"The Marine Corps hopes to declare initial operational capability with the next increment, 2B, in late 2014 or early 2015. It includes full operation of the legacy data link and the new advanced data link, subsonic ship deployment activities and limited use of some internal weapons."
1B is the minimum software block to allow for training at Eglin AFB. It allows for non-U.S. partner nation configurations and expanded manuver.
"The 1B package—which will include multi-level security for international partners to participate—is slated for release late this year; it also includes initial, subsonic maneuvering."
39 comments:
Block 2B includes:
1. A2A w/AMRAAM in a BVR environment (including MADL & Link-16 3rd party data-links)
2. A2G with SAR & EOTS (includes stationary & moving targets)
3. Internal 500lb GBU-12 LGB
4. Internal 1000lb JDAM
5. Internal AIM-120C7
Final note, LRIP-4 is under budget (so far).
All that interesting. As an aside, this from USAF; which makes for interesting reading. Via http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget
"The F-35 Program experienced a Nunn-McCurdy breach during FY10, was restructured for the PB 2011 budget, and was recertified by OSD Acquisition Decision Memorandum (2 June 2010). Milestone B (granted in Oct 2001) was rescinded and a new review will occur in Spring 2011. Program subsequently was extended by 2 years to accommodate completion of DT/OT in FY 18."
So, milestone B which should have happened many, many years ago, has in effect, not yet been reached. Maybe the DAB can paper over this major problem?
Of interest-back to the main topic, on could say that the acquisition strategy has been changed to include ‘Follow On Development’ and ‘non-recurring efforts for cut-in of retrofit, production and sustainment’ with inherent ‘retrofit planning’ as a means of getting more money/funding into the program, in addition to the increases in SDD funding.
And predictions being what they are, NAVAIR’s analysts under Vice Admiral David Venlet predict an average unit cost of US$ 128 million. All of this of course assumes the U.S. is all in for the total quantity of jets to-plan (unlikely).
Making this program "affordable" will be--as someone said--like trying to put a 4th leg on a 3-legged camel.
The design is still not mature. Nor is the production "learning curve".
Will we see LM shed more jobs as announced yesterday to make up the difference?
What kind of a jet will LRIP-4 deliver? A well tested one with knonwns? Or, another large batch of jets that will need numerous fixes and upgrades thus blowing out it's true "price"?
The LRIP-5 contract should really be interesting.
What it carries or what it costs is irelevant, it is as ELP says, a Brewster Buffalo.
Outclassed and already obsolete.
Well, let's see what LRIP-4 should look like at delivery (2013).
1. Block 2B as described above
2. Over half (3500+) of the SDD flights done
3. 12-18 months of Blk2B flight experience for the SDD & training jets.
4. As I said before, so far it's under budget.
AD you cannot read.
What it carries or what it costs is irelevant, it is as ELP says, a Brewster Buffalo.
Outclassed and already obsolete.
Your uninformed & misguided opinion is not shared by anyone who developed it, built it, bought it, tested it, or flew it.
If you look at the timeline there is nothing the F-35 adds that could not be done today already by other fighters. Thats the real laugh of it all.
I think block 3 is a joke. Serious whats so special about it in 2019.
Just a few things:
1. EODAS, no more need for the pilot to queue a HOBS shot with his head and he never loses track of WVR targets.
2. 9g with FULL internal fuel and weapons.
3. No need for external weapons means less drag and the ability to maintain a higher speed while still armed.
4. UAI allows faster, worldwide adoption of newer weapons/pods much quicker and cheaper than traditional integration techniques.
5. Last, but most important, VLO airframe. Gives the F-35 the flexibility of using/not using external stores depending on the target environment.
And a couple more:
6. MADL provides a secure, directional, & LPI datalink automatically with other F-35s (and soon to be F-22s, AWACS, & B2s).
7. By 2019 Blk4 will likely be rolling off the line.
Anon, I agree re it being the Brewster Buffalo of the time.
2019! it is obsolete now.
By 2019 who knows, apart from Su35, there will be Pak50, maybe J20 and whatever else the Chinese have upo their sleeves.
There is also the slight problem of S400 and its then offspring.
Go and study history.
To use the Brewster Buffalo as an analogy you would also have to say that the F-32 would have had to be a better plane. However, the X-32 had many problems from the start so that line of thinking is moot.
Considering #1-7 above, how can you say it is obsolete now? While other 4th gen AC may eventually get some the avionics that the F-35 has, they will never get the low levels of signals management (read low RCS) that the F-35 enjoys.
As far as the T-50/PAK FA, by 2019 there will likely be 10x as many F-35s as there are T-50s, not to mention F-22s. Besides, the T-50 only concentrates the reduced RCS in the forward sector rather than all around as in the F-35 (ie tunnel on the bottom, exposed nacelles, etc).
We will have to wait on the Chinese and their J-20 due to it's being in early development to see what kind of threat it turns out to be.
On the S-400 front, the DoD has many programs in place to develop weapon programs specifically designed to fight in that environment such as NGM (formally JDRADM), NGJ, LRS (Long Range Strike), etc. Current & short term projects include SDBI&II, JSOW(Std&ER), AARGM, JASSM(Std&ER), Brimstone, JAGM, etc.
Programs like UAI will ensure that the latest weapons are available as soon as possible. If self-protection systems for the S-400 are seen to be a potential problem, they may decide to use a new version of an old idea re:PGM cluster bombs. Dropped from a high altitude (safe from defensive guns and far enough away so as not to be seen by the radar at deployment), the bomblets would saturate the area and overwhelm the defenses. My point is that new weapons to counter the S-400 (or it's descendants) can be developed and deployed (thanks to UAI) faster than the SAM systems can be improved.
"As far as the T-50/PAK FA, by 2019 there will likely be 10x as many F-35s as there are T-50s,"
More targets
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html
Things change
And if you think that that number of F35's will be built you are delusional Spudperson
You seem to forget that not only does the F-35 use shaping to reduce it's radar signature, but it's RAM was specifically designed to counter ALL radar bands currently in use. Look up the LM RAM patents instead of swallowing the APA kool-aid hook, line, and sinker.
It's funny that you would link to one APA article about the L-Band radars, but miss the other one that shows that the wing L-Band radars would pick up a F-35 (assuming a L-Band RCS of 0.01m², ie 10x larger than normal) at 15-20nm. News flash, a soviet fighter flying around broadcasting a L-Band signal sniffing for a F-35 will set off every RwR within a few hundred miles and have an AMRAAM inbound long before that 15-20nm mark.
Speed and altitude,the F35 does not have it, was never designed as an interceptor, study history, and the Soviets and Chinese are going to be that far behind?
The day I belive a Vendor (LM) is the day I believe Julia Gillard is a Liberal.
Eric is correct , Brewster Buffalo.
Also,http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html.
The USA has the answer already, the F22 and the future evoloved models.
The F35 is not part of the solution for Australia.
It is apparent that you are part of a group of people who have a very limited education in that you have not read any history at all.
And they said the Japanese could not fly aeroplanes and were short sighted!
" Look up the LM RAM patents instead of swallowing the APA kool-aid hook, line, and sinker."
I take acception to such crap.
I have not seen contributors such as you present anything as well researched.
You critcise APA but do not present anything but LM crap and newspaper articles.I do not agree with everthing they publish, but yet to see any worthwhile rebuttal?
Where is your detailed analyis on par with APA.
Still waiting.
Gobsmacked,
Relax, I think we all smell LM pork here.
SpudmanWP,
"Besides, the T-50 only concentrates the reduced RCS in the forward sector rather than all around as in the F-35...", WTF??
The F-35 does NO such thing. I have spoken on another site with one of the engineers involved with the program, and she knows her shit. She has specifically told me that is not the case. There was a hint of an admission that the RAM has better properties than we have been led to believe but nothing like the claims you just made. And exactly how do you explain the spiraling cost and no longer relevant timeline? If you think this turkey is going to be a world beater you are seriously mistaken.
Loyalty is a fine thing.
However one of the major goals of the F-35 is "affordability". That and the aircraft has to be export friendly.
Most of what you see as the goal of the F-35 low-observable design is to be easy to maintain.
The F-22 was made so that only 5 percent of maintenance actions require L.O. refurbishment.
The F-35 was sold as 1 percent in this regard. When the F-22 was early into IOC and they saw all the time spent in the L.O. barn at the squadron level (all for only 5 percent of maintenance actions requiring breaking the L.O. bubble). You started seeing PowerPoint slides on the F-35 where it jumped up to 2 percent of all maintenance actions requiring L.O. refurb for the F-35.
Of course this early in the game, all this is a prediction. We will know when real live USAF maintainers (the USAF has the most tribal knowledge of maintaining L.O.) in real operational squadrons build up their tribal knowledge on the F-35. The F-22 got through some of the manhour issues in the L.O. barn with two deployments that had 100 pecent MC rates. But how much overtime the F-22 maintainers put in today? (er...not counting the long grounding)... I don't know.
I am excited about the F-35's potential with maintenance issues. If it can pull through on that it will be impressive.
As for survivability, I'm sure it may do fine for everything they could think of in 2000 when they locked up the JORD (not talking about the BS from marketing pukes)... Which means it could probably handle ALLIED FORCE 1999 threats fairly well. Funny though is that for ALLIED FORCE you could do it all with BLOCK II Super Hornets.
Some S-300 and S-400 configurations backed up by SU-3x filling in the gaps? That is what the F-22 is for; and, the F-35 JORD was based on the idea that the F-22 was there to take out those threats. So, the F-35 seems neither fish, nor fowl. And well, we do have a few thousand semi-functional JASSMs in storage and more being made.
Finally, whatever the F-35 becomes--it cannot be at any price.
@Godsmacked:
I did not use any LM or newspaper articles, but an APA page to come up with that 15-20nm number. Even then it's a notional upgraded system, at the same altitude, and in a head on aspect. Take away one or two of those factors and you're down to 10nm range.
On the speed & altitude front, what other fighter can carry 5000lb of ordinance, fully fueled, and still get past mach 1.6? The F-35 can still get to 50k+ feet, btw.
@ELP:
Yes, I know the F-35 blew the projected costs. That's not what we are discussing here.
How is the F-22 supposed to clear the way for the F-35 when it has no FLIR, limited A2G radar modes, and no standoff A2G missile (only the SDB).
As far as what it was designed for, everything after the SA-10 (ie the SA-20 and on) was designed AFTER the F-22, but before the F-35 was designed. Not only that, but it was only when they thought the F-22 was going to be cancelled (due to it's primary threat, ie massed Soviet fighters, never materialized) that they came up with it's A2G capability and started calling it the F/A-22. Once it was funded they went back to the F-22 and dropped most of the A2G capabilities (ie no FLIR) that they are only now (Blk3.2) starting to rectify in an effort to stay relevant.
The F-35, OTOH, has always been put forward as the solution for DEAD (as opposed to SEAD). Not only does it unarguably have better A2G capabilities than the F-22, it enjoys a much greater upgrade potential over the F-22 (thanks to UAI, better software/hardware, larger program, etc).
Last but not least, there are many that claim that one reason the F-22 production was stopped where is was is due to the knowledge that the F-35 can handle all current and mid-term threats with very little (only 140+ combat coded F-22s avail) support.
First. Understand that when the USAF came up with the ATF requirement that is today's F-22, a red force team knew that stealth for stealth's sake was not good enough. You had to have extreme speed and height. The super-cruise ability of the F-22 makes computing lead with enemy weapons on crossing shots very difficult. The F-35 isn't just a smaller F-22. Also, most don't understand the capability of the 30-some apertures on the F-22 which make the AN/ALR-94 one amazing system for ELINT. The export-friendly F-35 won't have quite that ability in that department.
When the F-35 goes naked in a stealth event, it doesn't have much to stop SU-3x class aircraft from killing it. Certainly not at the 4 and 6 times better than legacy BS we hear from the marketing pukes.
Spud I admire your persistence but holy cow you sure love to sell the kool-aid.
First of all, on your statement related due to the F-35 RAM, there is NO radar absorbent material in existence that completely nullifies all forms of radar.
OTH/Bistatic/Multistatic/L-band radar can detect stealth aircraft. Further there are now Russian and Chinese SAM radar systems in service that combine multiple radar transmitters operating in different frequencies that are geographically apart but linked to build a composite picture of an intruding aircraft. Against such systems there are no US aircraft that will be totally invisible.
On some of your prior points:
1. EODAS, no more need for the pilot to queue a HOBS shot with his head and he never loses track of WVR targets.
A: Recent photos of the J-20 indicate that the aircraft is also flying with a Chinese version of the EODAS which begs the question of how much information really was hacked from the JSF program!
2. 9g with FULL internal fuel and weapons.
A: Not in the F-35CV! Also due to the high wing loading of the F-35 sustained turning/banking is inferior to the 3 Euro-canards already in service.
3. No need for external weapons means less drag and the ability to maintain a higher speed while still armed.
A: This means little when going up against the new Russian and Chinese supercruising stealth fighters, both of which also carry weapons internally.
4. UAI allows faster, worldwide adoption of newer weapons/pods much quicker and cheaper than traditional integration techniques.
A: None of the advertised “advantages” of the F-35 have proven too affordable to date.
5. Last, but most important, VLO airframe. Gives the F-35 the flexibility of using/not using external stores depending on the target environment.
A: This means very little when going up against the other emerging supercruising air supremacy stealth fighters, both of which will have significant performance advantages over the JSF in terms of speed, P/T ratio, maneuverability, and high altitude operations.
6. MADL provides a secure, directional, & LPI datalink automatically with other F-35s (and soon to be F-22s, AWACS, & B2s).
A: The majority of ALL front line fighters in existence today enjoy advanced encrypted datalink systems including all three Euro-canards, the F-18E/F, the SU-30/35/, the J-10A/B, and J-11B/BS/J-15.
7. By 2019 Blk4 will likely be rolling off the line.
A: Extremely doubtful! To date (and over a decade) the F-35 has not been able to meet or stick to an SDD. I’ll believe it when I see it...
@Cocidius:
Re:RAM - I said that it counters all current radars, not nullifies them. In other words, it is effective vs UHF/VHF/L/C/S/X/etc, not just X band. Sorry if I was not clear enough.
Re:OTH/Bistatic/Multistatic/L-band radar - Any radar will eventually detect a stealthy (ie VLO) airframe. Nobody is claiming that the F-35 (or the F-22 for that matter) is "invisible" to radar. What is claimed is that the VLO aspects of the F-35 allow it to get close enough to employ A2G weapons in order to neutralize the radar sites (ie SDBI/II, Brimstone/JAGM, JASSM/-ER, & JSOW now [Blk3/4] with NGM, JSOW-ER, AARGM, LRS, etc later[Blk5+]). By using VLO instead of active jamming for a majority of it's missions, the F-35 maintains the element of surprise. If in the future it comes across an enemy that seriously threatens the std use of VLO assets, the DoD is already developing systems to employ of the F-35 to counter them (NGJ, LRS, internal active jamming [not APG-81], etc).
Re: #1 EODAS - Until the specs of the J-20 are released, those images are likely standard MLD/MAWS apertures that are currently used worldwide.
Re: #2 9g with weapons - The only reason the B/C versions are not 9g is that they decided that the extra cost of maint was not worth the benefit. They are limited in software to 7g/7.5g. Which Eurocard can out turn a F-35 while carrying 5000lb of weapons and full wing tanks (to keep the fuel levels the same)?
Re: #4 UAI - The recent real-world UAI integration of LJDAMs (Laser JDAM) on the F-15E showed that it only took 3 months and $2.5 million rather than the projected 3-5 years and $20-25 million to integrate. It works, is combat proven (83% of all F-15Es have it and all JDAMs have it).
Re: #5 VLO - Moot point, see my last comment
Re: #6 MADL - Every datalink today is omni-directional (ie they broadcast in all directions) and can give away their position. The MADL only broadcasts to a single wingmate (in a tightly focused beam) and is very difficult to detect let alone track.
Re: #7 Blk4 - SDD is on track (actually ahead of schedule) to complete by 2016. By then all SDD airframes can concentrate on Blk4. The JPO has said many times that they are on a 2 year cycle to certify Blks 4-6. Blk4 was actually set to be ready only 16 months after Blk3 is done. Click here for info
Finally, all 7 of my points above (and their originals) were in response to Vince when he said "there is nothing the F-35 adds that could not be done today already by other fighters. " The F-35 (by looking at #1-7) clearly offer many benefits over today's fighters.
No matter what Spudman says, it is a Brewster Buffalo.
that is totally outclassed kinetically, and by 2019?, 2020+ when it is supposed to actually work, technically.
The Chinese and Russians are sitting at home playing with their valve radio sets?
Great.. now we're at the facts-don't-matter stage.
You and LM invented it Spudman.
The facts have been quoted , and you choose to ignore them.
Not once have you provided researched, intelligent verifiable information, apart from LM marketing and associated sources.There are people who post and know what they are talking about.
I think you have that backwards. The only credible information comes from the DoD, LM and other Domestic & Partner Gov sources.
Anything else, including APA, is just using educated guesses.
I will admit to facts such as it's late, over budget & has dad some minor tech glitches (which are being successfully dealt with as they occur), but the fact remains that it is still a 5th gen fighter that was designed to survive in a double-digit SAM threat environment.
Some other facts: The APA does not have any special access to F-35 information. It has no information about the RAM/RAS, radar modes, APG-81/RwR/EOTS/EODAS/MADL/F135/aerodynamic/AMRAAM/etc performance. On the flip side, with all the Partners involved & embedding in the JPO there has never been one credible claim that the F-35 is not meeting it's performance/stealth KPPs.
So it boils down to this: One one hand you have all the developers, builders, testers, pilots, Partner nations, and Gov sources (you know, the people who actually are part of the program and have access to the classified data) who back up the program and it's claims. On the other hand you have the likes of the APA & Winslow who have ZERO access and have to make estimations based on conjecture, declassified data and pictures. For the APA to be right there would have to exist the largest successful conspiracy (since there has been no leak) in history.
What's it going to take to convince you? Like the F-15/16, we might have to wait until Israel uses them against Syrian/Iranian/etc Migs (they will likely have the F-35 starting in 2016).
Wow.
A Brewster Buffalo is a Brewster Buffalo
Previous, I agree.
"Some other facts: The APA does not have any special access to F-35 information. It has no information about the RAM/RAS, radar modes"
And you do?
What are your qualifications?
A few things: classifing a program doesn't mean that the engineers get to ignore the laws of physics.
Another: In this study, APA states specifically that the F-35 will probably meet its low observable requirements. Where, one must take a look at those requirements and see if they have any worthwhile value.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
@Anon: Really, a one liner? What is this, kindergarten?
@ELP: If the US knows that it is going against an effective long range SAM system, tehn it will not be using it's shortest range standoff weapon in an ineffective manner. They have several options:
1. Using SDB from max altitude & max speed (50,000+ ft & 750+ KTAS). This should greatly increase standoff range (70+nm).
2. Support jamming from either E/A-18, APG-81, or NGJ.
3. Longer range weapons like JASSM(&ER), JSOW(&ER), JSM, NGM, etc.
Yup. Well aware of the SDB. However the only platform that is survivable to take it into stiff integrated (non-legacy) air defense systems will be the F-22.
I see you ignored #3. For A2G SEAD/DEAD the F-22 is a "one trick pony".
"I see you ignored #3. For A2G SEAD/DEAD the F-22 is a "one trick pony".
Beats being a one trick donkey.
Ponys are more useful.
Ignored? Well, the F-22 is the only manned platform to take into the face of these threats. Which means what we are looking at for anti-access is JASSM (slow, still kinda faulty, some X-band L.O.), MALD, if it works as advertised, Tomahawks, and F-22. I wouldn't count on the Growler/Grizzly as it doesn't qualify as a true standoff jammer and the jamming gear it has is too legacy to do what is needed (B-52 SOJ is what is needed for at least the low band threats). The F-35 won't be any kind of factor here as it won't be survivable. The F-35 is not good enough for anti-access and too expensive for non-anti-access missions that the Super-Slow Hornet can handle. That idea should be scary enough.
"I think you have that backwards. The only credible information comes from the DoD, LM and other Domestic & Partner Gov sources.
Spudman says.
Are you quite with it.You and LM make Goebbels look like a simpleton.
I smell bacon.
So for the F-35 to not work, all the other supporting assets have to fail also? (JASSM, JSOW, NGM, NGJ, E/A-18, LRS, JSM, AARGM, LRS, MALD, MALD-J, etc)
Is this "Spudman " on our planet?
SpudmanWP,
I admire your courage to argue in a forum like this that is obviously hostile to what you say, and you are generally quite articulate. But frankly you are as blind to the flaws in the arguments you post as those others you accuse of being to yours.
In an ideal situation you would be quite correct to argue that the only people qualified to speak the truth accurately about the F-35's capability would be LM and its partners and the US and various foreign Govt's involved in the process that are privy to the finer detail. The problem is reality is somewhat different. Given that the original specs, costing and timeline have altered so far that frankly they bare little resemblance to what we started with (and of course the world has changed) there is little reason to trust what is now said by those same agencies. Particularly given the money and jobs involved which almost always manages to corrupt higher ideals of truth.
As for some of the systems that you say your detractors believe would all need to fail a number of them are not in service due to difficulties or are at best in development with the attendant risk that involves. And frankly you were being a bit misrepresentative of what they were trying to say when you said ALL of them would need to fail. You would only need a number of them to fail as programs/in-service systems for the F-35 as you see it to be neutered as a viable platform.
And frankly, if the F-35 is all it's cracked up to be with the stealth abilities you attributed, why would it need the E/A-18G or NGJ to escort it anyway, any less than any other conventional or LO platform out there?
Regardless of individual opinions, if you stand back & look at the original goals of the F35 programme, it was, from the beginning, designed to be the lo in a high lo mix. A CAS aircraft with a limited air to air capability designed to operate in a lower threat environment in tandem with the F22.
Even with all of the onboard sensors & electronic wizardry, which will no doubt reduce the pilots workload & improve situational awareness, aerodynamically & kinematically the airframe is designed for low to mid altitude operation & optimized for transonic maneuver.
Should LM ever get it right, the F35 will potentially be an effective CAS aircraft. However, I personally do not see how an aircraft, designed primarily as a multirole/ CAS platform can be effective in the air dominance role that it is now being marketed, this is especially worrying now since the nations air forces that it will most likly go into battle against will be operating proven 4+ or 5th gen fighters now being developed in China & Russia. Whilst these new fighters may only be in the early development phase, to dismiss them as non threats is at best very foolish.
As for earlier comments re; 9g turns with full fuel & weapons. Thats all good & well but being able to make an instantanious 9g turn & sustaining a 9g turn are not one & the same. The F35 lacks the excess power to sustain or continue high g maneuvering. In addition, the small internal BVR weapons load allows for only 2, 2 round ripple shots. For the F35 to exploit any potential front aspect stealth advantage it will need something with better range & lethality than the AIM120D, as the missile is now being matched or outclassed by current Russian & Chinese weapons.
Regarding the F35's speed, it's distinct lack of it means adversaries will fly higher & faster increasing the effective range they can engage & reducing that of the F35.
At the end of the day, even if it meets expectations, adversaries will develop tactics & tech to counter, which it would seem they are allready doing with some success, & as many people fear will render it obsolete before it even enters service.
Post a Comment