US military, technology, arms, tactics

[TSJones]

the US supports certain forces in brush wars.......like Somalia........it all depends on what kind of weapons your opponent has.

A fixed wing a/c will have greater on time station capability than a helicopter as well as height and distance factors and also a pgm delivery has greater versatility factors given by fixed wing a/c.

while an apache can do satellite and drone ops, it currently can't stay on station, go as high or as far. nor personally drop 250-500 lb jdams like a fixed wing.

from 15-20000 feet up, a fixed wing can go into a dive and give an almost 400 mph velocity to a 250 lb jdam for a maybe a 10-15 mile glide path to target without breaking a sweat.

cha-ching! In Somalia! or Afghanistan for that matter. on real time targeting orders from the president directly if need be. and I mean from the president's lips to the pilot's ear.

[brar_w]

Gremlins Project Aims To Wreak Havoc With Enemy Defenses

While the Pentagon pursues capabilities such as “arsenal planes” deploying scores of guided weapons and F-16s ejecting microdrones from flare dispensers, its advanced research agency is looking a step ahead. Darpa is working on airborne launch and recovery of volleys of cooperating unmanned aircraft to swamp enemy defenses.

The agency has selected four teams for Phase 1 of its Gremlins program to demonstrate launch and recovery in flight of multiple limited-life UAVs able to perform reconnaissance, targeting and jamming missions in contested environments more flexibly and affordably than expensive manned platforms.

Teams led by Composite Engineering, Dynetics, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Lockheed Martin have received contracts of $3.9-4.4 million to study different approaches to meeting the Gremlins program goals, the agency says.Phase 1 will lead to a system requirements review at the end of first-quarter fiscal 2017. Darpa then plans to award two Phase 2 contracts leading to a preliminary design review in the second quarter of fiscal 2018. One team would then proceed to Phase 3 and a flight demonstration early in fiscal 2020.

During the Vietnam War, Ryan AQM-34 Firebee remotely piloted vehicles were launched from Lockheed DC-130 drone control aircraft to perform reconnaissance and electronic-warfare missions. At the end of a mission, the Firebee deployed a parachute and was captured in midair by a Sikorsky HH-3 helicopter.

These operations required dedicated launch and recovery aircraft, and one or two Firebees could be launched and controlled at any time. Darpa’s Gremlins concept is to launch volleys of 8-20 or more UAVs from minimally modified bomber or transport aircraft while out of range of enemy defenses.

Carrying a mixture of payloads, these “gremlins” would operate in a distributed and cooperative way to achieve effects at lower cost than conventional monolithic platforms, Darpa says. The UAVs would have a speed of Mach 0.7-0.8, range of 300-500 nm and 1-3-hr. loiter capability carrying payloads of 60-120 lb.Gremlins would be launched from a B-52, B-1 or C-130 at altitudes up to 40,000 ft. Their mission complete, the UAVS would be retrieved in flight by a C-130 airlifter and returned to base to be prepared for reuse within 24 hr. Darpa expects four or more UAVs to be recovered within 30 min.

The U.S. Air Force already uses Raytheon ADM-160 air-launched miniature decoys and jammers, but these are expendable. The target-drone-like gremlins would have a limited lifetime of about 20 flights, which Darpa says will reduce costs over either expendable and long-life conventional platforms.

The agency’s cost target for design studies is $700,000 for the air vehicle, excluding payload, over a 1,000-unit procurement. Darpa is looking for a roll-on, roll-off kit to modify existing aircraft for launch and/or recovery, with a target of $2-10 million per unit for 25 kits.

Phase 1 is intended to lead to a proof-of-concept flight demonstration to validate the air recovery of multiple gremlins. The teams are studying launch and receiver concepts, limited-life airframe designs and precision digital flight control, relative navigation and station-keeping, the research agency says.

[Philip]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/03/darpa-actuv-launch/

DARPA starts speed testing its submarine-hunting drone ship
Open-water tests will follow this summer.
Mariella Moon , @mariella_moon
04.03.16
DARPA's 130-foot unmanned ship is almost ready to take on rogue submarines. Its christening isn't slated to take place until April 7th, but it's now in the water near its construction site in Portland, Oregon -- the agency has even begun conducting speed tests. The drone called ACTUV or Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel has successfully reached the top speed its creators were expecting (31mph) during the preliminary tests. It was, however, designed to do much more than traverse the oceans at 31mph. ACTUV has the capability to use long/short-range sonar to detect foreign submarines, even stealthy diesel electric ones that don't make noise.

It can then follow those submarines around in an effort to spook out their operators and drive them out. If needed, the vessel can also deliver supplies and be sent on reconnaissance missions with absolutely no human on board. Before it can do the tasks it was made for, though, it still has to undergo open-water testing in California sometime this summer.

You can watch ACTUV's launch and first tests in Portland below:

[brar_w]

Airman magazine at Mountain AFB:

[Prem]

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/th ... ight-15675
Get Ready, Russia and China: The F-35 Stealth Fighter Can Dogfight

But now a Norwegian test pilot has indirectly refuted the test pilot in a blog post on the Website of the Norwegian defense ministry. Norway is buying 52 F-35s are a cost of no less than $5 billion to replace the country’s current fleet of 1980s-vintage F-16s.“I now have several sorties behind me in the F-35 where the mission has been to train within visual range combat one-on-one,” wrote Maj. Morten “Dolby” Hanche, a veteran F-16 pilot and Norway’s first F-35 flier. “My experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role [compared to an F-16], and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.”According to the Norwegian defense ministry, Dolby has more than 2,200 hours in the F-16, is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate and now serves as an instructor with the 62nd Fighter Squadron, an F-35 training unit, at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.“So how does the the F-35 behave in a dogfight?” Dolby wrote. “The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part.”The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire,” Dolby continued. “The F-35 is capable of significantly higher angle of attack than the F-16. … This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, forces my opponent to react even more defensively and gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.”“In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable,” Dolby explained. “I can whip the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you’d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me.”In short, the F-35 is an excellent dogfighter, according to the Norwegian pilot. But Dolby stressed in an earlier testimonial that he doesn’t believe an F-35 will actually need to fight at close range, as its stealth, sensors and beyond-visual-range missiles will allow it to destroy its opponents at great distance.

[TSJones]

are sure this article is not from the National Inquirer?

really though, I have read about the Norwegian report on their experience with the f-35, and they are very serious about the plane. they like it.....a lot.

[brar_w]

I had posted the Norwegian pilots post a while back but here it is again -

http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/he ... d-account/

[Austin]

Israel Seeks Greater Autonomy for F-35 Fighter Force

[brar_w]

Israel Seeks Greater Autonomy for F-35 Fighter Force

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p2001345

If Israel wants complete MRO control, they have to pay and get the security clearance and either offer it as an alternative to European facilities to spread the cost or keep it for themselves. No one will deny that request since it was offered to all those who were willing in make the investments. It still is the best way to go about it since there is no 'vanilla' variant of the F-35, its one variant for all nations so the Congress was convinced to give blanket export clearance for each one of the F-35's systems including EW/EA, radar, stealth, etc because the MRO and other facilities maintaining it would have to go through a jointly developed security audit and cyber-security clearance and follow jointly-agreed upon and/or developed protocols to make sure this status is maintained throughout the life of the MRO facility. Since everyone uses the same mission systems, and shares region specific threat libraries (which they can add and customize) a secure process of handling all this benefits Israel as much as it does the US. The IDF wouldn't want its systems compromised because some facility in Cameri wasn't following an equally strict cyber-protocol for example.

Same with the ALIS, even as we speak the logistical pipeline is not being used since the latest version will take some time to develop and 'go-live', so you can go back and do your logistics outside of ALIS just as you do for the F-16 or F-15 and keep the ALIS for internal - operational HPM as opposed to as a conduit into the global F-35 logistics chain. It'll cost more since the idea of a big-data driven global HPM system lowers cost just as it has in the commercial airline and cargo business but if there are security concerns on the part of any partner, or FMS customer, they can opt out. Gen. Bogdan talks about this in the briefing I had posted a couple of days ago.

[brar_w]

A fairly detailed article on the OT and Tactics development activities leading up to the first USAF F-35A unit declaring IOC later this year (The USMC declared theirs last year).

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2016/04/the-perfect-storm/

[shiv]

The CAS aircraft choices being made by the US
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lt-423999/

“We are developing that draft requirements document and staffing it around the air force now,” Holmes said after an Air Force Association forum in Washington DC on 7 April. “When it’s ready, we’ll compare that to what we have available, compare it to keeping the A-10, and compare it to what it would take to replace [the A-10] with another airplane.”

Holmes pointed to non-development alternatives like the Embraer/Sierra Nevada A-29 Super Tucano or Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine turboprops, which are "available now". He also suggests the industry-funded Textron AirLand Scorpion or something that "other people are building or fielding" – maybe light attack versions of the Finmeccanica M-346 Master or Korea Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle trainers, which are already being proposed as Northrop T-38 Talon replacements under "T-X".

“The question is, where is the sweet spot as we talk about what’s available now and what the optimum CAS replacement will be?” Holmes says. “If you’re not careful, you can make an airplane that’s so hard to build that you never get it, so you need to hit that capability/affordability line about right.”

Some air force funding has been earmarked for “AT-X studies”, which will consider light attack variants of the USAF’s next-generation trainer. A brand new A-X aircraft is being considered, but it would cost much more to develop.

[brar_w]

The Low-Intensity modern CAS platform will likely be acquired in limited numbers. As the mission switches quite regularly between strike and ISR I believe the Scorpion is a really strong contender compared to a T-50 which is just an F-16 lite with little to offer in TOS, loiter or logistical reduction. The A-X is an idea that is on a 5-10 year loop and comes up from time to time but there is really no money for it. The USAF in a Sequestered budget would be lucky to buy all that's on its plate despite of the rhetoric surrounding the A-X. Its a very effective tool that policy makers, particularly outgoing ones have used successfully to kill time.

[brar_w]

Northrop MEMS To Guide Weapons When GPS Denied

Tiny inertial sensors based on microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) are used in everyday devices such as cellphones, game controllers and unmanned quadcopters but lack the performance required for navigation applications.

Now Northrop Grumman has won a Darpa contract to develop a miniaturized navigation-grade inertial measurement unit (IMU) based on MEMS sensors, for use in precision-guided munitions in GPS-denied environments. The goal is to reduce cost, size, weight and power compared with current IMUs.

Today, high-value platforms such as aircraft use navigation-grade ring-laser gyro (RLG) and interferometric fiber-optic gyro (iFOG) inertial sensors, while MEMS-based tactical-grade IMUs are used in precision-guided weapons. MEMS sensors are produced using semiconductor manufacturing processes.

But current MEMS sensors can only inertially guide glide munitions with 10-meter (32-ft.) accuracy for roughly 30 sec., compared with up to 180 sec. for autonomous navigation using tactical-grade RLG or iFOG sensors, and cannot maintain sufficient accuracy for longer unless augmented by GPS.Typically, IMUs with MEMS gyros have a bias drift of 10 deg./hr. or larger, compared with the 0.01 deg./hr. needed for navigation applications. This bias error translates into how long a system can maintain position or heading accuracy in the absence of GPS aiding.

The position accuracy of current MEMS IMUs drifts too fast to be useful for anything but flight durations of around a minute, Northrop says. So the predominant applications for MEMS IMUs are for attitude and position control where the gyro bias drift does not come into play.

Darpa’s Prigm:Ngimu program (for Precise Robust Inertial Guidance for Munitions—Navigation-Grade Inertial Measurement Unit) aims to produce a small MEMS IMU with a bias error of 0.01 deg./hr. and an angle random walk of 0.005 deg./root-hr., which is 3-4 orders of magnitude better than currently available systems, the company says.

“In particular, we are aiming to address the challenge of providing precise navigation for guided munitions, which operate in highly contested environments and have stringent requirements for minimized cost, size, weight and power consumption,” says Alex Fax, program director for advanced positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) solutions at Northrop Grumman Mission Systems.“We expect that our solution for making inertial navigation units smaller and lighter than ever before will make a huge difference, especially in GPS-denied environments,” he says.

Under the $6.27 million base contract, Northrop plans to demonstrate that its MEMS-based gyroscopes and accelerometers meet Darpa’s performance specifications. Additional contract options valued at $5.3 million cover testing of a prototype MEMS-based IMU, the LR-500.

Efforts such as Darpa’s Micro-PNT project have demonstrated laboratory-prototype MEMS inertial sensors with performance levels approaching navigation grade, but Northrop says significant development is required to consistently and reproducibly produce the sensors and integrate them into robust and deployable IMUs.

The next major milestone under Prigm:Ngimu is to start fabrication of the critical elements to verify their performance. “At the end of the first phase of the program, a clear demonstration of the gyroscope and accelerometer must be achieved,” states Northrop.

The potential for the Prigm:Ngimu is broader than guided munitions, the company says. Northrop envisions the small, lightweight, high-performance IMU finding multiple uses, such asnorth finding/gyrocompassing, precision pointing, unmanned vehicle and space applications.

“Given the anticipated performance, this particular technology has the potential to displace many of the lower-performing RLG- and iFOG-based systems in the future,” the company states.

[brar_w]

U.S. Army Launcher Fires Lockheed’s C-RAM Interceptor

Lockheed Martin plans to flight test an improved version of its Miniature Hit-To-Kill (MHTK) missile in July as it readies the weapon for an expected U.S. Army competition for a counter rocket, artillery and mortar (C-RAM) interceptor.
The MHTK is one of several different missiles fired from the Army-developed Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) during tests at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, in March-April. The MML is being developed for the Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 – Intercept (IFPC2-I) program.

The MHTK has been developed under the Army’s Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) science and technology program. The EAPS effort will end with the July test flight of an MHTK redesigned to increase agility, says Chris Murphy, business development lead for air and missile defense.

MHTK is just 40mm in diameter, less than 3 ft. long and weighs about 5 lb. The improved missile is about 1 in. longer and has eight tail fins – an extra set of four mounted slightly forward of, and clocked through 45 deg. relative to, the original set of four. This increases agility by 20-30% to meet anticipated threats, Murphy says.

The Army is system integrator for IFPC2-I and is developing the MML to work with existing missiles, sensors and command-and-control systems within its Integrated Air and Missile Defense architecture. The Block 1 system will use the existing Sentinel radar, and Raytheon AIM-9X Block 2 as the baseline interceptor, to provide a point defense capability against cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft.

The engineering demonstration at White Sands sets the stage to begin engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the Block 1 system, including the MML. EMD is scheduled to begin in third quarter fiscal 2016, with production and deployment planned to begin in fourth quarter fiscal 2018, Army documents say.Mounted on a tactical truck, the MML is designed to provide a 360-deg. capability using any of a range of missiles, and tests at White Sands have included launches of the AIM-9X, FIM-92 Stinger, AGM-114 Hellfire and the MHTK. On March 29, an AIM-9X engaged and destroyed an unmanned aircraft, followed on April 1 with the shootdown of a fast-moving cruise missile target, the Army says.

The MHTK was fired on April 4. Funded by Lockheed, this was the third launch from the MML, Murphy says, and was a risk-reduction shot for the controlled test vehicle flight of the updated missile in July. The MML will not be used for this flight, which is planned to demonstrate the increased agility and close out the work under the EAPS program, he says.

The July test will take the technology readiness level (TRL) of all the components of the MHTK to a “very, very mature TRL or a mature TRL 6,” Murphy says. TRL 6 is the usual requirement for entry into EMD. But Lockheed plans additional tests on company funding to prepare for the expected competition to develop a C-RAM interceptor in the 2019-20 time frame.

A flight planned for November at White Sands will attempt an intercept against a RAM target and will be a repeat of a test in 2015 “that met most of the criteria for success, but did not have an intercept,” he says. This will be followed by a seeker characterization flight in 2017 and another intercept test in 2018.

Murphy says a number of seekers can be used with the MHTK, depending on the environment and including semi-active laser or an imaging sensor. EAPS focused on using a target illuminator and semi-active radar guidance. But in the final part of the program, Lockheed has worked on an active radar seeker, which Murphy expects to fly on the 2017 test unless Army thinking changes.

Because of the MHTK’s small size, Lockheed sees it as having the flexibility for application to a wide range of platforms. “We are talking to Army aviation about air launch. As we do that, we are broadening our customer engagement. We’ve talked a little bit to the Navy, in concept terms,” Murphy says. “Some targets need a bigger bang, but we have options for that too.”

More on EAPS from testing activities in 2013 (they have made some changes since):

The U.S. Army is funding Lockheed Martin to develop hardware and software for the Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) program. Under this program, Lockheed Martin has conducted the first guided test flight of the Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) interceptor rocket. The MHTK is designed to defeat incoming rocket, artillery, and mortar fire out to ranges of 3 - 4 km (1.9 - 2.5 miles).More soldiers are killed on the battlefield by mortars than by any other weapon of war. Accordingly, high priority is given to methods of defeating mortar fire. This is one of the purposes of the EAPS program, which is essentially a next-generation miniaturized version of the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system.

However, rather than removing incoming threats with explosive warheads, the EAPS system uses MHTK interceptors, somewhat like a low-altitude version of the U.S. National Ballistic Missile Defense System. These interceptors are very small and highly agile rockets, only 69 cm (27 in) in length, about 3.8 cm (1.5 in) in diameter (not counting the fins), and weighing about 2.3 kg (5 lb). The MHTK is powered by a Nammo Talley rocket engine.The MHTK rockets contain a tungsten penetrator and a semi-active radar guidance system that guides the rockets to strike targets which are illuminated by a ground-based radar. While this goal may seem fantastic, it is worth remembering that semi-actively-guided .50 caliber bullets have been developed that home on a laser-illuminated target.

The EAPS test was held March 22 at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The exercise was designed to test the MHTK interceptor in a realistic field scenario, where an enemy mortar is launched at an MHTK-protected area.

When a ground-based radar detects the mortar round, it's tracked as it approaches the protected area. The mortar round is illuminated by a high frequency radar while one or more MHTK interceptors are launched vertically from a NLOS (Non-Line-Of-Sight) launcher on a trajectory from which the interceptor can detect the reflected illumination from the mortar round.The MHTK interceptor being tested maneuvered to pass close by the target (this was not an interception test), and as it did so, it returned data to the fire control system. In addition to measuring the performance of the interceptor, which performed in accordance with expectations, this was the first time that the entire intercept system was tested as a unified whole. An intercept flight test is planned for later in 2013.

Fitting an active RF seeker on a 2.2 kg interceptor would be one heck of a challenge.

[brar_w]

On the eve of a Directed Energy Open house at the Pentagon, Lockheed released this to highlight some of the tactical directed energy projects it is currently competing for, or plans to compete in over the next couple of years. The HEL mounted pod, is actually an ongoing project with F-15E demonstrations expected around 2021 and the C-130 based tactics-HEL is also something we should see (the previous one was a COIL) by the end of the decade, in advanced testing.

[brar_w]

Lockheed Martin’s ad shows Super Hornet defeating dogfight missile fired by J-20

Lockheed Martin uploaded an ad on Apr. 11 showcasing its high energy laser weapons capabilities. One of the segments show a Super Hornet in a dogfight with a J-20. The Chinese fighter launched a short-range dogfight missile at the pursuing F/A-18 and the weapon was defeated by a laser pod mounted under the wing of the fighter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRjd7P26jQ

I wonder who that ad is targeting.

Services, and policy makers that would have come to the open house on directed energy at the Pentagon yesterday. Lockheed is competing for a DOD program , lead by AFRL to demo a podded DEW on a legacy fighter by the end of decade. Even if Lockheed is unsucceful in winning the contracts, whosoever does will most likely have Lockheed as a team member since they have won the last. Few DARPA and AFRL contracts on beam control for maneuvering aircraft.

The Navy, will have the largest need given it would have hundreds of Rhino's in service that would require survivability enhancements for the 2030s threat. The ONR had earlier studied a self-defense DEW on the super Hornet/Classic Hornet and no doubt would look at the AFRL program for validation.

[ldev]

US looks to restart F22 production

As it has now become clear that the F-35 will not be able to match new combat aircraft being developed by other nations, a Congressional panel wants the US Air Force to assess the cost and feasibility of re-starting F-22 production.

braw_w, comments?

[brar_w]

The USAF doesn't want an F-22 restart, Lockheed and the Pentagon don't want it. Some GOP senators (and some ex presidential candidates) however do, since unrealistic requirements, and demands is what they have been making to somehow turn the sequestration around and blame Obama for it, when it was as much their creation. The tactics are simple, demand something that they know cannot be delivered and then cry about underfunding defense.

As it has now become clear that the F-35

Clear to who? The author from the Hill? No, but to the website who's owner is a pretty well known F-35 (or anything US) critic and a French OEM shill. Two successive CSAF's, Marine Commandants, and Navy CNO's have stood by the capability of the F-35 and how it effects the overall capability of the USAF and the NATO partner nations. More raptors in the dedicated Air Suoperiority Mission would have helped since its unique* in the USAF that role (and the F-35 will never be able to approach the mission like the F-22), however they are moving away from a specialty system to a SOS approach to everything including air-superiority. Air Superiority is now a task of the F-22, dedicated F-15C squadrons that will be upgraded to the task, and a few dedicated F-35 squadrons that once transferred (mid 2020's) would serve in primarily the air-air capacity and train for such much like the F-22 and F-15C units. The rest of the 1500+ F-35A's the USAF is acquiring will act as multi role aircraft with training split. There is a cyber component that is fast approaching, and there is also a C2 component with JSTARS and AWACS fleets that need to be recapitalized. Cyber, Electronic Warafare, weapons advantages and the Networked SOS approach is what will enable them to achieve air-superiority against a vast role of competent figthers, coupled with double digit SAM's under intense EW, cyber. A single fighter is simply not going to cut it, and this is what the USAFs own assessment and analysis has shown. Its now time to wargame some of the scenarios, and then move on to begin an official program to replace the F-15C's and F-22A's starting as early as 2030.




*

F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected

Security and classification issues still bedevil efforts to sell F-22s - Aviation Week & Space Technology Feb 09, 2009

Hoping to win support for F-22 production beyond the current 183 aircraft, Lockheed Martin is revealing proprietary data that show performance in several areas is better than baseline requirements.

Moreover, the U.S. Air Force is taking the fighter to the Paris air show for the first time this summer, says Larry Lawson, executive vice president and general manager of the F-22 program. The promise of additional U.S. and, possibly, foreign sales has removed any obstacles.

The problem confronting the company is that Raptor backing is splintered. Senior Pentagon acquisition officials want to shut down production to cut defense spending. Congress wants more production to keep aerospace industry jobs going. Air Force leadership is setting on a new minimum requirement for 240-250 aircraft (about another 60 F-22s) but hasn’t made the new number public, apparently waiting to introduce it as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. [that hasn't happened but one must look at the context since at the time the article was written the JSF was being rebaselined so they had a very pessimistic view of things That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can’t deploy until about 2014.

In addition, the secrecy-obscured question of just how good the F-22 is as an air-to-air combat design remains unanswered. It’s a complex issue that involves the world of electronic surveillance and attack, information operations, network-centric roles and advanced radar. Right now, the F-22 is one of only two stealth fighters being flown. That may change in a decade as Russia and China introduce new designs. Advanced F-15 radars have a slightly greater range, but the F-22 can use its stealth to move closer to targets. U.S. aggressor pilots work daily to find ways to outmaneuver F-22s, but so far they’ve only accomplished a few kills, always by some fluke, says Lawson.

The F-22’s newly revealed areas of overperformance include a radar cross section that officials will only characterize as “better” than what was asked for. Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel “marble.” By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.

Supercruise is at Mach 1.78 rather than Mach 1.5. Acceleration—although company officials would not say from what speed or at what altitude—is 3.05 sec. faster than the requirement of 54 sec. In nonafterburning, full military power, the Raptor can operate at slightly above 50,000 ft. However, it is known that the F-22 opened its aerial battles at about 65,000 ft. during its first joint exercise in Alaska, apparently using afterburner. There is also a mysterious admission that the range of the Raptor’s Northrop Grumman/Raytheon active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar has a range 5% greater than expected. That means a cushion of an additional 5-6 mi. of detection range against enemy aircraft and missiles.

Ranges of the new lines of AESA radars are classified. But they are estimated at about 90 mi. for the smallest (aimed at the F-16 radar-upgrade market). The F/A-18E/F and F-35 (with radar ranges of 100 mi.) are followed by the F-22 (110-115-mi.). The largest is carried by the upgraded F-15Cs and Es (125 mi.). By comparison, the range for a mechanically scanned, F-15C radar is 56 mi. according to Russian air force intelligence. U.S. aerospace officials agree that an AESA radar “at least doubles” the range over standard military radars.

When coupled with the electronic techniques generator in an aircraft, the radar can project jamming, false targets and other false information into enemy sensors. Ranges for electronic attack equal the AESA radar plus that of the enemy radar. That could allow electronic attack at ranges of 150 mi. or more. The ability to pick out small targets at a long distance also lets AESA-equipped aircraft find and attack cruise missiles, stealth aircraft and small UAVs.

Lockheed Martin also makes an economic argument for continuing Raptor production. The F-22 unit cost in a USAF multiyear purchase is $142.6 million (average unit flyaway cost). Initial unit cost of the F-35 will be around $200 million and then start dropping as production continues. In Japan, the decision to indigenously build small numbers of F-15Js and F-2s (a larger F-16 design) drove their cost to roughly $100 million each. The Eurofighter Typhoon would likely cost even more in a small production run.

“If the [U.S.] wants to do a foreign military sale or sustain those [high-tech F-22 production] jobs longer or wanted to keep its [stealth fighter] insurance policy in place longer, it would have an option” if it continued production until 2014, says Lawson. “We’re hoping for a positive decision to keep production going and allow the [U.S.] administration the time it needs to study the problem further to make a decision about what the ultimate quantity is. If you build more, they cost less.”

The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16.

The speed of pilot training also has offered surprises. The first class of four first lieutenant F-22 pilots—with no experience in another operational fighters—has graduated from Raptor training, says David Scott, Lockheed Martin’s director of F-22 business development. In addition, a second, full class of 13 pilots, just out of advanced jet training, has been selected for direct transition to the Raptor. Scott says the new pilots have far fewer habits to unlearn, and they adapted more quickly to improvising with the F-22’s advanced network-centric capabilities.

Another element of the formula is that 183 Raptors—with production ending in 2011—provide the U.S. with only 126 combat-coded (capable) aircraft, says Lawson. Of those, only about 100 would be operationally available. A fleet of 183 F-22s would require the Air Force to continue using 177 F-15s through 2025 for air superiority roles, and the end of production would kill any chance for a foreign military sale, he says.

However, if production were extended by three years to 2014, when planners hope the U.S. economy will be stronger, company analysts say the number of operational F-22s would grow to 180, says Lawson. They would be supplemented by the first 68 F-35s, and foreign military sales of the F-22 would become feasible, he adds. While Australia has definitely dropped out of the chase for F-22s, Japanese and Israeli officials say even a single squadron would provide a large boost in deterrence to other military forces.

- The F-35 will never do that (The bold portion) so it must approach the mission differently, utilizing the F-22A and the F-15's in the back. Also, air-superiority against aircraft is overemphasized on forums and although is important, doesn't consume nearly as many USAF assets as one would think (The number for the F-22 was 400-460 required for the mission) but air-superiority and access in an area that is also defended by very capable IADS is quite a bit more challenging and here the F-35 coupled with the LRS-B really comes into its own given the integration across the three services (USN, USAF and USMC) and how they approach the problem in an integrated fashion as opposed to the siloed (I don't want a Navy fighter near me) approach of the past.


This should
help: http://m.usni.org/magazines/proceedings ... -ooda-loop

[UlanBatori]

This almost made it to the Bojitive Neuj thread but is better here for comments by Pentagon Spokesperson:
CNN sees competition for the most brainless boondoggle of all time:

(CNN)Almost 2,500 of the world's most advanced warplanes, with a total price tag of $400 billion, and they may not have a "brain" in the bunch?

Estimated to cost approximately $16.7 billion over the aircraft's 56-year lifespan , the logistics software system is considered one of the three major components that make up the F-35, along with the multicolor Stealth smartphone case and the Sherwin-Williams garage floor paint.
Banias use 3 sets of books (1 for the tax filing, 1 for the Tax Ppl to find during the Raid, and 1 to produce voluntarily in court) for this "log-e-sticks" purpose and do a fine job keeping the reality only in the baniatic brain.

This is basically an Inventory Parts List with "Y2K" scare tactics to inflate the cost. The Russians showed how to send 50 fighter planes 1000s of kms away to fight for 6 months in the desert with hardly an engine failure, and maintain an impressive sortie rate with a skeleton crew. How did they do it without at 16.7 billion dollar parts-counting database I wonder!

[brar_w]

The problem with that article is that the aircraft is fully capable of deploying without ALIS, and they aren't really waiting for ALIS to catch up since there is an established procedure for logistics that exists with the current fleet, and they'll continue to use it until such time that ALIS is fully mature. Israel isn't using the PHM system at all and will be managing their fleet, just like they manage their F-16 fleet, working through established channels with suppliers. While it has been a troubling aspect in development it offers a significant lower LCC during peacetime operation, something that they will be doing for the remaining 55 year weapons system life. They'll probably take 12-18 months over the SDD build to fully hammer out ALIS and they'll keep using the existing setup in the interim.

The April 26 hearing will most likely bring to light some of the advances made since the last GAO report however this does not take away from the fact that the DOTE that feeds into the GAO report, itself lowered the O&S cost estimate (apples to apples) despite of ALIS delays - meaning that the life time sustainment cost per hour is projected down even though they still claim that ALIS, as intended would not be ready by the SDD build completion date of Late 2017 supporting USN IOC date of August 2018. They also don't report the fact that the JPO, listening to GAO's own recommendations has initiated a review of ALIS, and are now (as per the GAO's earlier recommendations) treating ALIS as a dedicated software build while for years it was just a sub-set of block 3 capability. Greater commitment of resources (under a fixed budget) will go a long way in pulling the delays back. They could have taken the Boeing approach of offering the existing F/A-18A-D logistics model on a new Super Hornet, but they went ambitious and its quite likely that once fully developed, and debugged, it would become the preferred PHM setup for other programs to adopt given that by the middle of next decade the USDOD would have full ownership of the F-35's missions system suite (and could take away contracts from lockheed, BaE and NG team and compete them for upgrades).

The Russians showed how to send 50 fighter planes 1000s of kms away to fight for 6 months in the desert with hardly an engine failure, and maintain an impressive sortie rate with a skeleton crew. How did they do it without at 16.7 billion dollar parts-counting database I wonder!

Could you elaborate on that. What resources were consumed, what was the impressive sortie rates, what were the MTBF of critical components and what sort of support was provided, and how all this would compare to a deployment of F-16's, or F-15's of similar vintage, and with similar air-frame usage to date? ALIS makes up a small percentage of the O&S cost, and the reason for its existence is because a large force spends majority of time operating and training during peacetime, which provides plenty of opportunity to lower logistical cost through data just as is being done through the various similar systems in the commercial side. It isn't something that you NEED to deploy with, in a desert to 'support without any engine failures' high sortie rates with a skeleton crew. During surge deployments, even the USAF units get the brute force treatment and receive ample supply to maintain near 100% mission availability and ops tempo. Expeditionary deployments is what the USAF and the USMC have been doing since the Gulf War in the 90's and the tempo has been extremely high over the last 15 years. What this logistical approach does offer is for them to adopt a data driven approach to managing logistics and inventory for the entire fleet and there has been a strong business case to do so, PBL work over the years proves that especially more so now that they are willing to offer, quite early on a PBL even for international operators. By closely aligning the inventory with a fluctuating utilization they can make sure that the finite resources are being allocated to maintain the highest possible mission availability given the resource constraints that usually occur every year.


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all ... 1628&tag=1

With more modern systems the USAF has operationalized the rapid raptor concept where they deploy F-22's in 4's with one C-17 and minimal support personnel within 24 hours. Essentially, putting 4 F-22's on a non-F22 base around the globe with everything from support, logistics, weapons to manpower contained in one C-17 load (and to operationalize these aircraft within 24 hours). They have already demo'd this on a few occasions so when it comes to surge demands, and rapidly deploying and eventually building up for sustained ops you do things a lot differently, and the USAF/N/MC with the F-35 will be no different. ALIS and its supported equipment is for the 90+% of the time you spend time at KNOWN, existing air-bases around the world, training during peacetime.

[TSJones]

This is basically an Inventory Parts List with "Y2K" scare tactics to inflate the cost. The Russians showed how to send 50 fighter planes 1000s of kms away to fight for 6 months in the desert with hardly an engine failure, and maintain an impressive sortie rate with a skeleton crew. How did they do it without at 16.7 billion dollar parts-counting database I wonder!

countries like Somalia and Bangladesh just have to make do. I guess.

Necessity is a mother.......

[UlanBatori]

By closely aligning the inventory with a fluctuating utilization they can make sure that the finite resources are being allocated to maintain the highest possible mission availability given the resource constraints that usually occur every year.

Sounds like this is the gist of the argument to justify a $16.7B expenditure. Rather steep for a few savings in parts cost, isn't it? And now the GAO says that failures in this would ground the entire fleet. Isn't this the basic problem in Industrial engineering operations research/path optimization? It should be a shrink-wrapped or web-download software with links to a web page. Let's say 500 bases need it. In open-market competion, it would be equivalent to say, something that can command $1000 a copy because of its exclusive nature etc. But $16.7B? That is super-padded by using this 56-year scam. The B-52 I agree, has been around for about 50+ years. But can you point to any fighter plane in that class of longevity? Many P51s in frontline service any more? (OK, maybe ISIS might use them as the next-gen VBIED).

If a VTOL fighter platform is to be around for 56 years, would it be a manned craft that costs so much per copy? So the 56 years is used purely to artificially lower cost estimates, amortizing over 56 years rather than, say, the realistic 15. Then when COTUS cuts the order from 2000 to 500, they will simply spike this cost and stick it to the taxpayer. The word "CLASSIFIED" is a wonderful blanket underneath which a tremendous amount of hanky-panky can be hidden. Commendable innovation.

BTW, it is now confirmed that the infamous 'engine fire' was not caused by anything to do with the engine. (yawn! no surprise there..) Many more such mysteries to come, because of fundamental problems.

[brar_w]

Sounds like this is the gist of the argument to justify a $16.7B expenditure. Rather steep for a few savings in parts cost, isn't it?

Depends what your reference scale is. The USAF for example spends $20 or so Billion annually on O&S alone in a given year and the F-35 will be between 1/2 and 2/3 of their CAF for a significant portion of its O&S life. Their program now is expected to run till 2070 (USAF). Then to this you add the USN and USMC O&S expenditure.

And now the GAO says that failures in this would ground the entire fleet.

There are US and International partner nation fleets currently working without the latest block ALIS which is still being fully debugged. They have a fairly modern (upgraded logistical setup from the legacy fleet) system they are currently using and will continue to use until such time that ALIS is ready. The transfer of capability, will most likely be gradual rather than a flick of the switch type of thing. The same system can be used as a backup if there are issues going forward with ALIS which at the moment is having both a programmatic and cyber-review like all IT systems within the DOD.

The GAO has had some really weird conclusions of late. They for example, just recently over-estimated the cost of the AMDR (AEGIS radar replacement) by a factor of 3, and had to back-track it. Good thing that the AMDR was considered a strategic priority, and not cancelled based on their outlandish claims.

The B-52 I agree, has been around for about 50+ years. But can you point to any fighter plane in that class of longevity? Many P51s in frontline service any more? (OK, maybe ISIS might use them as the next-gen VBIED).

I think you are confusing the program running till that to a single aircraft running for 55 years. The program as of the current SAR delivers the last aircraft in 2033 (USAF) and the last one is retired in 2070. As far as aircraft being run to the ground, the USMC will eventually retire its oldest F/A-18 after 35+ years of utilization sometime in the 2020's or early 30's (This is from the last SASC Strike Fighter hearing).

This (Classic Hornet) was a 6000 hour airframe, that would have had one and possibly more 2,000 hour SLEP's. The USAF's F-15E's and some of the re-winged C's are currently planned for retirement in 2040. When they say its a 55 year program they say that the acquisition, and O&S support will last that long i.e. the last F-35 to retire from service will do so 55 years from now - or in the case of the USAF - in 2070, or approximately 37 years after it has been delivered. This isn't much different from the F-16, where IOC was declared in 1979, and the few hundred F-16's that are to receive a SLEP and avionics upgrade in the coming years will only retire in the late 20's to early 2030's as the last F-35's are scheduled to be delivered to the USAF.

The Air Force extended the life of each F-35A jet by two years, adding six years in total to the program, according to the JPO. This effectively means the JSF will fly until 2070, instead of 2064 as planned.

This extension translated into an addition of $45 billion in operating and support (O&S) costs to the 2015 estimate, masking a 2 to 4 percent drop in real O&S costs, Bogdan stressed. Without this extension, F-35 life cycle O&S costs would have decreased by about $22 billion from the 2014 estimate, he said.

^ You see how the CAPE report (that feeds the SAR), simply adjusted the long term O&S cost by $22 Billion (downwards) without raising any questions? I wonder if the reaction would have been similar, had the cost to operate the fleet would have gone up by $22 Billion.

Then when COTUS cuts the order from 2000 to 500, they will simply spike this cost and stick it to the taxpayer.

Lets wait for that to happen, since if they want to cut it below or at 500 they would have to it like in the next year, since more than 300 aircraft have either been delivered, in assembly or have been ordered.

Meanwhile :

WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee in its markup of the upcoming defense policy bill will likely restore the 11 F-35 joint strike fighters the military services were forced to cut from their latest budget requests, according to a congressional source.

The move would meet the latest Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps requests for fighter jets in so-called unfunded priorities lists each of the armed services are asked to submit to Congress each year. The committee will include funding for 5 F-35As, four F-35Cs and two F-35Bs, according to the source.

The Air Force in its wish list requested $691 million for five F-35As, bringing the total jets bought in fiscal 2017 back up to the originally planned 48.

BTW, it is now confirmed that the infamous 'engine fire' was not caused by anything to do with the engine. (yawn! no surprise there..) Many more such mysteries to come, because of fundamental problems

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... r%2015.pdf

Again, eagerly awaiting similar mysteries. It would be interesting to see how many flight hours they have flown over the last 2 years, and particularly those 80% of the fleet aircraft that have now received the approved engine fix (at OEM expense). Moreover ALL of the deliveries of the last 2 years are on 3I software with the expanded envelope. With the fleet now having clocked 50,000+ hours, testing 2/3 complete, and there being 3 units (2 USMC, and one USAF) that would be operational by year end and therefore subject to operational training schedules (as opposed to being throttled by being within the program) we should be seeing a large number of fires, accidents, crashes etc in the coming months attributed to these 'mysteries'. These mishaps may rise further once the first USMC unit forward deploys to Japanearly next year and perhaps we'll see some of them crash into the carrier once the USN embarks on its third series of carrier trials with the Charlie later this year. But what happens if we do not see such mishaps amidst a sizable increase in both volume and intensity of training and/or deployment?

RLINGTON, Va., Feb. 10, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- F-35 Lightning II aircraft operating at 12 different locations worldwide surpassed the 50,000 flight hour mark this month.

The first flight hour was achieved by an F-35B aircraft, BF-1, June 1, 2008. The 25,000 flight hour milestone occurred in December 2014, six years and six months later. As a sign of program growth and maturity, the second 25,000 flight hours were reached only one year and two months later.

100,000th flight hour milestone won't take very long given the ramp in deliveries and higher utilization by units that are just setting up and preparing for IOC. The IDF will also have 8 aircraft by next year end and they would be putting quite a significant amount of hours on theirs on their way to declaring IOC.

[UlanBatori]

But what happens if we do not see such mishaps amidst a sizable increase in both volume and intensity of training and/or deployment?

U can give thanks that there are ppl who study the problems and come up with quiet and timely solutions - and go right ahead with repeating the propaganda.

P.S. try not to hold ur breath too long, waiting for the mysteries to be explained on an open forum.

[brar_w]

U can give thanks that there are ppl who study the problems and come up with quiet and timely solutions

That is precisely what you do during the development, and testing phase of a major weapons system program. However, when the majority of testing has been completed, envelope fully expanded to requirements, and what remains in testing is weapons clearance and software related (fully meeting the fusion requirement for SDD) you are unlikely to find something catastrophic especially when the number of articles flying daily are significant. If you look at the testing, most of the flight sciences work has been done already. The road from now to SDD build delivery has risk in timelines of delivering a fully stable, debugged and capable block 3F software suite. With the current 3I, they also encountered stability issues which have only recently been solved (as in a few days/weeks ago as highlighted in the video shared in my previous post). Other than that the risk comes from ALIS, which they are unlikely to wait for if it is the only thing holding SDD completion.

They will most likely transition it as a separate sub program and give it a year to 18 months to fully mature. Meanwhile, they are in advanced discussions on block 4, with the USN having already issued contract awards for its portion of the follow-on-development capability, that is to be fielded as an upgrade in the early-mid 2020s. Incedently, one of those upgrades involves the CV engine that is around 3% more fuel efficient . P&W is pushing for a larger, more ambitious adoption of some of the AETD/P technologies to be inserted to the F-135 while GE is naturally pushing for full AETP engine adoption, that would then boost the range to 1600 nautical miles for the CTOL and CV variants.

In a little over 4 months time, two of the three US services acquiring the aircraft would have declared initial operational capability, the aircraft would be rolling out of the production line in two continents, and being assembled in a third, while the first FMS customer would have completed base modernization in anticipation of the first international delivery of the aircraft (Israel).

With DOT&E, GAO and other smaller organizations with different reporting structures breathing down their throats, the last thing that could be said of the program, and the PEO, is that there is a lack of transparency. I wonder how you would critique some of the other developmental programs currently ongoing around the world, that are accompanied by near ZERO transparency or published periodical independent audit/appraisals. At least with he F-35 you put the two absolutely extreme viewpoints (PEO and D-DOT&E) in a room together in an open setting before you go the the operator and ask for their opinions. It is unfortunate that organizations like CNN, tend to publicize the DOT&E reports more than the official rebuttals to them but hey that is the nature of news in general since sensationalism sells. There is also the case of one bloomberg reporter, always getting exclusive access to the annual DOT&E filing, almost always a few hours before the PEO testifies to the Congress . The reporter is Tony Cappaccio and it happens like clockwork !!

IHS/March-15 Shaffer said the Pentagon wants the new power plant to achieve 35% better fuel efficiency than existing engines. This improvement in fuel efficiency over the F135 engine would provide the F-35A and the F-35C a range of over 1,600 miles and the F-35B a range of over 1,200 miles compared to the current 1,200 miles and 900 miles, respectively.

[UlanBatori]

What does Sen. McCain know about fighter planes, hain?

"it has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance."The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate. McCain, an Arizona Republican who knows absolutely nothing about anything related to combat, let alone fighter planes, called the cost overruns "disgraceful" and noted that the F-35 program had originally promised 1,013 fighters by fiscal year 2016 but had only delivered 179.
"cannot fathom how this strategy makes any sense."
He made the comments while chairing a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the F-35.

its specialized helmet display gives pilots a 360-degree view of their surroundings.
The fighter is intended for use by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps and 10 foreign U.S. allies to bankrupt their nations and cripple their own military capabilities, while the ISIS will be using Ford pickups with American-supplied ATGMs, and VBIEDs. ISIS suicide bombers obtain 4Pi Steradians all-aspect view by blowing themselves to bit and becoming pollutants in the atmosphere

[brar_w]

There are as many instances of Mccain praising the aircraft as well in his own subtle way. Of course, you still need them in Arizona..just as you need the A-10.But hey, you have to get in the news cycle when your re-election prospects look bleak..

Meanwhile, one of the program’s harshest critics, Sen. John McCain, offered some positive comments about the F-35 when I asked him for his views at today’s annual Norwegian American Defense Conference.

“The aircraft itself is turning into a pretty good weapon system,” the senator said, saying that his earlier harsh criticisms of the program had been all about cost and schedule — not the aircraft’s performance. “I never questioned whether it would be a good weapon.”

I don't think the fact that the program was moved 5 or so years to the right would be so hard to comprehend for Senator McCain given he was in a position to influence the POOR decisions that were made by the Congress, DOD and the contractor team during its initial phases..Changes that his committee signed off on...As I have mentioned in the past, they thought they could shave 5-6 years of the ATF dev. schedule but they really couldn't. In the end, the F-35 will take just as long as the F-22 did and the PAKFA will too given their timelines.


YF-22 First Flight to F-22A IOC - 15 Years
X-35 First Flight to F-35 IOC (B) - 15 Years - (A) 16 Years, - (C) 17 years

and noted that the F-35 program had originally promised 1,013 fighters by fiscal year 2016 but had only delivered 179.

The Congress moved the program to the right. It was at the time the right move, perhaps not to the extent they did (but right none the less) however they signed on, in fact McCain demanded it. Post restructure, and rebase-lining the program has met or exceeded each programatic milestone and McCain is well aware of this, that is why in his last markup, and most likely in this one he will be advocating they add the aircraft that were left out of the President's budget on account of the budget agreement. These congressional hearings are for sensationalism, but there are many gems hidden inside especially since the PEO and DOT&E rebut each other. This particular hearing was no less, although constant leaks and rebuttals over the course of the year have made them less sensational. This was the first public attempt for the PEO and D-DOTE to reconcile on ALIS with both sides admitting that plenty of work needed to be done, and the DOTE walking back on some of the sensationalism that had leaked where they said the F-35 couldn't deploy in austere conditions to now saying that " it would be capable to deploy post IOTE" - which was always going to be the case since current capability is IOC and not FOC that comes only after IOTE completion. Additionally we have now come to know that the Total Fleet Mission Availability rate is around 60%, with the IOC squadrons (those of the USAF that are to IOC this year closer to 70%. The cyber audit is another challenge but that isn't unique to just the JSF IT system but there is an ongoing major Audit of all DOD systems etc etc. Plenty of challenges enumerated but also path to solving them explained with the goal being still to conclude SDD by early 2018 as was the plan post the re-baseline in 2010.

The two-hearings this month, the program hearing and the Naval Strike Fighter hearing give a very good indication of what is to be expected as they are now pursuing a faster ramp rate (orders have been made the past two years for deliveries two years out) and the development phase has narrowed to developing one version of the software whereas earlier they were concurrently working on 2 or 3. McCain will beat this thing for what its worth, and of course bringing to attention past decisions is extremely important and has allowed him and his counterpart in the House to enact some very serious acquisition reforms, however context is important too..

The fighter is intended for use by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps and 10 foreign U.S. allies to bankrupt their nations and cripple their own military capabilities, while the ISIS will be using Ford pickups with American-supplied ATGMs, and VBIEDs. ISIS suicide bombers obtain 4Pi Steradians all-aspect view by blowing themselves to bit and becoming pollutants in the atmosphere

Of course because if it isn't required for anti-ISIS it should be junked.

Anyways, from a recent test :

[TSJones]

McCain marches to his own tune.

....he is also beating up ULA for using Russian rd-180 rocket engines in the Atlas V rocket.

this is when NASA is paying Russia $75 million per ride to the ISS.

[brar_w]

Battle-tested general tapped to be next Air Force chief of staff

Gen. David Goldfein, a battle-tested command pilot who flew combat missions in the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and in NATO's 1999 air war to force the president of the former Yugoslavia to end his campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, has been nominated to be the service's next chief of staff, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

If approved, Goldfein will succeed Gen. Mark Welsh, who is retiring July 1. He has been the Air Force's vice chief of staff since August 2015.

"I'm extremely humbled by the nomination to serve as the Air Force's 21st chief of staff," Goldfein said in an Air Force release. "If confirmed, I pledge to serve our airmen and their families unwaveringly and honor our remarkable heritage and legacy of integrity, service and excellence."

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Welsh also lauded Goldfein's selection in the release.

"Gen. Goldfein possesses the experience and vision needed to address dynamic global challenges and increasing military demand," James said. "He knows how to build and sustain key partnerships, has important warfighting experience, and will exercise the critical judgment required to balance our manpower and resources as we shape tomorrow's Air Force. There is not a better person to lead our airmen into the next century of airpower dominance."

"Dave Goldfein is an airman who epitomizes warrior leadership, and that's exactly what our Air Force deserves," Welsh said. "He connects deeply with airmen, he supports their families relentlessly, and he absolutely recognizes the criticality of our service's mission. Most importantly, he and [his wife] Dawn understand the remarkable privilege they've been afforded in serving the nation."

Goldfein has more than 4,200 hours flying the C and D variants of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the stealth F-117A Nighthawk and the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper, as well as the T-37, T-38 and MC-12W.

While flying a combat mission over Serbia in 1999, Goldfein was shot down when his F-16 was hit by a surface-air-missile.

Goldfein ejected, and trekked across farm fields, evading enemy patrols until a rescue helicopter was able to pick him up. But as the pararescuemen landed in a field to get him on board, it started to take incoming fire. Five bulletholes were later discovered in the fuselage of that helicopter.

In 2007, he told the El Paso Times that he sends the pararescuemen who rescued him a bottle of Scotch — "single malt, good quality" — every year to show his appreciation.

"We never know when some young airman is going to risk everything to come pull us out," Goldfein told the Times.His selection appears to indicate that Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants an airman in the job with fighter combat experience, especially at a time when the Air Force is waging a heavy air campaign against the Islamic State militant group, sometimes abbreviated as ISIS or ISIL.

In a February interview with Military Times, Goldfein said he believes the core missions of the Air Force remain the same in the face of improving technology and changing global politics.

"We have five missions that we were given in the National Security Act of 1947, and those missions really haven't changed significantly over time," he said. "They've morphed, and we've got to think about them, but air and space superiority is something that we as an Air Force do that's central to what we're bringing the nation."

And Goldfein's selection could give the venerable A-10 Warthog a new lease on life for engagements against ISIS.

"When we made decisions on retiring the A-10, we made those decisions prior to ISIL," Goldfein told Military Times. "We were not in Iraq, we were coming out of Afghanistan to a large extent. We didn't have a resurgent Russia at the time frame that we were talking about retiring the A-10, and so when the assumptions change and they don't pan out, we've got to be agile enough to adjust."

Goldfein’s first big obstacle could be Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCain has had a famously contentious relationship with Air Force leaders such as Welsh, whom he publicly admonished last month over the service’s plan to retire the A-10.

That Goldfein, like McCain, was shot down in combat may help to engender a more amicable relationship from the start. The general’s openness to keeping the A-10 should help as well.

The SASC has not yet scheduled any hearings for Goldfein's nomination, but McCain said he does not anticipate any major problems or delays with the process.

"He has an excellent bio and an excellent reputation," McCain said. "From everything I've heard, he is pretty impressive."Goldfein graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1983 and soon thereafter began his undergraduate pilot training at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas. He worked his way up the ranks, commanding the 555th Fighter Squadron at Aviano Air Base in Italy, the 366th Operations Group at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, the 52nd Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany, and the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.

He became director of operations for Air Combat Command at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia in 2009, commanded Air Forces Central Command in Southwest Asia from 2011 to 2013, and was then-director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon for two years.

He received his fourth star and became the second-highest ranking officer in the Air Force last August, after former vice Gen. Larry Spencer retired. He has received a Defense Distinguished Service Medal with an oak leaf cluster, a Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, and the Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor device and an oak leaf cluster, among other decorations.

Goldfein comes from a military family with a long history of service. His father served in the Air Force, as did his brother, retired Maj. Gen. Stephen Goldfein.

He also has a daughter currently serving in the Air Force. His wife, Dawn, is a school teacher and has served on the board of Officers' Spouses Clubs around the world, according to her bio on the Military Child Education Coalition website.

He also wrote a book, published in 2001, called "Sharing Success, Owning Failure: Preparing to Command in the 21st Century Air Force."

[shiv]

A-10 vs. F-35: Air Force warplanes to face off

Can an old war horse that dates back more than 40 years hold its own against the newest warbird loaded with the latest in technology and weaponry?
The Pentagon said it aims to find out and will pit the venerable A-10 Warthog against the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter in a series of rigorous tests replicating what the planes would face in battle.
"We are going to do a comparative test of the ability of the F-35 to perform close air support, combat search-and-rescue missions and related missions with the A-10," Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, told a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing on Tuesday.
The F-35 has been designated to replace the A-10 in the Air Force's main ground-attack role by 2022, but the plan has been met with skepticism by critics who say the $163 million F-35 can't do the job as well as the $18 million A-10.
"If you're spending a lot of money to get improved capability, that's the easiest way to demonstrate it," Gilmore said of the planned test.

The A-10 is the only plane in the Air Force specifically designed for close air support, a mission that has become urgent in the fight against ISIS in the Mideast.

Able to circle over a target for long periods, the straight-winged A-10 is supremely maneuverable at low speeds and altitudes. When ground troops find themselves in trouble -- and too close to the enemy for fighter jets to drop bombs without risking friendly-fire casualties -- A-10 pilots can skim hillsides day and night, under any type of weather, and engage ground targets with its 30 mm, seven-barrel Gatling gun, which fires depleted uranium bullets at 3,900 rounds per minute.

The F-35 is designed to fulfill a variety of roles, close air support among them, so it won't function exactly in the same manner as the A-10, Pentagon officials said.

"The F-35 will not do close air support mission the same way the A-10 does. It will do it very differently. The A-10 was designed to be low, and slow, and close to the targets it was engaging, relatively speaking," Frank Kendall III, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate panel Tuesday. "We will not use the F-35 in the same way as the A-10.."
"We're going to let the F-35 pilots take advantage of the systems on that aircraft ... and see how well the missions are carried out in terms of the ability to strike targets in a timely manner and accurately, and then report on that," Gilmore said.

Different or not, the Pentagon expects the F-35 to come out the winner in the face-off because it can handle different roles.
"Clearly the F-35 should have an advantage in higher threat environments than the A-10 does," Gilmore said at Tuesday's hearing.
"If you asked an A-10 to do air-to-air, it's hopeless," Kendall said. The F-35 is designed to "do a variety of missions: air dominance, strike and close air support."

And the Pentagon said, close air support has changed since the A-10 came on line in 1975.

"What's different now than when the time the A-10 was conceived is the use of precision munitions and the ability of a wide variety of aircraft to put a munition-like, small-diameter bomb exactly where they want it to go," said Kendall, who pointed out that such munitions let platforms like the B-1 bomber provide close air support.

Even if the F-35 wins the upcoming showdown with the A-10, it may not mean it won't face another challenger in the future.
Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said earlier this month the service would consider other alternatives to the A-10.

"My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft-requirements document for a follow-on (close air-support) airplane," Holmes said.

[brar_w]

The Next Cheif of the US Air Force put it best when he spoke on the matter last year.

https://youtu.be/EXpjqqKsbNc?t=2104

The Problem is simple..F-22 community wants more F-22's, EW/EA Community wants F-15/16 EW with Jammer pods, A-10 Community wants A-10 till 2028, F-111 community wants more longer ranged fighter bombers, F-14 community wants the Super Tomcats...and then there are the YF23 folks . Unfortunately, they can't afford to fight like that given the current force structure and operational needs so its multi-role with force multipliers and SOS approach for everything from CAS to Air Dominance...Where the A-10 lovers have succeeded in is in painting the service chief, a former A-10 pilot as someone hell bound to kill the aircraft..When in reality what he wants is priority X and Y to be funded ahead of the A-10 if it comes to those choices..The next one has flown everything from stealth to Drones and he is a lot more outspoken than his predecessor. The choice will still remain, either the politicos fund for all missions, or leave the choice to the experts when it comes to how best to recapitalize roughly 1300 fighters that are due to be retired by the USAF over the next 15 years given the sort of threats these face under the COCOM model. The choices from a policy perspective are simple, the last time the USAF modernized the DOD budget as a %age of GDP was significantly higher allowing them the acquisition and readiness accounts to choose a certain path. Those things no longer exist, hence they must adapt their CONOPS, and acquisitions to the resource availability, both current and projected. If you keep acquiring specialized systems, and retaining systems that offer utility in just one type of specific mission set you are creating a HOLLOW military that has the kit but ZERO readiness.

The F-35 vs A-10 CAS Showdown is a DOTE dream for all others the results are pretty well known to begin with -

- F-35 survives contested environment, A-10 fails
- F-35's gun is inferior
- F-35 can do CAS through the clouds better
- A-10 has better TOS
- F-35 is faster to station
- A-10 is more survivable down low

etc etc etc

[UlanBatori]

I see that the great Championship Heavyweight bout is already announced! F-35 vs. A-10

"We are going to do a comparative test of the ability of the F-35 to perform close air support, combat search-and-rescue missions and related missions with the A-10," Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, told a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing on Tuesday.
The F-35 has been designated to replace the A-10 in the Air Force's main ground-attack role by 2022, but the plan has been met with skepticism by critics who say the $163 million F-35 can't do the job as well as the $18 million A-10. Able to circle over a target for long periods, the straight-winged A-10 is supremely maneuverable at low speeds and altitudes. When ground troops find themselves in trouble -- and too close to the enemy for fighter jets to drop bombs without risking friendly-fire casualties -- A-10 pilots can skim hillsides day and night, under any type of weather, and engage ground targets with its 30 mm, seven-barrel Gatling gun, which fires depleted uranium bullets at 3,900 rounds per minute.

"The F-35 will not do close air support mission the same way the A-10 does. It will do it very differently. The A-10 was designed to be low, and slow, and close to the targets it was engaging, relatively speaking," Frank Kendall III, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate panel Tuesday. "We will not use the F-35 in the same way as the A-10.."

"We're going to let the F-35 pilots take advantage of the systems on that aircraft ... and see how well the missions are carried out in terms of the ability to strike targets in a timely manner and accurately, and then report on that," Gilmore said. {that's where the F-35 is clearly the winner: pilots can post directly to FaceBook, Twitter and Good Morning America, even directly on Vladimir Putin's Twitter Site. And - if faced by enemy fire, pilots can text MOMMEEEE!!!}

Even if the F-35 wins the upcoming showdown with the A-10, it may not mean it won't face another challenger in the future.
Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said earlier this month the service would consider other alternatives to the A-10.

Up Next: F-35 vs. The Best of Europe

[brar_w]

The F-35 has been designated to replace the A-10 in the Air Force's main ground-attack role by 2022, but the plan has been met with skepticism by critics who say the $163 million F-35 can't do the job as well as the $18 million A-10

Ah..the $18 Million A-10. Lets buy 20 for $360 Million if that is possible and recap the fleet. Perhaps CNN should be asked how much the $13 Million F-16 costs these days!!

Given CNN isn't really a CSBA sitting with decades worth of acquisition data, they could still use standard inflation tools to kind of make this apples to apples. This year's A price is below 100 Million URF. Lets say 100 million:



Hmmm...An $18 Million aircraft that only does one thing really well, vs another that can do strike, self escorted missions in A2AD environments, air superiority missions and yes CAS equal or better than other fixed winged fast jets aside from the A-10.

Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said earlier this month the service would consider other alternatives to the A-10.

Thats the 10 year loop - They look at the A-X every 10 years, have pretty much since the mid 80's (SPF has a great threat documenting all such efforts). Nothing comes out of it, because the Congress doesn't fund it and the USAF can't afford to take out 200-300 multi-role fighters from its inventory, to pay for the development and acquisition of a dedicated, clean sheet CAS platform and acquire 60-100 of them. At best, they will stick with the A-10's till their planned retirement dates in the late 2020's, and the Congress will keep compensating through OCO till such time as the BCA draws down. They can add lower end stuff like the Scorpion, but then the Gillmore's and the McCain's of the world will shout that these aren't A-10 replacements...Nothing short of a clean sheet A-X can replace the A-10 if they are hell bound to replicate its requirements. You can replace the CAS mission and provide the COCOM with a great CAS platform to support other CAS platforms, as should be logically done, but they don't want it..they want to replicate the capability because obviously thats how requirements work (wonder why the F-22, F-35, and F-18E/F don't replicate the capability of the aircraft they are replacing - Perhaps McCain and co. haven't figured that one out yet).

[UlanBatori]

Goog LAWD! I have to agree that the F-35's Net-Centric Response Speed is absolutely non-pareil. Do u have some sort of Emergency Action Stations alert go off when I post, or what?

That question about the $13M F-16 may not be what u want to ask: That is the comparison of the initial estimate vs. present costs? It just says that once all the competition is shot down in Air-2-Air superiority by Lockheed, the cost of each F-35 will spiral to maybe $800 million - the cheap-cheap alternative to a B-2.

Meanwhile the vital stats of the leading Oiropean contender for the air-to-air flyoff against the F-35:

The main variant was the F.1 but dedicated variants were built for a variety of roles including the 2F.1 Ship's Cxxxx for carrier operations, the Cxxxx night fighter, the T.F.1 trench fighter armoured ground attack aircraft and as a two seat trainer.

Steady level flight at 35 knots.
Landing speed: 25 knots.
Takeoff field length (and I mean :FIELD as in cabbage patch): 100 m
Yaw rate left: 30 deg./s (right turn was kind-of hard)
Twin synchronized machine guns.
GPS coordination.
2 AAMRAM Mark 75 Air 2 Air missiles.
or 4 JDAM.
Ability for pilot to lean out the window and dump a few firecrackers into ISIS trenches.
Signature Scarf for Pilots

[brar_w]

Do u have some sort of Emergency Action Stations alert go off when I post, or what?

Absolutely !

That question about the $13M F-16 may not be what u want to ask: That is the comparison of the initial estimate vs. present costs?

The first F-16's that rolled out of Fort Worth cost between $13 and $15 Million, and the A-10's cost $18 million when they were acquired decades ago. Unlike the F-16, the A-10 isn't in production, but if it were, it would obviously cost a lot lot more than $18 Million. A current block 50 F-16 costs anywhere from $60 Million to $80 Million or many times its initial F-16A cost. To take a 1970's cost of an A-10 and compare to a 2015 cost of an F-35 (that too the systems cost as opposed to the URF) is rather disingenuous and misleading, especially when they don't clarify the context. How many aircrafts around the world cost less than decades older aircraft without adjusting for inflation? Should an Su-30 cost less than a Mig-15? What about the LCA, should it cost less than the HF-24?

It just says that once all the competition is shot down in Air-2-Air superiority by Lockheed, the cost of each F-35 will spiral to maybe $800 million - the cheap-cheap alternative to a B-2.

Why only $800 Million? Why not $80 Billion? It is after all the Trillion dollar Jet...

[TSJones]

if the US Navy procures 680 f-35c's that 's about 150 million per plane over say .....a 30 year life span that would be about $104 billion acquisition cost which would be amortized at about $3.4 billion a year for 30 years. Interest accrual would say double that to 6.8 billion per year for time value of the money.

and really that's not too bad for a navy service that spends a little over $16 billion a year for aircraft procurement in fy16.

NavAir ain't cheap.

btw, interest rate on a 30 year treasury is 2.68% and on a 10 year treasury it's 1.83% so I may be too high on doubling accruing interest expense to acquisition cost from $3.4 B to $6.8 B.
YMMV.

[brar_w]

The USN aint getting 680 F-35C's. The 680 requirement is for a combined fleet of USN F-35C (260), USMC F-35C (80) and USMC F-35B (340). The jets come through the DON account because the navy pays for the marines. As of the current ICE (Independent Cost Estimate - GAO/CAPE/DOTE approved) they plan on spending A tad under $70 Billion (BY$, 2012) to acquire these between FY07 and FY31. The USN loves buying more aircraft than planned if a line is hot and technology mature. They did that with the F/A-18A-D, and have done so again with the E-F and Growlers therefore its fairly safe to assume that starting late 2020's when the FA-XX comes in at quite a high cost, they offload certain requirements to cheaper F-35C's. Given the F-18E/F/G line is unlikely to survive much beyond 2021, the F-35C will be the only active fast jet production line working under NAVAIR, until perhaps the early 2030's when the FA-XX/NGAD arrives. The only other combat capable aircraft would be the drone but that is largely for support, at least initially as unmanned aviation integrates with the air wing.

http://i64.tinypic.com/29w0mfo.png

Also, the Navy goes through its jets faster since they fly more than the USAF, has more demanding deployments, and operates off of a carrier during those. Even with an 8000 hour frame life to begin with, they'll still need a SLEP to get to 30 years, so it would add cost.

Meanwhile, they are very slowly inching towards full SDD capability - FOC (still about 2 years out though).



Marine Osprey flies in to fuel up F-35B

[TSJones]

it never works out that simple. they will want a super version with improved engines and improved software and improved targeting acquisition. they always have and they always will.

guaranteed.

and the first f-18 rolled out in 1978.

[brar_w]

All of that is a part of the block development. The F-22 and F-35 have forgone the classic MLU in favor of block improvements that follow the software-hardware-software cycle. If they want a Super Lightning II than that will be the FA-XX..They can't afford both a jazzed up F-35 and a new FA-XX so the threat level will determine their choices. The F-35 is at its core a multi-role strike fighter..How well it performs in that capacity, and how many missions the USN offloads to Unmanned crafts will determine the requirements of the FA-XX. Currently, the USN is compromising with the F-18E/F. While the F-35C is a perfect replacement for the F/A-18A-D, the F-18E/F was never a like for like replacement for the F-14 mission but a fantastic airframe in terms of reliability, multi-role and cost. In the future they may need a dedicated long range fighter for air-air, EA/EW/Cyber and other net-centric duties and may not be able to find a compromise like they did with the Rhino. If that is the case, an advanced F-35 will be less than perfect for that role and may even be inadequate.

The Growler on the other hand will last much longer (since only a few deploy on ships at a time) especially if they get a few dozen more (i think they'll get around 180-200 by the time they are done). With CFT's it will solve to some extent, perhaps its only deficiency vis-a-vis the Prowler, and with smart jamming and the NGJ-AN/ALQ-218(V)2 combo it will truly outpace the EMS threat even in the Pacific context especially given the footprint requirement for successful strike given the hundreds of F-35's, F-22's, and LRS-B's that could potentially be put into a theater by 2030. In fact, if I had a say I'd buy into the Passive-Growler (Growler+ARM+AN/ALQ-218(V)2, SATCOM, MINUS the EW Pods) concept and field at least 60-80 of those for DEAD. You don't need the full complement all the time..especially if you have very advanced net-centricity that the USN is investing into through AADL and NIFC-CA. The space saved goes to fuel, and/or other waveforms that enhance interoperability and perhaps the cyber pod that is being developed for the F-35.

The U.S. Navy is shifting its airborne electronic attack (AEA) focus from disrupting the enemy’s targeting and tracking of allied aircraft to actively helping friendly forces find and eliminate enemy air defenses, service officials said at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exposition 2014 at National Harbor, Md. on Monday.

“Traditionally, the AEA role has been more of a red kill chain disruption,” said Capt. Francis Morley, Naval Air Systems Command’s F/A-18 and EA-18G program manager.
“So now a Growler brings in a large piece of that Blue kill chain part from that anti-access/area denied stand-off target detection, tracking and ID.”

Morley said that the Navy had demonstrated some of the new techniques at the Trident Warrior Fleet Exercises 2013 (Flex 2013).

These included cooperative passive geo-location of enemy emitters using the Rockwell Collins-developed Tactical Targeting Network Technology waveform and a technique called Emitter Time Distance of Arrival (TDOA) to feed data into the Common Operating Picture (COP). The COP in turn is a critical part of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control- Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) construct.

To make the best use of the new tactics, the Navy will need to integrate Raytheon’s Next Generation Jammers (NGJ) onto the Growler and increase the AEA squadron size to eight—up from five. However, the Navy has settled on increasing the unit composition to seven aircraft—that is if it can convince the Congress to fund additional Growlers.

The Navy has submitted a request for 22 additional EA-18Gs to Congress in it unfunded list, however Morley said that he does not know exactly how many additional aircraft the service would need to fill out the expanded squadrons.

“There are studies, you can do things to start upping that number. Where that goes, I don’t know,” Morley said.
“[It’s] above my pay-grade.”

Mike Gibbons, Boeing’s vice president for the F/A-18E/F and Growler program, said that the Navy could require anywhere between 50 and 100 additional EA-18G.

Boeing is also pushing the concept of using the EA-18G for the strike role—particularly against enemy air defenses—and the counter-air role. The aircraft would also be a “great” battle manager especially in a networked environment, he said. Gibbons said that the reason the company is pushing in that direction is because the EA-18G has sensors that have much greater range than other warplanes.

A Navy source said that while it is true the Growler is an excellent battle manager and targeting platform, the service would likely use the jet to pass that data to shooters like the Super Hornet under the NIFC-CA construct.

Though he could not share any details, Morley said that the first increment of NIFC-CA has been released early to the first F/A1-8 squadron that will deploy with the capability.

https://news.usni.org/2014/04/07/navy-p ... operations

[UlanBatori]

I am just thinking of the entire US Armed forces depending on ONE rattling, wobbling bus design, built by the same company that built the F-22 and the A-12 (wasn't it? The one done entirely by Net-Centric System of System of Systems Design by EEs, and whose TOW exceeded its TOL at max power and the whole project got scrapped?)

And SOMETHING happens - that makes the ENTIRE fleet irrelevant. I don't know what, I can't predict what, but there is a reason why nations don't go to this Maginot Line design any more. You can bet that every potential adversary is hard at work, big grin on their faces, to find a few of those tricks to use when the time comes up.

And there will be no backup for the US, because the treasury will be broke paying Lockheed. This is what bothers me about this whole Pied Piper of Hamelin type rush towards Joint Strike this and that.

The military are doing the same with the JMR rotorcraft. A complete disaster in the making because (never mind). And Lockheed is one of the two contenders there too. So what happens when the JSF and JMR are BOTH owned by Lockheed? China or ISIS need buy only Lockheed.