience with stealth production Lockheed and Northrop had hicups with this on the F-35 early builds. From what I know the Russians are yet to industrialize the PAKFA production (could be wrong here).

Interesting video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xViVk7Mj9Hs

A projected production run that is close to 3000 fighters, allows for huge automation, and investments in robotics and other precision production designs, that are not possible for a program such as the F-22 (designed for 300-600 fighters, ultimately less than 200 procured) or any other 5th gen program. The volume also Justifies 100's of millions of investments into finding newer ways to produce stealthy coatings, materials or design all new materials from scratch (such as Fiber mat). It truly combines the best "minds" in stealth, composites and machining from all over the world.

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles ... 35-fighter

As the F-35 enters production, more domestic and international aerospace suppliers will be involved with composite part production, including Alenia Aeronautica (Rome, Italy), Kongsberg Defence Systems (Kongsberg, Norway) Terma A/S (Grenaa, Denmark), TAI (Istanbul, Turkey) and others. “We’re leveraging the capacity of the entire world in terms of composites fabrication,” contends Kinard.

The F-35 Manufacturing Approach

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=11485883

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2pJlZajYG8[/youtube]

[brar_w]

18K for the size of a F-16 or so.

Data points:

And, add to that the next gen engine is being designed to be 25% more efficient + greater thrust.

And, this "6th Gen" engine is expected to be ready when the "definitive" engine for the PAK-FA will be ready.

A point often overlooked. The amount of money spent on a 6th gen engine is astounding. This year, despite of budget constraints a billion or so dollars have been allocated. Both Pratt and W and GE are working on it. RR also had some work from the Pentagon. Its truly something that the US department of defense wants to protect despite budget cuts. By 2018 or so the technology will be certified "good to go" for future applications meaning that any program that wishes to seek to develop a new fighter or plan an upgrade to existing fighters can use this technology without adding RISK (as per the pentagon's own risk charectertisation charts) to the program. What this means is that post 2018, the associated risk in developing a new 6th gen engine would be the same as the risk associated with developing a new 5th gen engine. It would be possible through more than a decade of significant investment into 6th gen propulsion which basically continued side by side with 5th gen engines. P and W did not get the initial contracts because they were well funded with the F-119 and F-135 engines. Now even they are getting contracts.

-Pratt & Whitney and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) have begun testing of Pratt & Whitney's unique, adaptive supersonic fighter engine fan rig based on a full-scale F135 development fan to advance the next generation of military fighter engine technology. The purpose of the adaptive fan rig test is to mature technologies associated with adaptive bypass flow associated with a third stream of air, which will enable efficiency improvements in long-range persistence and high thrust combat maneuvers as well as in transonic and supersonic flight conditions.

"Pratt & Whitney has an innovative approach to achieving variable cycle features with a multiple flow path architecture," said Croswell. "We're building on our foundation of proven 5th generation capabilities, and we are now mastering adaptive technologies – really expanding the boundaries of state of the art engine technology critical for the next 6th generation aircraft."

The AETD program has a goal of providing a 25 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption and a 10 percent improvement in thrust levels compared to today's fifth-generation combat aircraft engines. The FBR demonstration program is focused on delivering a 5+ percent reduction in fuel burn in an F135 demonstration engine.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 79032.html

The first program to leverage such propulsion would probably be the USN Super Hornet replacement.

[brar_w]

F-35 Production

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qvWkdZ2jso

[NRao]

St. Bill Sweetman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhBkspwBRP0 @ 34.08:

The key to the battles of the future is not necessarily stealth or even fire power, it has got to be information

Talk of a walkie talkie situ.

[brar_w]

Australia may order the F-35B on top of the 72 F-35's

Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West _the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers.Last month, Australia committed to buying 72 of the conventional model F-35s from US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin at a cost of almost $20 billion.

But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/235 ... nce-radar/

The flexibility of the variant seems promising for them, They could operate it out of dispersed air fields in an expeditionary environment, or on LHD's. I also see Japan doing the same a decade or so down the line. While their current LHD's could probably not handle the F-35B's without major modification they can well produce future modified designs of the same. Its the first time a harrier class fighter has the capability that is similar to a top notch multi role fighter...

[NRao]

^^^^^

Interesting!!!

JDS Izumo (DDH-183) Helicopter Destroyer (2015)

The Izumo can accommodate up to nine helicopters simultaneously operating on its large flight deck and 14 to 17 helicopters can be stored in the hangar deck. Different helicopters also require different storage space so more or less can be assigned based on the helicopter type and mission requirement. Due to the lack of a launch catapult on the flight deck, conventional jet-powered naval aircraft cannot be used on the deck of the Izumo. However, the in-development Lockheed F-35B variant represents a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) single-seat, single-engine, fifth generation multirole fighter designed for operations from limited deck space. This aircraft can perform air defense, ground attack and reconnaissance missions and is in line to become the central component of the Japanese Pacific Theater arsenal - perhaps aided in the near-future by the arrival of a smaller, combat-ready VSTOL Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV). As such, observers in the region do not consider it a coincidence that the start of the American F-35B sea trials and the launch of the Izumo occurred in the same week. Once the technologically-advanced F-35B is operational, the list of strike-capable ships that can carry F-35B aircraft in the Pacific will increase in turn, possibly changing the balance of power in the region to an extent. Neighboring China does not share a close military relationship with the United States and therefore is relying on its own in-house fifth generation fighter and UCAV initiatives.

If procured, the F-35B could theoretically be served from both the 22DDH-class and Hyuga-class ships. Australia is building two Canberra-class Landing Helicopter Dock ships while the US operates eight Wasp-class Landing Helicopter Dock ships and two America-class amphibious assault ships - all of which could have the fighter operate from their flight decks. To side-step the F-35B issue, Japan has suggested that the reason for the increase in the 22DDH-class's size over the Hyuga-class is that Japan intends to use the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor transport helicopter as its main aircraft. Currently, Japan is negotiating a purchase of a number of V-22 Osprey's from the US. China, Vietnam and the Philippine governments are, of course, watching the situation closely and will most likely respond in turn.

[Philip]

Japan has always intended their "aircraft-destroyers" or whatever they choose to call their light carriers,to operate STOVL aircraft. A small contingent of the B version of the JSF would do them nicely,just as the UK has plumped for the same after operating Harriers for so long. The high cost will have to be borne out,but there really is no other choice,unless...a little bird called the NLCA arrives sooner rather then later.One may recall that I posted some months ago the proposal by SAAB for the naval Gripen to operate even from the Viraat. If we can perfect the NLCA asap,the aircraft could very well be an exciting alternative for smaller carriers. If it is equipped later on with a TVC engine,even better.

[brar_w]

From what I've read the current lhdS cannot accommodate the jsf without serious mods. The design can however be easily upgraded for such aircraft for future versions should Japan wish to actually have a mini carrier. The advantages of a mini transitional or interim carrier in the Pacific are huge. Not only is it less threatening than a full fledged Nimitz but it also equals higher availability etc 10 to 12 f35b's plus v22's are perfect to project force on disputed islands etc with the Nimitz class boys far back incase China sends the heavy stuff. A great way for Japan to project moderate force without escalating the situation through a nuclear carrier. The NLCA is not an option for a ship that requires vertical landing such as the US Americas or the Japanese LHD.. ALTHOUGH the size of the Chinese carrier their purpose to project forces in an expeditionary environment therefore they are not exactly mini carriers. The gripen N will find it very tough to compete with likes of the rafale M, F-35B and C etc.. I see the B version being the only option for a LHD concept of expeditionary warfare. There are a few nations looking for a full fledged Carrier. Even if some western nations look at an actual 40-50k carrier the NLCA will be the least useful option unless upfront western weapon integration is provided by the seller etc For a western Navy or one closely tied to the western model such as the Japanese and the South Koreans, link 16, Aim 120, sidewinder integration is a must if not some serious tie up with NIFC - CA like concepts for close interoperability with the USN

Personally, given the current cost of a carrier strike group and it's systems, sub systems, logistics and weapons I see little utility in a light naval strike fighter. Affordability has to take a back seat in favor of performance and reach on the limited space of a carrier flight deck. Navies that seek a light, affordable fighter for their carrier should seriously reevaluate the carrier mission or the need for such a force. This is the main reason why i see little hope for the gripen for a "serious" carrier operator. The capability of the carrier group is basically the amount of force it can project and not how well it can defend itself (you have other ships, aircraft, and subs for that) using light fighters etc. The reason the British and italians have gone in for carriers with the B version as opposed to more expensive full fledged CAT's is because (especially for the former) of the integration with the USN and the rest of the coalition. The brits with the B's can both meet their blue water obligations as well as have the B's be forward deployed once those duties are done to serve the troops on the ground.

The advantages of the B version is the full interoperability it offers with the A version and more importantly full interoperability with AEGIS and ground forces through the various programs in motion. To have the same sensors sharing the same quality data throughout the network irrespective of whether the sensors are forward deployed, on LHD or on a Nimitz class carrier is huge. Prior to the B version a serious compromise had to be made with the harrier.. That will soon change..

[Philip]

Costs.Current ests.for the JSF are $110-130m.Maintenance costs far in xcess of legacy fighters.How many navies can afford the JSF? The MIG-29K, Gripen and hopefully the NLCA will be affordable naval aircraft.3-4 for the price of one JSF.

[brar_w]

Costs.Current ests.for the JSF are $110-130m

Cost is a relative term. What other 5th gen options are available for a potential Navy? A 85-100 Million dollar F-35A and B variant at full rate of production is an extremely competitive price given what other western fighters are selling for (eurofighter and rafale for example). An F-35 package ordered in 2013-2014 for example is only about 30% more expensive than a Typhoon. An F-35 ordered in the 2020's for example, when the learning curve is at a similar level to that of the 4.5 gen fighters will be extremely competitive if not outright cheaper to acquire. What are we paying for the Rafale's purchased outright?

I do not see the C adding any more customers, It's a USN specific variant.

Maintenance costs far in xcess of legacy fighters

Maintenance costs are high because they do not have enough control on them at the moment to nail them down. That long term operational cost estimates have dropped by 22% over the last year or so shows that they have been continuesly overestimating these numbers. Even then a higher capability of 5th gen comes with higher costs. There is no way around it, just as 4th gen costs were higher than 3rd gen costs.

How many navies can afford the JSF?

For starters:

USN
USMC
UK
Italy

Highly Likely:

Australia
Japan

Highly Probable in the mid-long term

South Korea

Way more than the ones that would operate the Mig-29K or Rafale M (even combined) for example.

In the west, and indeed in the Pacific I see the "Amphibious Assault Ship" concept being very popular. Its cheaper to own and operate than a full fledged carrier, and despite being less capable it offers plenty of other advantages such as flexibility, proper force projections, and the ability to counter any chinese adventures without the excessive force that a Nuclear fueled carrier will bring to the table. The chinese have a clear strategy of "taking over" disputed territory in the pacific. They have created their coast guard to do this, and have their lightships a few 100 miles behind with the carrier even further behind. As such for a nation like Japan or South Korea, having a Amphibious assault ship like concept is the RIGHT force projection without looking too bad as far as "appropriate force is concerned". These ships also offer amazing flexibility to get troops inland quickly through the V-22's. The F-35B has this market pretty much to itself, as for such ships vertical landing is a requirement.

For the Pacific i see this as a much more flexible and potent option than the Ford Class carriers, simply because large scale conflict with china is highly unlikely, and what the pacific MAY witness is a tension-build up over disputed territories or shipping lanes. For such scenarios a highly flexible force of LHD's and AAS's is much better for both the USN/MC and nations like Japan, South Korea and Australia.



http://ingalls.huntingtoningalls.com/products/lha/class

Remember that the 9 F-35's being mentioned are the CONOPS planned for such a ship where the goal is not to project force but to offload marines inland using the F-35's for protection and V-22's for transport. A different scenario where the goal is to project force could have a much different mix of F-35's to V-22's. The Japanese for their potential ship will also have a different mix for different missions.

The other navy's looking to build upon the carrier fleet are us and China. China will not be getting the F-35 any time soon and we are committed for now towards the Mig and the NLCA. This leaves very little chance for a Gripen N or NLCA export.

The MIG-29K, Gripen and hopefully the NLCA will be affordable naval aircraft.3-4 for the price of one JSF

Why has the gripen N managed ZERO customers then? The problem with CHEAP, and LIGHT fighters on a carrier deck is that, its the worst environment for such an aircraft. On a carrier deck you have a premium on real estate. If you can field 20 F-35's, you CANNOT field 60 NLCA's on the deck for the same price (there just wont be space). Therefore each individual aircraft you put on the deck should have the highest capability you can potentially get. Moreover, the entire point of having a carrier is to project force and a light fighter is not the best way to go about it. Look around the Navy's of the world, you won't see any light fighter on a carrier deck anymore. The F-18E/F is Flanker class, the classic hornet is kitted much like a block 50 viper and now is being replaced with a fighter that is much larger and that has a nearly 20,000 lb of internal fuel. The Russians have a flanker variant and so have the chinese in their flanker clone. The J-31 does not look like a small, light fighter either. The Rafale M is hardly a small lightweight fighter. The Navy's that are going in for the F-35B (which is also not light and small) are doing so due to their secondary roles of advancing these fighters to aid forward deployed troops. Thats what the brits intend on doing once the carrier has established control of the seas (shift the B versions inland). The cost of actually developing, procuring a carrier and then going about and defending it through the support ships, submarines and logistics is Astronomical. To get all this hardware for a true blue water carrier capability and then to cheap out on the "real" force projector (strike fighter) is a rather foolish idea. We of course are doing this to bring up our own indigenous efforts as the N-LCA is the best we can do at the moment. That is completely understandable. But for others that actually have options to look outside of their own defense industry, the NLCA or the Gripen N will not be very exciting options.

[NRao]

Among the earthlings, a simple analysis:

1) Australia: 2 LHDs under construction
2) Brazil: 1 CATOBAR. Old
3) China: 1 floating restaurant. N/A
4) France: 1 CATOBAR. N/A
5) India: 1 STOBAR / 1 STOVL / 1 STOBAR under construction / 1 CATOBAR?? planned
6) Italy: 2 STOVL ............. F-25 A/B. N/A
7) Japan: 2 LHDs
8 ) Russia: 1 STOBAR. N/A
9) Spain: 1 STOVL. N/A
10) South Korea: assault ship. ????
11) Thailand: 1 STOVL. N/A
12) UK: ............. F-35B
13) US: ................ F-35C customer USN: 260, USMC: 80)

Best bets, IMHO:

India: There are no viable alternatives to the F-35C. But it means plenty of great planning. Do not know if India is up to it.

Followed by Japan - they have a need to build more and if China starts brewing more tea, then Japan has no options.

SK, is another futures option.

[brar_w]

I think its just a matter of time before the South Koreans get an AAS type of setup. They have the shipbuilding to do something on their own, and have the money to add the B version to the A's they already have purchased. I think Japan and South Korea will build an AAS type setup that is similar to that of the USMC while leaving the heavy stuff to the USN's carriers. Both Japan and South Korea have the shipbuilding know how to match any chinese efforts as far as carriers are concerned.

Among the earthlings, a simple analysis:

1) Australia: 2 LHDs under construction
2) Brazil: 1 CATOBAR. Old
3) China: 1 floating restaurant. N/A
4) France: 1 CATOBAR. N/A
5) India: 1 STOBAR / 1 STOVL / 1 STOBAR under construction / 1 CATOBAR?? planned
6) Italy: 2 STOVL ............. F-25 A/B. N/A
7) Japan: 2 LHDs
8 ) Russia: 1 STOBAR. N/A
9) Spain: 1 STOVL. N/A
10) South Korea: assault ship. ????
11) Thailand: 1 STOVL. N/A
12) UK: ............. F-35B
13) US: ................ F-35C customer USN: 260, USMC: 80)

Best bets, IMHO:

Turkey just ordered their first F-35, and have reaffirmed their commitment to 100. They also have an AAS under construction that can function as a "mini-carrier". Which fighter do you think will fly off from such a ship?

Turkey’s new carrier alters eastern Mediterranean energy and security calculus

In late December 2013, Turkey took a major step in altering the naval balance in the eastern Mediterranean by contracting the construction of a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship that can function as an aircraft carrier, potentially providing Turkey an unprecedented measure of sea control in the region.The new Turkish LHD, to be built by the Turkish shipyard SEDEF and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, will be a variant of Navantia’s Juan Carlos I class L-61 ship used by the Spanish Navy. After Spain, Turkey will be only the second country to possess a Juan Carlos I class vessel.

The Australian navy’s two Navantia-built ships, the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, once commissioned, will constitute the Australian fleet’s largest vessels. Similarly, Anakara’s new LHD will dwarf the Turkish fleet’s largest ships.

While ships in Turkish Navy’s Gabya class have a 4,100 ton displacement, Turkey’s new Juan Carlos I class LHD will have a displacement of 27,079 tons.

Providing the Turkish Navy with blue-water capabilities, Ankara’s new LHD is game-changer in the eastern Mediterranean. The main mission profile of the Juan Carlos I class LHD is power projection to any theater of operation. As an amphibious assault ship, it can transport a battalion-sized unit of 1,000 troops along with 150 vehicles, including battle tanks, for a marine landing.

Even more significantly, the Juan Carlos I class LHD is an aircraft carrier substitute. The ship has already replaced Spain’s aircraft carrier the Principe de Asturias. In Spanish, the LHD ship is referred to by the abbreviation BPE, standing for Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica or Strategic Power Projection Ship, more accurately reflecting its purpose.

As an aircraft carrier, Turkey’s LHD will feature a flight deck with a 12° ski-jump enabling it to host both V/STOL (Vertical and/or Short Take-Off and Landing) and STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) fighter aircraft. While six fighter aircraft can be parked on its flight deck, the ship also has a hangar bay that can house 12 additional fighter aircraft.

As Turkey’s first aircraft carrier, the LHD will be capable of sailing non-stop for 30 days with a range of 1,700 nautical miles (3,148 km). In combination with Turkey’s existing naval assets, the LHD will provide Ankara with the ability to project significant force in the areas of Cyprus and Israel’s offshore natural gas facilities, giving Turkey, in the short term, a greater measure of sea control in the region.

[brar_w]

F-35 B of the USMC along with 2 Eurofighter typhoons



F-35, Internal and external combat load

[titash]

Why has the gripen N managed ZERO customers then? The problem with CHEAP, and LIGHT fighters on a carrier deck is that, its the worst environment for such an aircraft. On a carrier deck you have a premium on real estate. If you can field 20 F-35's, you CANNOT field 60 NLCA's on the deck for the same price (there just wont be space). Therefore each individual aircraft you put on the deck should have the highest capability you can potentially get. Moreover, the entire point of having a carrier is to project force and a light fighter is not the best way to go about it. Look around the Navy's of the world, you won't see any light fighter on a carrier deck anymore. The F-18E/F is Flanker class, the classic hornet is kitted much like a block 50 viper and now is being replaced with a fighter that is much larger and that has a nearly 20,000 lb of internal fuel. The Russians have a flanker variant and so have the chinese in their flanker clone. The J-31 does not look like a small, light fighter either. The Rafale M is hardly a small lightweight fighter. The Navy's that are going in for the F-35B (which is also not light and small) are doing so due to their secondary roles of advancing these fighters to aid forward deployed troops. Thats what the brits intend on doing once the carrier has established control of the seas (shift the B versions inland). The cost of actually developing, procuring a carrier and then going about and defending it through the support ships, submarines and logistics is Astronomical. To get all this hardware for a true blue water carrier capability and then to cheap out on the "real" force projector (strike fighter) is a rather foolish idea. We of course are doing this to bring up our own indigenous efforts as the N-LCA is the best we can do at the moment. That is completely understandable. But for others that actually have options to look outside of their own defense industry, the NLCA or the Gripen N will not be very exciting options.

Well said brar_w. Even the IN's air arm chief said in an interview that the LCA-Navy was an inadequate platform and would be restricted to CAP/fleet air defence roles.

But the benefits of developing and supporting an indigenous platform are priceless. Unlike the sea harriers, the LCA-Navy can be upgraded with new sensors/weapons at will, and will not suffer due to lack of spares

[Manish_Sharma]

On the point of F-35's Stealth. Here are some of the advances made post the F-22 raptor:

"It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program." He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs. The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 80e3609ae1

Is it like a new composite itself OR something they mix in the composites while manufacturing? So it means they don't need the coat of stealthy paint anymore, that's a huge advantage as it saves space for A/c carriers to stock up the stealth paints and also jsf won't have the problem faced by raptor of flying in dusty and rainy condition washed off the stealth paint.

Hopefully US won't allow cheenis to steal the formula for j20/j30 like they did allow them to steal DSI strakes tech and design

[brar_w]

As mentioned in the interview i had posted a few weeks ago, the stealth maintenance, repair, and upkeep requirements were framed taking the lowest common denominator of sorts. In this case the harshest abuse would come not from the Air force but the Marines and the Navy. As such the stealth had to last in those environments and be repairable under those testing conditions. Not to say that maintaining the F-35's VLO would be like maintaining the outer skin of the F-18E/F, but then you have to do something to get the enhanced capability. The Marine core Lt colonel put it nicely when he said that his boys treat Low observability & signature as a feature, just as they would treat the radar, weapon bays or the avionics etc. The objective was to mitigate the "change" as much as possible, and to eventually have VLO maintenance at par with other unique charecteristics. Just as the 4th gen introduces Avionics maintenance as a generational shift in how things were done compared to 3rd gen fighters, the 5th gen do so as well with VLO airframes.



http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stealth-coatings-on-f-35-39easier-to-maintain39-than-on-older-385731/

US Air Force maintenance troops working on the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin AFB, Florida, say the stealth coatings on the new fifth-generation type are proving easier to work on than those on earlier low-observable (LO) platforms.

Maintaining the LO coatings on the new aircraft marks "a significant improvement", says Senior Master Sgt Eric Wheeler, a maintainer assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing at the base. "Typically, [it] has not caused us a whole lot of downtime on this jet."

The F-35’s Race Against Time

When it comes to maintainable stealth design, the F-35 represents the state of the art, O’Bryan said, superior even to the F-22 Raptor, USAF’s top-of-the-line air superiority aircraft.

The F-22 requires heavy doses of regular and expensive low observable materials maintenance. F-35 stealth surfaces, by contrast, are extremely resilient in all conditions, according to the Lockheed team.

"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.


An F-35 Lightning II (top), accompanied by an F-22 Raptor, powers over Fort Walton Beach, Fla. This was the first time the two fifth gen fighters had flown together. (USAF photo by MSgt. Jeremy T. Lock)

The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations.
In designing the new fighter, Lockheed Martin engineers assumed they would guess wrong about some access doors; it would be necessary to put some in different places during the course of its lifetime.

Thus, said O’Bryan, the company left open several ways to make field modifications that can create a quick-release door in the aircraft’s skin. These doors won’t then need tape or caulk to restore stealthiness, the application of which is a time-consuming and expensive chore in other stealth aircraft.

The repair and upkeep of low observables has been one of the F-22’s "main maintenance drivers," he said, "and that goes away with [the] F-35."

The F-35A has a serpentine inlet making engine fan blades invisible from any point outside the fuselage. That factor eliminates one of the biggest RCS problems for stealth designs.

Moreover, the air intakes constitute a single piece of composite material devoid of seams, rivets, or fasteners. These types of parts are huge RCS reflectors and caused massive signatures on earlier-generation aircraft. Their absence dramatically aids the F-35’s stealthiness.

That’s not all. No antennas protrude from the aircraft’s surfaces. These elements are instead embedded in the leading and trailing edges of the wings. Their positioning there not only reduces the radar signature but also yields a far wider, deeper, and more precise picture of the battlespace.

Stealth, said O’Bryan, has to be "designed in from the beginning" and can’t be added as an afterthought or upgrade. That means radar, electronic warfare, data links, communications, and electronic attack "need to be controlled" and must be fused from the start to work in concert with the special shapes and materials of the airframe itself.

[Mihir]

the entire point of having a carrier is to project force and a light fighter is not the best way to go about it. Look around the Navy's of the world, you won't see any light fighter on a carrier deck anymore. The F-18E/F is Flanker class, the classic hornet is kitted much like a block 50 viper and now is being replaced with a fighter that is much larger and that has a nearly 20,000 lb of internal fuel. The Russians have a flanker variant and so have the chinese in their flanker clone.

Carriers can have several possible roles; projecting power is just one of them. The US Navy uses carriers to project power; that doesn't mean it's what every other navy does as well. Depending on capabilities and requirements, a country might deploy its carriers for fleet air defence. In the Russian Navy, for instance, the offensive punch is delivered by long-range AShMs, while the fighters only defend the fleet. Their "heavy fighter" is more of a burden than a benefit -- the lack of a catapult means that they cannot take off with a significant fuel and weapons load. They've realised that their needs would be better served by a medium fighter like the MiG-29K instead. My guess is that the Chinese will face similar issues with the Liaoning.

[brar_w]

You will continue to see that Navy's across the world would move towards Medium-heavy fighters for their carriers. I see very little success for a light Naval fighter. Which Medium-light fighter do the chinese intend on use on their carriers? Liaoning for them is just a "starting" point into carriers and carrier aviation. Expect them to get bigger carriers as well as create naval variants of their 5th gen designs for the future. Don't the russians want to eventually transform the T-50 into a naval fighter? The global naval picture is quite clear, for the Chinese its the flanker clone (s) and whatever they decide out of their 5th gen for their Navy, for the Russians it seems to be a navalized PAKFA (Way into the future obviously), For US, UK, Italy, Turkey and possibly Japan, South Korea and Australia it seems to be the F-35B or F-35C and the F-18E/F for the USN. The smallest of these will be the Mig-29K and Rafale M which weighs around 20K pounds empty (from the top of my head). The F-35B, C (32 - 34K pounds empty), the J15 and the PAKFA (both 35K+ empty). The N-Tejas and the Sea-Gripen would be by far the lightest naval fighters (with the latter not even ordered, so only a paper capability) but they will also be the least popular options as far as navies around the world are concerned. I am absolutely convinced of the fact that the chinese will move towards CATS as soon as they possibly can..therefore the 5th gen fighters is only a matter of them catching up.

SAAB has been touting the sea-gripen for some time now, hoping that some navy that wants to "patch" together a carrier will pick it. Those would be the Navy's that are severely capability crunched but still want a carrier. The Chinese, Russians, French Americans, Brits etc and the IN that can do a carrier and its sub systems on their own should be better used as a benchmark to see trends in carrier aviation. Russia however is laser focused on the PAKFA and its all but clear that the Mig-29K was an affordable, available and low-cost/low-risk option to arm existing carriers given the cost of the Su-33 and the build up required to get it into a modern carrier capable version. If the russians seriously pursue future carrers, I am sure they'll have CATS and use a naval PAKFA as is being spoken about.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saa ... Air-Power/

http://oi40.tinypic.com/sw367m.jpg

[Mihir]

It's not just a question of deploying medium-heavy fighters. You need to capability to build carriers that can effectively deploy these fighters. The more important question is, are the Chinese building a larger carrier with more deck space and powerful catapults?

[brar_w]

It's not just a question of deploying medium-heavy fighters. You need to capability to build carriers that can effectively deploy these fighters. The more important question is, are the Chinese building a larger carrier with more deck space and powerful catapults?

The more important question (in my opinion) is " are the chinese developing or planning larger carriers with more deck space and powerful cats". To think otherwise would be rather foolish given the blue water ambitions of the PLAN. They would surely look at larger carriers, with cats and then look to taking one of their 5th gen designs and transforming it into a CV. Whether this happens in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years remains to be seen but the PLAN sees itself as being the KING of the pacific, and they won't become KINGS by using the Liaoning and its clones.

[Mihir]

Umm, the jury is still out on whether the PLAN sees itself as being the KING (capitalisation and all) of the Pacific. They may have a greater interest in defending themselves from the US Navy while securing trade routes elsewhere. Lets see how the future unfolds. This isn't to say that they won't deploy heavy fighters. After all, they have a proven (in a fashion) solution readily available in the J-15. What remains to be seen is whether they deploy their carriers as capital ships or something else. In the meantime, the Russians are happily "regressing" back to medium fighters.

[brar_w]

You see the Russians regressing, I see them as finding a practical solution for the interim given that the Mig-29K was not only a better platform for export (as the IN buy has proven) but also a cheaper option for their existing carriers. Looking at long term trends, there's quite a bit of opinion regarding the eventual Naval version of the PAKFA, which is anything but "medium" weight class. Regardless of what russia eventually does to its carrier fleet and its future carriers and carrier aircraft, they still are not going in for a Light naval fighter, which was my point all along( I never said that a medium class naval fighter is useless). In fact none apart from us are, and our reasons are different and quite understandable. The Chinese will operate a heavy fighter, western navies will operate medium-heavy fighters, the russians intend on using medium fighters until their heavy stealthy 5th gen fighter is mature enough to kick start CV development for it. The russians always wanted to have a CAT enabled large carrier with heavy flanker derivatives, and it was only economic decisions which lead them towards a 60-70K class Ski jump type setup. Had the SU not collapsed they would have probably fielded a much larger carrier by now.

As far as china and its blue water capability is concerned, there intentions in my opinion cannot be clearer. Only thing that remains to be seen is how fast they can advance the capability and field larger carriers that use CAT's and are more capable. They are in it for the long haul

http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... r_catapult
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... nd-Carrier