The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

JFC Fuller said:
Why do you keep saying "stealth" when you mean low RCS? I assume its because you know that low RCS won't help against passive sensors?

One wonders if you actually believe an IRST has the same detection envelope against a stealth aircraft that an AESA does against a 4th gen. You certainly indicate that is the case. You probably think a passive ESM system works against a non-emitting aircraft too.
 
I have never indicated any such thing.

If it's not emitting how is it detecting? Oh yeah, it's relying on the same passive sensors (EW and IRST) that the higher RCS aircraft has.
 
JFC Fuller said:
I have never indicated any such thing.

So you do realize that an IRST against a stealth aircraft is not in any way, shape, or form in the same league as an AESA against a 4th gen then correct?

JFC Fuller said:
If it's not emitting how is it detecting? Oh yeah, it's relying on the same passive sensors (EW and IRST) that the higher RCS aircraft has.

Nope. His wingman is emitting and feeding your position to the silent guy. Have fun.
 
LowObservable said:
Taking advantage of LO in A2A was always going to be a challenge for LPI. RCS reduction on the target, a vast improvement in ESM, and automated DRFM-based self-protect jamming all make LPI harder, and I don't know whether radar technology has kept pace. (I doubt it, because digital ESM and jamming that works are huge changes over the 1980s.)

Do you have any evidence / support for this position? If this is the case, than the PAK-FA eschewing VLO for high-powered radar seems to be a better choice than VLO+radar. It would also explain USAF and USN pursuing IRST instead of radar upgrades for F-15Cs and F-18s.
 
Just consider the state of the art in fighter RWR/self-protect jamming at the start of ATF and where it is today.
 
"No UK Spear Cap 3 Decision on F-35 until 2018"
By Andrew Chuter 6:17 a.m. EDT May 28, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/05/27/britain-spear-cap-3-missile-weapon-f-35-sdb-2018-mbda-raytheon/28009331/

LONDON — A decision on whether to purchase a homegrown missile or buy a US-developed rival to equip British F-35B combat jets with a medium-range strike weapon may not be made until at least 2018, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The British are studying whether to push ahead with development work under a long-running assessment phase agreement with Europe's top missile maker, MBDA, or purchase the more mature small diameter bomb II (SDBII) being offered by Raytheon to meet the Selective Precision Effects At Range 3 (Spear Cap 3) requirement .

"MBDA and Raytheon weapon solutions are being considered and no investment decision has been taken at this time. ... The next review point is in late 2015 or early 2016. ... It is likely that down selection won't be made until the full relationship between cost and capability has been assessed and validated. ... It is expected that a decision will be able to be taken in 2018 on current plans," said a Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization spokesperson.

The spokesperson said the timeline on Spear Cap 3 is being guided by the introduction of new block capability upgrades planned for the F-35.

"The timeline brings the program into alignment with a key multination decision on the make-up and timing of the next available upgrade package for the joint strike fighter. ... The timescales for the weapon procurement and integration programs are defined by those international agreements," said the spokesperson.

The rival weapons, both intended for internal carriage on the F-35, are radically different.

Most notably, MBDA is working on a turbo-jet powered winged weapon, known as Spear, with a range thought to be around 70 nautical miles while the SDBII is a glide bomb with a 40 nautical mile range.

The Raytheon weapon has already been ordered by the US military in substantial numbers for a range of platforms including the F-35B, where it is targeted to achieve initial operating capability in 2022.

Doug Barrie, the senior air analyst at the International Institute of Strategic Studies think tank in London, reckons cost could be a big factor in any selection.

"The choice may come down to whether they go for something that meets the requirement or whether they lowball it because they can't afford to do anything else. If you are in an environment where you are financially constrained then the temptation might be to say actually that [the SDBII] is good enough," he said.

Barrie said that while it was reasonable to follow the US lead on a weapon for its F-35Bs, the British concept of operations is completely different.

"In the UK scenario, where you have a very limited number of platforms, you really want to minimize the risk to that platform per se. So marrying up a low observable platform with a stand-off weapon gives you greater survivability," he said.

"Even for a weapon coming out of an F-35, they still felt they needed a stand-off range of at least 100 kilometers to maximize chances of survival against threats like the Russian S350 and S400 class [ground-based air defense] weapons. That's what you are looking to live with in terms of contested airspace. I can see no reason why the threat environment is now more benign than when they first drew up the requirement for Spear Cap 3," he said.

In an interview with Defense News recently, Raytheon's Richard Daniel said Britain could save some "£500 to £600 million [US $771 million to $925.2 million] in integration, development and manufacturing" costs by adopting the SDBII compared with the MBDA weapon.

"We want to offer them choices with value-for-money solutions, that's where SDBII comes in compared with a unique and bespoke weapon [Spear]," he said.

Daniel said the MoD would consider the options for Spear Cap 3 in the strategic defense and security review underway in Britain.

The Raytheon UK boss said the company already had clearance from the US to look at the possibility of Britain becoming part of the global supply chain for the SDBII.

The guidance area, a key manufacturing capability for Raytheon in Britain, is one of the potential sectors being looked at for possible local manufacture, he said.

MBDA declined to discuss any aspect of the Spear Cap 3 requirement.

Spear Cap 3 will eventually be a key part of the offensive strike capabilities planned for the fleet of F-35B jets to be purchased for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.

Raytheon's Paveway IV precision-guided bomb is the only strike weapon slated for the British F-35Bs when they achieve initial operational capability, planned for the end of 2018, but MBDA's Storm Shadow cruise missile, the Brimstone 2 ( also known as Spear Cap 2) could also eventually join Spear Cap 3 on the F-35.

At present there are no plans to deploy Spear Cap 3 on Britain's other strike jet, the Typhoon, but the aircraft is being used in Spear trials, said the DE&S spokesperson.

"Currently, Typhoon is only being used as a platform to trial the MBDA-designed solution. This is solely in support of the planned Lightning II integration timelines," said the spokesperson.

Originally, the British were looking at pushing ahead with the MBDA Spear missile development under the Team Complex Weapons arrangement between government and industry designed to protect critical skills and capabilities in the UK by not opening up certain requirements to foreign competition.

That position has been set aside for Spear Cap 3 with the SDBII now being part of the evaluation process.

The DE&S spokesperson said the current studies being conducted by the procurement team cover cost, capability, technical maturity and platform integration aspects of the two weapons with information being provided by the two potential suppliers.

The process stops short of a formal competition though.

"MBDA is undertaking assessment activity on their solution for the Spear Cap 3 requirement, and providing information to the UK MoD to enable cost, risk and capability forecasts to be undertaken. As Raytheon has a more mature product, they are able to provide established data into the UK MoD's operational and cost effective analysis work. Any subsequent down selection will be undertaken when there is sufficient confidence in the data and when a meaningful comparison can be made, currently forecast for after 2017," said the spokesperson.

Barrie said the eventual procurement decision by the MoD will be a test of the Conservative government's policy on retaining skills and capabilities in the sector.

"This could be a bit of a litmus test for the UK government's commitment to sustaining a top-end indigenous or European-based missile business. Given there is natural tendency in the US to try and minimize the number of foreign weapons on the platform, partly because it cuts costs and also the more non-US stuff they can keep off the platform the more they can sell themselves," he said.

"From a European perspective, this is an important platform to get weapons integrated on so as to offer an alternative to the US and help their own weapons sector," he said.
 
DrRansom said:
LowObservable said:
Taking advantage of LO in A2A was always going to be a challenge for LPI. RCS reduction on the target, a vast improvement in ESM, and automated DRFM-based self-protect jamming all make LPI harder, and I don't know whether radar technology has kept pace. (I doubt it, because digital ESM and jamming that works are huge changes over the 1980s.)

Do you have any evidence / support for this position? If this is the case, than the PAK-FA eschewing VLO for high-powered radar seems to be a better choice than VLO+radar. It would also explain USAF and USN pursuing IRST instead of radar upgrades for F-15Cs and F-18s.


The other possibility for the renewed interest in IRST is that the radar performance in the legacy jets is maxed out and IRST is a low-hanging fruit by comparison.
 
Based on what I've read regarding IRST being added to the legacy jets is that IRST over the last decade has actually become very useful, in terms of it's capabilities. The reason the USAF originally quit using it is due to how limited it's use was, as radar was much better at the time. Also, missiles have become much better and the need to positively ID aircraft at longer ranges is helped by the advances made in IRST, not to mention the increased performance IRST offers in helping to detect stealthy targets.
 
LowObservable said:
$750 m to a billion to integrate one weapon?


Cor!


So much for UAI.

Raytheon UK CEO Richard Daniel said that "Britain could save some "£500 to £600 million [US $771 million to $925.2 million] in integration, development and manufacturing" costs by adopting the SDBII compared with the MBDA weapon [SPEAR Cap 3].

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/05/27/britain-spear-cap-3-missile-weapon-f-35-sdb-2018-mbda-raytheon/28009331/

I don't understand how you interpreted that to mean the cost range of integrating one weapon on the F-35 or use this cost range to justify an attack on the Universal Armament Interface (UAI). In addition, should a competitor's claims of cost savings be relied upon?
 
You could of course read it that the MOD wants to give MBDA time to fully develop its superior product. It's not like they will be dropping anything in anger before 2018 so let's see what SDSR brings.
 
LowObservable said:
Another statement he [Welsh] disputed is "the F-16 is better than the F-35".


Nobody ever said that. A test pilot has said the F-16's E-M is better than the F-35's. A lot of people might argue it's better value for money. But nobody makes the point Welsh is disputing. He knows that and his speechwriters know that.

Leaked: New F-35 fighter jet beaten by F-16 from 1970s

Published on Jul 3, 2015

Decades in the making, already the most expensive military project in history - and still US F-35 figher jet isn't ready. Some are now pointing to signs that the plane's appeal is wearing off, despite the efforts of its manufacturer.

https://youtu.be/5zKaWc_43UI
 
F-35 JSF infrared sensor tracks rocket launch

Uploaded on Nov 2, 2010

Northrop Grumman video showing how its distributed-aperture sensor (DAS) for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter tracked SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle flight during a test flight of the sensor system on the company's BAC One-Eleven testbed. DAS rpoivies a 360-deg view round the F-35 for missile warning, traget tracking and navigation, The video has been magnified 10 times. DAS detects and tracks the rocket at horizon-break without the aid of external cues, then continuously tracks the rocket through first-stage burnout, second-stage ignition, across boundaries between DAS sensors, and through the rocket's second-stage burnout at a distance of more than 800 miles. The video also shows the DAS detecting and tracking the rocket's first-stage re-entry.


https://youtu.be/IZrvAFRhQZc
 
Lt Gen Bogdan Checks in with Nellis F-35 Airmen

Published on Sep 16, 2015

As the Air Force advances its fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters toward initial operational capability, Airmen at Nellis Air Force Base play a key role. Airman First Class Christina Ensley tells us how Air Force leadership continues to seek out their unique insight on this team effort.

https://youtu.be/D1ymskJhz7o
 
F35 FLIGHT SIMULATOR with STEVE LONG

Uploaded on Feb 7, 2012

Steve Long BAE Systems test pilot, shows you how he lands an F-35, travelling around 150MPH, onto the deck of a moving aircraft carrier. All this is done in the Carrier Simulator, at Warton, Lancashire.

https://youtu.be/9d2ep8i0sRs
 
Only our demented pond of fools would build a super carrier and not be able cat trap aircraft. Way to go joint operations.
 
F-35 Helmet Display System

Published on Jul 1, 2014

Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems' F-35 Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) is the world's most advanced binocular HMDS for the world's most advanced tactical aircraft. It's integrated head-up display is the first to provide pilots with all the critical information they need on the helmet's visor ensuring that every mission, day or night, has unsurpassed situational awareness, tactical capability and safety.

https://youtu.be/w0btzIvlScI
 
Ian33 said:
Only our demented pond of fools would build a super carrier and not be able cat trap aircraft. Way to go joint operations.

We were never planning for the C variant until the mini reversal in 2010, so were we ever planning for full joint operations with the USN or the French?
 
F-35 Program update - AFA ASC15

http://secure.afa.org/events/Conference/2015/transcripts/Tuesday-2pm-AcquisitionPanel.mp3
 
Ian33 said:
Only our demented pond of fools would build a super carrier and not be able cat trap aircraft. Way to go joint operations.

I'm pretty sure that if EMALS had been on offer at *cost* to the Indian Navy they would have leapt at it. But then again, the Indian Navy isn't building 65,000 ton diesel drinkers either.
 
Since DOT&E has come up a few times in recent posts let me say that its current problems start at the top.

The first head of DOT&E was McAir's lead experimental test pilot for the F-15 and F/A-18. Gilmore's immediate predecessor worked on the rocket motors for SPARTAN and SPRINT and eventually led Bell Labs entire effort on SAFEGUARD.

Gilmore, in contrast, is an academic who has bounced from one think tank or OSD analyst position to another and has never conceived, designed, built, operated or maintained a weapons system. So naturally he's well suited to being the head of an organization that's a gatekeeper for people who do...
 
Spin Tactic 4 - Shoot the messenger. (Loren Thompson tried this, too, claiming that some kind of testing community was delaying the program for their personal gain.) Where this fails miserably is that major DOT&E recommendations - such as reinstating the sorties chopped after the weight-reduction panic, and chopping the OUE for the 2B in order to protect the 3F schedule - have been gladly accepted by the JSFPO and the customer. Neither am I aware of any other program that's been dissatisfied with DOT&E's criticisms.
 
An example of why people don't like Director, Operational Test & Evaluation Gilmore:


"First F-35 Jets Lack Ground-Combat Punch of 1970s-Era A-10s"
by Anthony Capaccio David Lerman
April 14, 2015 — 11:00 AM PDT
Updated on April 14, 2015 — 3:16 PM PDT

Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-14/first-f-35-jets-to-lack-ground-combat-punch-of-1970s-era-a-10s

The first F-35 jets ready for combat won’t be able to protect forces in ground combat as well as the nearly 40-year-old A-10s the Pentagon wants to retire, according to the Defense Department’s chief weapons tester.

Compared with the lumbering A-10, known as the Warthog, the initial F-35s made by Lockheed Martin Corp. will be handicapped by limits on how many weapons they can carry, flying at night and spotting targets as well as how long they can remain over them, Michael Gilmore, director of operational testing, said in a statement prepared for a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing.

The Marine Corps intends to declare the first of its F-35B planes ready for initial combat as soon as July. Gilmore underscored the limitations on those early fighters by comparing them to the A-10, which first flew in 1976 and continues to protect U.S. and allied ground forces. The Pentagon is trying for the second consecutive year to persuade Congress to permit the A-10’s retirement.

Gilmore said the initial F-35s will fall short because “of the combined effects of digital communications deficiencies, lack of infrared pointer capability” to distinguish friendly from hostile forces and an inability to confirm the Global Positioning Satellite ground coordinates programmed into its two air-to-ground bombs.
 
"General: USAF considers measures for F-35 to survive, complete mission"
By Phillip Swarts, Staff writer 10:36 a.m. EDT September 20, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/09/20/general-usaf-considers-measures-f-35-survive-complete-mission/72403642/

Though designed for long-range engagements, there may be times when the F-35 Lightning II will be forced to get visual confirmation of a target, said Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command.

"Will there ever be a time where you'll have to put your eyeball on somebody to make sure he's what you think he is? There may well be," Carlisle said Friday during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The statement comes as the Air Force is trying to quell criticism that the F-35 is outmatched in close-range dogfights with fourth-generation fighters. Military leaders have repeatedly responded that the aircraft is built for long-range engagements, and is never meant to get near enemies.

arlisle, however, said that should an F-35 ever have to get visual confirmation of a target, the Air Force is working on a number of strategies and technology — some classified, some not — that would allow the plane to survive and complete its mission.

"We are doing everything in our power — again, strengths of what the United States brings and what our air power brings — we're doing everything in our power to use everything we can to do situational awareness, which includes combat ID and positive ID on what that adversary is," he said.

Technology could also help identify adversaries without the pilot having to see the target with the naked eye, such as electronic identification or satellite imaging, Carlisle said.

At the annual Air Force Association Air and Space Conference, several experts on RPAs also noted that drones could be used to close with an enemy and confirm targets before the F-35 engages.

The Lightning II will perform well in air-to-air combat, but wasn't designed for dogfighting, the general said.

"It's not that it can't do it, it's just that it wasn't designed to be a maneuvering airplane," Carlisle said. "It doesn't have vectored thrust and it's a single engine airplane. It is different."

F-22s were designed to be air superiority fighters. But depending on the F-35's payloads and electronic capabilities, Carlisle said he could envision a scenario where the plane could out-perform a Raptor in aerial situations.

He said the same thing happened with fourth-generation fighters.

"F-15 was really designed as an air superiority fighter. Yet depending on what the configuration was and what block the F-16 was, in a visual maneuvering engagement, the F-16 could outmaneuver an F-15," he said. "That was a fact of life: one was air superiority, one was multi-role, but it kind of got reversed."

Carlisle said he has no doubt Air Force pilots will push the F-35 to the limits and find abilities the aircraft has that weren't envisioned before.

"You take advantage of the strengths your airplane has and you try to do everything in your power to try to minimize what it doesn't' have," he said. "The young men and women we put in this airplane will figure out how to take advantage of its strengths and minimize its limitations."
 
"General Blasts A-10 vs. F-35 Debate as ‘Ludicrous’"
By Richard Sisk | Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 7:37 pm

Source:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/09/15/general-blasts-a-10-vs-f-35-debate-as-ludicrous/

Air Force Gen. Herbert. J. “Hawk” Carlisle said Tuesday the raging debate over whether the A-10 or the F-35 is better equipped to perform close air support was totally missing the point on the future of the mission.

“What we’ve got to talk about is how you do UCAS (unconventional close air support) better,” rather than which aircraft can do it better, the head of Air Combat Command said. “The discussion of what platform is going to replace the A-10 is ludicrous. We have to talk about how to do it better, and we do it better with technology.”

Carlisle vented his frustration in a speech and in a later round-table with reporters at the Air and Space Conference sponsored by the Air Force Association and held at National Harbor, Maryland.

Instead of a platform-versus-platform debate, Carlisle said he’d rather focus on issues such as “how do we fuse the sensor suite on the aircraft when it checks in with the JTAC (joint terminal attack controller) so that we eliminate friendly fire in the future.”

The Air Force has been pushing to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt, better known as the Warthog, to save money amid an era of automatic spending caps. But Congress has repeatedly renewed funding for the 40-year-old aircraft.

Supporters of the A-10, including Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, have scoffed at the F-35’s ability to replace the A-10 in the close air support mission. “I will not support the divestment of the A-10 until an equally or more capable close air support aircraft achieves full operational capability,” Ayotte said recently in a statement.

The Pentagon’s Office of Operational Test and Evaluation has been planning to pit the F-35 against the A-10 and possibly other aircraft in a fly-off to see which aircraft performs best in close air support.

OT&E Director Michael Gilmore told reporters last month that, “the comparison tests on the close-air support mission will reveal how well the F-35 performs and whether there are gaps, or improvements in capability, compared to the A-10.”

In a session with reporters, Carlisle called the A-10 “a fantastic airplane doing fantastic work down range” in Iraq.

“One of the questions I get is if you’re going to retire the A-10s why are you still using them in the fight? Well, that’s an easy answer. I don’t have enough capacity. I’ve got to use every single thing I’ve got. I don’t have enough capacity” to handle the missions in Iraq and Syria without the A-10s, the general said.

However, Carlisle said, “It’s about how we do CAS, not what platform is replacing what platform.” In addition, the A-10 was not suited for operating against more sophisticated air defenses being developed by Russia, China and other potential adversaries, he said.

“The A-10, it’s more difficult for that airplane to operate in a contested environment,” Carlisle said. “We would lose, which none of us want to accept, we would lose a good portion of those airplanes potentially in a contested environment.”

The F-35 Lightning II’s advantage was stealth, Carlisle said. “The F-35, it does very well. Its ability, stealth-wise, to penetrate contested airspace unobserved gives it an advantage over everybody else.
 
mrmalaya said:
Ian33 said:
Only our demented pond of fools would build a super carrier and not be able cat trap aircraft. Way to go joint operations.

We were never planning for the C variant until the mini reversal in 2010, so were we ever planning for full joint operations with the USN or the French?

Every UAV off the deck now has to be VTOL. Every support airframe, VTOL, every supply vehicle, VTOL... No Taranis off these carriers for the RN as deep.penetration assets. Plus we get the worst possible airframe of the three.

Then there is a small matter of RN lads training on F18s and Rafale ready for CTOL cat / trap. The carriers lose every possible positive thing about a carrier by being in the worst possible configuration they could of come up with.
 
Triton said:
"General: USAF considers measures for F-35 to survive, complete mission"
By Phillip Swarts, Staff writer 10:36 a.m. EDT September 20, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/09/20/general-usaf-considers-measures-f-35-survive-complete-mission/72403642/

Though designed for long-range engagements, there may be times when the F-35 Lightning II will be forced to get visual confirmation of a target, said Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command.

"Will there ever be a time where you'll have to put your eyeball on somebody to make sure he's what you think he is? There may well be," Carlisle said Friday during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The statement comes as the Air Force is trying to quell criticism that the F-35 is outmatched in close-range dogfights with fourth-generation fighters. Military leaders have repeatedly responded that the aircraft is built for long-range engagements, and is never meant to get near enemies.

arlisle, however, said that should an F-35 ever have to get visual confirmation of a target, the Air Force is working on a number of strategies and technology — some classified, some not — that would allow the plane to survive and complete its mission.

"We are doing everything in our power — again, strengths of what the United States brings and what our air power brings — we're doing everything in our power to use everything we can to do situational awareness, which includes combat ID and positive ID on what that adversary is," he said.

Technology could also help identify adversaries without the pilot having to see the target with the naked eye, such as electronic identification or satellite imaging, Carlisle said.

At the annual Air Force Association Air and Space Conference, several experts on RPAs also noted that drones could be used to close with an enemy and confirm targets before the F-35 engages.

The Lightning II will perform well in air-to-air combat, but wasn't designed for dogfighting, the general said.

"It's not that it can't do it, it's just that it wasn't designed to be a maneuvering airplane," Carlisle said. "It doesn't have vectored thrust and it's a single engine airplane. It is different."

F-22s were designed to be air superiority fighters. But depending on the F-35's payloads and electronic capabilities, Carlisle said he could envision a scenario where the plane could out-perform a Raptor in aerial situations.

He said the same thing happened with fourth-generation fighters.

"F-15 was really designed as an air superiority fighter. Yet depending on what the configuration was and what block the F-16 was, in a visual maneuvering engagement, the F-16 could outmaneuver an F-15," he said. "That was a fact of life: one was air superiority, one was multi-role, but it kind of got reversed."

Carlisle said he has no doubt Air Force pilots will push the F-35 to the limits and find abilities the aircraft has that weren't envisioned before.

"You take advantage of the strengths your airplane has and you try to do everything in your power to try to minimize what it doesn't' have," he said. "The young men and women we put in this airplane will figure out how to take advantage of its strengths and minimize its limitations."

General Carlisle has mentioned, quietly, on a few occasions of satellite tracking/identifying aircraft from space. At a recent Red Flag exercise he seemed to strongly to imply 'secret' capabilities. Is the future 5th Gen aircraft operating in complete electronic silence combining its own passive sensors with space sensors?
 
This reminds me of the 600+ "parameters" that the F-35 used to ID a target (vs 200+ for the F-22) that was mentioned years ago in the Australian Parliament.


A lot of naysayers poo-pooed it then, wonder what they'll say now?
 
At a recent Red Flag exercise he seemed to strongly to imply 'secret' capabilities. Is the future 5th Gen aircraft operating in complete electronic silence combining its own passive sensors with space sensors?

Multi Dommain operations were stressed by him and others with a stake in developing the capability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LHoLzG6wIM
 
Ian33 said:
mrmalaya said:
Ian33 said:
Only our demented pond of fools would build a super carrier and not be able cat trap aircraft. Way to go joint operations.

We were never planning for the C variant until the mini reversal in 2010, so were we ever planning for full joint operations with the USN or the French?

Every UAV off the deck now has to be VTOL. Every support airframe, VTOL, every supply vehicle, VTOL... No Taranis off these carriers for the RN as deep.penetration assets. Plus we get the worst possible airframe of the three.

Then there is a small matter of RN lads training on F18s and Rafale ready for CTOL cat / trap. The carriers lose every possible positive thing about a carrier by being in the worst possible configuration they could of come up with.

I personally welcome the fact that all UAVs will have to be VTOL or similar, this can only generate innovation (much as the constraints of the F35B weapons bay has driven a revolution in weapons design -products equally valid for internal carriage by UAVs).

UK pilots and crews train with the US and French because they have to keep current in fast jet naval operations, not because they covet the Rafale or Super Hornet.

I personally think there is a massive market for strike UAVs which are VTOL, given that they are not restricted to large carriers.
 
"Selex to Supply Lasers for Lockheed’s F-35 Electro-Optical Targeting System"
Posted By: Jane Edwardson: September 18, 2015

Source:
http://blog.executivebiz.com/2015/09/selex-to-supply-lasers-for-lockheeds-f-35-electro-optical-targeting-system/

Selex ES, a Finmecannica subsidiary, has been selected to supply lasers to Lockheed Martin for integration with the electro-optical targeting system onboard F-35 Lightning II fighter jets.

Selex said Tuesday the lasers will work to help F-35 pilots carry out targeting and precision ranging functions.

The contract covers the delivery of 165 lasers to Lockheed and is part of the low-rate initial production phase for EOTS.

Selex has also provided tactical lasers to Lockheed for installation onto Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor and pilotage and targeting systems of Apache helicopters.
 
"Norway, Australia Team To Upgrade Missile for F-35"
By Lara Seligman 7:04 p.m. EDT September 21, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/09/21/norway-australia-team-to-develop-missile-for-f-35/72590888/

FORT WORTH, Texas — Norway and Australia have minted a deal to develop a new seeker capability for the Joint Strike Missile, a core weapon planned for integration onto Norway's F-35.

Under the Sept. 15 agreement, Australia will finance the development of a new RF-seeking capability, which will enable the missile to locate targets based on electronic signature. BAE Australia will develop and integrate the capability, according to a Sept. 21 statement from Norway's Ministry of Defense.

If Australia later decides to procure the JSM, developed by Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence Systems, Norway and Australia will share the cost of integrating the JSM on the F-35.

The new seeker will provide JSM dual-seeker capability, which enables the missile to operate in all weather conditions, Executive Vice President of Kongsberg Group and President of KDS Harald Ånnestad told Defense News on Monday. Kongsberg expects the announcement to fuel increased interest in the JSM from other international partners, he said.

This marks the first time another nation has discussed the possibility of covering some of the costs related to the JSM, the Sept. 21 statement reads.

JSM is a long-range, precision-guided missile that will be carried internally in the F-35. The current seeker being developed for the missile is based on a technology known as "imaging infra red" that enables the missile to detect and identify targets based on heat signature, according to the statement.

JSM will be integrated on Norway's F-35 in the first phase of follow-on development in the 2022-2024 time frame.

"This agreement is a prime example of instances where two nations, each bringing their own specialties and skills to the table, are able to build a better system by working together compared to what they could have done on their own," Norwegian Minister of Defence Ine Eriksen Søreide said, according to the statement. "This, in a nutshell, is what the F-35 partnership is all about and it is an important example of the kind of positive ripple effects the program helps generate beyond the aircraft themselves."
 
"Norway highlights F-35 commitment as Russia boosts military activity"
FORT WORTH, Texas, Sept 21 | By Andrea Shalal

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/norway-russia-idUSL1N11S00R20150922

Top Norwegian officials on Monday underscored their commitment to buying up to 52 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets in coming years, saying the stealthy jet's capabilities provided an important counterweight to Russia's military buildup and increased military flights in the region.

Norwegian Defense Minister Ine Eriksen Soereide told Reuters that Norway was concerned about what she called an "obvious projection of power" by Russia in the Baltic Sea region, where Russian military flights increased threefold from 2013 to 2014.

Soereide, in Texas to see the rollout of Norway's first F-35 from the Lockheed plant in Fort Worth, had no detailed numbers about Baltic flights in 2015. But Norwegian monitoring had shown increasingly complex and longer flights by Russia in recent months and repeated violations of international airspace.

Norway, which shares a small border with Russia in the Arctic, was keeping a close eye on Russian activities in that region and the Baltic Sea, she said, and remained concerned that increased Russian activities could inadvertently trigger a potential conflict, Soereide said.

Norway is slated to receive its first F-35 fighter jets in 2017 to begin training, and expects to have an initial operational capability in 2019.

Soereide said the jets would give Norway new radar-evading capabilities and the ability to detect potential threats from further away and with greater precision, key capabilities at a time when all of Russia's neighbors are carefully monitoring Russia's more aggressive military activities.

Sweden and Finland, for instance, have expressed concerns about incursions by Russian submarines and other naval vessels.

Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen, chief of defense of the Norwegian Armed Forces, told Reuters in a separate interview that Russia had also increased its submarine activities in the Arctic, due to increased training.

"They are closing the gap in a number of areas," he said.

Bruun-Hanssen said it was difficult to provide details without delving into classified material, but Russian fighter jets flying in the Baltics were now often joined by refueling aircraft, command and control planes and intelligence aircraft.

"They are using various types of aircraft together tactically, so they are capable of extending their ranges. They are capable of using their weapons systems in a better way than we have seen previously," he said. "They are operating their aircraft in a way in which long-range weapons are used in a manner very similar to the tactics we have had in the West."
 
"First F-35 for Norway rolled out at Fort Worth"
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
21 September 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/54707/first-f-35-for-norway-rolled-out-at-fort-worth

The first of 52 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft for Norway was rolled out during a ceremony at the company's Fort Worth production facility in Texas on 22 September.

The roll-out of aircraft AM-1, which was built as part of the low-rate initial production (LRIP) 7 production lot, marks the first step in a process that will see the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) replace its 55 Lockheed Martin F-16AM/BM fleet with 52 F-35As by the end of 2024.

Once ground and flight trials have been completed, AM-1 will be retained in the United States for pilot training as part of the international fleet at Luke Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona before being delivered to Norway in 2017 (the first three Norwegian aircraft will be based in the US in the first instance). The country's second aircraft - AM-2 - is in production also and is set to be rolled out shortly.

Norway joined the F-35 programme as a Tier 3 partner during the project's system development and demonstration (SDD) phase. It selected the type in November 2008, and currently has 22 of its planned 52 aircraft funded. Further funding and procurement contracts will be signed on annually.

The RNoAF aircraft will feature the structural provisions for a drag chute, which will be fitted inside a missioned pod located on the rear fuselage. This modification will better enable the aircraft to come to a halt on Norway's icy runways during its long winter. The service plans to base its F-35As at Orland Air Base in central Norway, with Bodo Air Base scheduled to be closed with the retirement of the F-16s.

Further to the RNoAF-requested drag chute modification, Norwegian industry is heavily involved in the F-35 programme, which is expected to be worth up to USD4.7 billion to the national economy over its lifetime.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom