F35 giggle

[junglierating]

To use my most useful phrase

 

Small porthole bigger picture.

[Giorgio N]

34 minutes ago, T7 Models said:

 

Until your enemy finds a countermeasure, which was the whole point of my post. Nothing stays still for long, least of all warfare.

 

 

So what should we do ? Continue with proven types and technologies and leave the initiative to others ? Do we want to force the potential enemies to find a contermeasure or do we want to be the ones having to look for contermeasures hoping to be quick enough in finding one and keeping our fingers crossed that our countermeasures always work ?

With the F-35 the partner Nations have the chance of having a huge capability advantage, leaving the rest to trail behind for a good number of years. Will the rest introduce countermeasures ? They will, but how long will it take them ? How much will this cost them ? What will be the strategic impact of lagging behind for X years ? And do the potential enemies really expect that we're going to sit on our superiority or will they understand that, as happened in the last 60 years, we'll continuously improve the capability of our combat forces ?

Most important, the F-35 is not simply an aircraft, it's a "philosophy", a new way of aerial combat based on the lessons learnt with the previous generations and made possible by the advancements in sensors and avionics. Any opposition will have to take note of this new philosophy, they will have to learn how to cope with it to reduce their losses. By the time the opposition has introduced their countermeasures they'll be likely facing new challenges. If we leave the initiative to the enemy, it will be our problem to try and catch up with continuously new challenges

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Giorgio N

[Truro Model Builder]

25 minutes ago, Alan P said:

 

20+:1 A2A kill ratio for a strike aircraft is unprecedented.

 

 

According to the press briefing in the AFM article it was 15:1. Still impressive for sure.

 

11 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

So what should we do ? Continue with proven types and technologies and leave the initiative to others ? Do we want to force the potential enemies to find a contermeasure or do we want to be the ones having to look for contermeasures hoping to be quick enough in finding one and keeping our fingers crossed that our countermeasures always work ?

 

 

 

I don't think I was suggesting that. In fact, I know I wasn't.

 

Be wary. The F-117 changed everything once... until the Yugoslavs found a way to bring one down, partly because of the complacency shown in the F-117's abilities by the USAF. I don't expect the F-35 advocates to equate the Lightning II to that, but there is a similar complacency being shown in some posts here, and the history of air warfare has shown time and time again that such thinking will get you killed.

[Giorgio N]

15 minutes ago, T7 Models said:

 

According to the press briefing in the AFM article it was 15:1. Still impressive for sure.

 

 

I don't think I was suggesting that. In fact, I know I wasn't.

 

Be wary. The F-117 changed everything once... until the Yugoslavs found a way to bring one down, partly because of the complacency shown in the F-117's abilities by the USAF. I don't expect the F-35 advocates to equate the Lightning II to that, but there is a similar complacency being shown in some posts here, and the history of air warfare has shown time and time again that such thinking will get you killed.

 

The F-117 is in fact a very good case: the aircraft shot down over Serbia in 1999 was Article 806, an aircraft built in 1984 that was lost in 1999. The F-117 first saw action in 1989 and the last use in combat was 2003, meaning that for 14 years the type dropped bombs on a good number of targets with the loss of a single aircraft. Not bad for an aircraft that in a sense was very "experimental".

While one F-117 was lost over Serbia (together with an F-16 while another couple of aircrafts sustained very heavy damage), the air campaign forced the Serbian forces to hide most of their military assets to avoid destruction, so rendering them totally useless, and inflicted serious damage to the infrastructures of the country. So the loss of the F-117 sure showed that some complacency had creeped in, but at the same time is in a sense acceptable considering the missions performed.

Speaking of complacency, the fact that the US is developing the F-35 and its systems seems to me to show that there's no complacency at all. They are working on something that will make easier for US and allied pilots to inflict losses to the enemy while reducing at a minimum the risks to our forces. We can say what we want about the USAF in particular, but the kind of research and development they've been conducting in aerial warfare over the last 35 years shows that complacency is not something they show too much. There may have been a few cases here and there but overall the kind of innovation brought forward shows that they're always trying to think well ahead of the enemy

 

[Meatbox8]

12 hours ago, XV107 said:

 

3rd Party Off Board Targeting would be the rejoinder to that; the problem being that you could - quite legitimately - say 'well, OK. Show me the details'.

 

The problem then becomes that the over-used line 'Er... it's classified' (or 'I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you') kicks in, a line which is, of course seen - not unfairly - as being nothing more than sitting somewhere between the Mandy Rice-Davies defence and using security to attempt to hide legitimate concerns.

 

In some cases, though, it isn't. The F-35 - and I don't have the Uber Jolly Secret clearance [not the real level of clearance because you need to have a certain level of clearance to know that it exists...] needed to comment, merely the privilege of having a brew with people who once did - may, may be an instance of a programme where transparency, such as it is, permits the flaws in the programme to be highlighted (no harm if the enemy knows about the problems which are probably too big to hide), but not the good stuff. This is exemplified, I think in this:

 

 

Now that's an informative post. But...

 

The DoD report is, of course, a fairly germane document. 

 

The Straus link, though, is problematic - it repeats some of the superficial claims about the F-35 vs F-16D fight and jazzes them up a little.

 

Let's just look at that a moment.

So, the narrative is that the F-35 is sent up against and F-16. The latter is  fitted with tanks and is a 2-seater, this being a deliberate step to make life easier for the F-35. Now, this is what is commonly referred to by a portmanteau word involving male bovines and excrement. Or involving commentary about the use of tin foil as fashionable headgear. Why in the name of Satan's Trousers would you fix the fight knowing that it was quite probable that information suggesting a fix, or worse,  that the supposedly degraded aircraft (flying in what is generally known as 'a fairly common fit for this sort of thing', by the way) still soundly kicked the posterior of your new wunderallesingenalletanzenflugzeug (with apologies to anyone who speaks proper German) six ways to Sunday via a leap year and three bank holidays, thus makes your new toy look, well, frankly a bit rubbish?

As is all explained pretty well by someone who has a decent idea of what he's on about - 1000 hrs in ANG F-16s and 4 years as a Hornet pilot in the USNR - here. Yet, scroll down to the comments and you end up with an array of comments from people who, in the main, (NB that caveat) have never read a document with a classification level above 'Unclassified' and whose only experience of sitting in an aeroplane has involved the production of a passport and ROE which include 'do not walk about the aisle when the seat belt light is on'... 

 

As happens with the comments under this lot of observations from one of the Norwegian pilots, who was spared the usual 'Oh, it's hopeless/Oh, it's the best aeroplane ever and I want to have its babies' extremes by not having comments under this (scroll down for the translation)

Now, Mr Lemoine doesn't have as many hours under his belt as others, but he has, at least, flown the aircraft involved. There are also a couple of snippets in there to ponder. He jokes about the pilot of the F-35 being an F-15E pilot. Yet... remember when the Typhoon was recently in RAF service and handed a couple of F-15Es their tail feathers? The usual 'Typhoon is rubbish' crew - including some now from the 'F-35 is rubbish' crew - were out there saying that well, of course, the Typhoons won, since the opposing pilots were mud movers who dabbled in the sport of kings and thus not likely to show just how good the F-15E is (and how hopeless the Typhoon was...). But that consideration isn't, apparently, relevant now. And what were the parameters of the test? Was the F-35 attacking, or was it defending? What weapons was it allowed to simulate using? Could it simulate using weapons to full capability? And so on, and so on.

 

Also, bear in mind that the test wasn't a 'which is better?' test, but part of the overall test programme. Part of this involved conducting air fighting as part of the examination of the flight control envelope. The report, when examined, demonstrates that rather than 'Oh, dear, we have a problem', the tone was more of 'OK, we need to alter some of the flight control software to allow the aircraft to manoeuvre more aggressively'.  The writers of the FCS laws had been fairly conservative, and one of the reasons for this sort of testing is demonstrate that the laws can be a little less strigent - indeed need to be - to allow the aircraft to reach its potential in manoeuvring. The F-35 didn't have a full weapons/sensor suite on board either, so was further hamstrung. 

 

We need to move away from the notion that F-35s will be required, on a routine basis, to do WVR 'dog fighting'by itself.

 

The dog fight isn't dead, but look at the stats - how many aircraft has the USAF/USN brought down since 1991? How many of these were destroyed using BVR weapons (AIM-7 or AIM-120) rather than AIM-9? The answer is that BVR weapons - even if the engagement got to WVR  - predominate in this.

 

Then, we have to ask when the F-35 is likely to find itself completely unalone - the answer is 'rarely' for the Americans and 'rarely' for the UK since a whole slew of supporting capabilities will be involved - EW, SEAD, F-22s, Typhoons.... Yes, F-35 has 'first night of the war' capability, but look at what 'first night of the war' looks like in a coalition operation, particularly if the US is playing a small part...

 

Your enemy IADS isn't going to be dealing just with F-35s cheekily sneaking in with a couple of internal weapons on board - it's going to have been visited by a mixture of B-2s, TLAMs, F-22s, Storm Shadow, AGM-158 and that's before various aviation writers start wetting themselves when they realise that there's an operational version of RATTLRS which has been quietly minding its own business under 'black' funding before arriving at a SOC/airfield at about Mach 4. Yes, some enemy fighters will get airborne - but in amidst a significant amount of chaos. The F-35 won't have it easy, but the notion that it'll fight its way in, or spend a significant amount of time attempting (and failing) to deal with Su-27 derivatives (or J-10s, J-11s, J-20s and possibly J-31s) on nights one and two of the war is to look at the situation through a straw and to miss the bigger picture. The US does not do faffing about on night one, it does 'apply large hammer' (see Libyan AD system in Op Odyssey Dawn for further details - and that was a half-hearted commitment...).

 

And let's assume that, somehow, the F-35 does find itself getting to the merge with an enemy F-16/J-10 - basing analysis of the ACM potential of an aircraft upon a test airframe which isn't fully developed is, frankly, a bit silly and makes the use of that by authors rushing to damn the F-35 look as though they're repeating stories without bothering to really analyse them as information emerges. 

 

Now, none of this involves drinking F-35 Kool Aid or similar. What it involves is accepting that many of the sources which are available swing too far to the opposite side of arc from LM's press releases. All of them are based upon material which is incomplete because of the classified material. It may be - I have no idea - that there's some absolute bombshell being kept under wraps (aircraft can't fly if the temperature is below -5; or the aircraft becomes sentient in certain attitudes because of a slight glitch in the FCS programming and has had to be prevented from using the MADL to order a skinny latte from Tim Horton's; or has a weapons system which has somehow developed teleological ethical reasoning and refuses to release weapons unless the Attorney General personally assures the system that it's OK.) Equally, it may be to the advantage of the partner nations to keep some information under wraps, particularly if its of the sort which renders information gained from the Chinese hacking of the programme system obsolete...

The point is that we can argue about this until the F-35 enters service - our information pool is limited and is driven by agendas. Is the F-35 costly? Hell, yes. Does it have developmental problems? Hell, yes. But does this mean that it's a complete disaster, or is it a case of 'game changing capability costs a shedload of cash and has many problems to overcome'? We don't know.... There are people who do, but as they don't really want to be done for breaches of various acts protecting secrecy, they're not going to say, at least not in any depth to rival the comments of the nay-sayers.

 

Beware of bloggers, commentators (David Axe-to-Grind, Pierre 'Didn't Actually Design the F-16' Sprey) and the LM PR department is, I think, my point...

 

As I've fallen into my usual habit and was asked for the acronyms last time I did so...
FCS = Flight Control Sofware

WVR = Within visual range

BVR = Beyond Visual Range

EW = Electronic Warfare

SEAD = Suppression of Enemy Air Defences
IADS = Integrated Air Defence System

RATTLRS = Revolutionary Approach To Time Critical Long Range Strike (BGM-178 and possibly AGM-178)

SOC = Sector Operations Centre (in an air defence network)

TLAM = Tomahawk Land Attack Missile

ACM - Air Combat Manoeuvring
 

 

 

So this might explain the extension and expansion of the Typhoon fleet.  If the F-35 is to be principally a first night aircraft, rather like the F-117, then the Typhoon is presumably to deal with the SU-27 etc once that element of surprise is gone and assuming any get off the ground in addition to follow up strikes, possibly coordinated by F-35s and all part of a bigger asset package.  What about the carrier borne F-35B though?  Isn't it possible that, by its very nature, and not withstanding coalition operations, the type could one day have to operate in isolation?  The only other airborne asset would be the Crowsnest Merlin.  I know it's unlikely that the RN would have to fight another Falklands War type campaign but that's what they said in 1980!

[georgeusa]

Sadly, all plans for out and out global warfare result in nuclear annihilation as the end result with no one the winner. The United States is adopting the German position in WWII that having complex, superior weapons will achieve victory. A kill ratio of 20-1 against an inferior aircraft is impressive until those aircraft are arriving at a 25-1 ratio. Doesn't anyone remember the production amount of the IL-2?  Unfortunately, if the U.S. feels it is losing the tactical advantage, someone will pull the trigger and launch nuclear weapons. That will result in a response from the other side to do likewise and all that will be left are cockroaches. Similarly, if the other side is losing the battle, they will respond first with their nukes. 

 

For the the current skirmishes the United States pursues, the need for such a highly developed weapon is not there. There has never been a question of air superiority since Korea.  So, the hype around the newest weapon system is to deter conflict from happening in the first place. Instead of bigger, badder nuclear weapons the race is now for bigger, badder aircraft, aircraft carriers tanks, etc.  Basically, show the other side you will spend way more money on conventional weapons than they will forces them to either pony up and do the same, or back down and realize the nuclear lose/lose situation is the inevitable choice that will have to be made should war break out. As long as both sides have a reasonable belief they will win a conventional war, no nukes. The first side that realizes a loss is probable, the world will end. 

[XV107]

10 hours ago, georgeusa said:

For the the current skirmishes the United States pursues, the need for such a highly developed weapon is not there.

 

With respect, there's a reason that F-22s were deployed for ops over Syria, and it wasn't to earn the aircraft decent publicity....

 

 

and

 

 

 

Which, for anyone who's not seen them, represent the Syrian SAM system, aka the reason why No Fly Zone over Damascus Now!' from certain political types went all a bit quiet. Also bear in mind that the above representations are open source and are not necessarily the full overview of the Syrian SAM system laydown, nor of its levels of capability/potential threat.

 

Now, as the Israelis have demonstrated, low observables are not the only solution to this problem - but if you can use an LO airframe to add to your other methods of engagement/suppression, then you use it. Throw in the possibility of a Syrian commander making a bit of an error and having a pop at a US asset, or deliberately doing so no matter what the ROE might appear to be, and... LO isn't an invulnerability cloak, but given the choice of something a bit more LO than the average bear, I'm taking Bruin with the expensive fur, thank you very much (he says, over-extending the analogy, as is his wont).

Edited April 4, 2017 by XV107

[Giorgio N]

20 hours ago, georgeusa said:

Sadly, all plans for out and out global warfare result in nuclear annihilation as the end result with no one the winner. The United States is adopting the German position in WWII that having complex, superior weapons will achieve victory. A kill ratio of 20-1 against an inferior aircraft is impressive until those aircraft are arriving at a 25-1 ratio. Doesn't anyone remember the production amount of the IL-2?  Unfortunately, if the U.S. feels it is losing the tactical advantage, someone will pull the trigger and launch nuclear weapons. That will result in a response from the other side to do likewise and all that will be left are cockroaches. Similarly, if the other side is losing the battle, they will respond first with their nukes. 

 

 

 

Is the US really adopting an approach of quality against quantity ? The USAF is today the largest air force in the world, the number of combat aircrafts in USAF service is higher than the number of combat aircrafts fielded by any other air force. Even with a 1:1 kill ratio the USAF is today going to win a war against any competitor based on numbers alone. Add the USN in the mix and the difference becomes even larger. Let's not forget that the US defence budget is today larger than that of the 10 following countries combined together ! Never in History we've seen such a difference.

Granted, tomorrow other countries may start to increase their numbers, but if things get hot and we end up in the unlikely situation where countries resort to mass mobilization, how many countries can hope to match the industrial output of a fully mobilized United States ? Germany during WW2 made wonder in their aircraft production but they were in the end a smallish country competing against the production capabilities of the USA and the USSR, with a sizeable contributio from Britain in the mix, their situation can not be compared to what are the United States today. Only China could today be expected to be able to match the US production. Maybe a fully mobilised Russia could hope to do something, maybe...

Plans for the F-35 production call for 1760 USAF aircrafts, these figures may become lower but it's still a good number of aircrafts. I can't see many other air forces in the world receive more than 2,000 aircrafts in a comparable timeframe. Maybe China will decide to pump up production and try to add another 2500 aircrafts (of which a large part would have to replace around 800 obsolete types anyway), but there's never going to be a 20 Vs.1 situation for the F-35... it's more likely that the USAF will fight the next war with a 10:1 advantage in numbers...

 

PS: of course the numbers here mentioned are of the total force, the size of the forces in the field for a given situation will differ based on all the necessary considerations. For the Gulf War the US and their allies mobilised a large number of aircrafts, other crises required smaller numbers

Edited April 5, 2017 by Giorgio N

[junglierating]

I read this with interest and I could put my two pence worth in but whilst I work with people who are or have worked with F35 I am not sufficiently qualified to comment on the cab.clearly some people may well qualified on here.All I will say is OPSEC. Lots of little things make a big picture and you don't know who is reading....could be your boss or worse.

Anyway as I said before small porthole bigger picture

[colin]

21 hours ago, georgeusa said:

Sadly, all plans for out and out global warfare result in nuclear annihilation as the end result with no one the winner. The United States is adopting the German position in WWII that having complex, superior weapons will achieve victory. A kill ratio of 20-1 against an inferior aircraft is impressive until those aircraft are arriving at a 25-1 ratio. Doesn't anyone remember the production amount of the IL-2?  Unfortunately, if the U.S. feels it is losing the tactical advantage, someone will pull the trigger and launch nuclear weapons. That will result in a response from the other side to do likewise and all that will be left are cockroaches. Similarly, if the other side is losing the battle, they will respond first with their nukes. 

 

For the the current skirmishes the United States pursues, the need for such a highly developed weapon is not there. There has never been a question of air superiority since Korea.  So, the hype around the newest weapon system is to deter conflict from happening in the first place. Instead of bigger, badder nuclear weapons the race is now for bigger, badder aircraft, aircraft carriers tanks, etc.  Basically, show the other side you will spend way more money on conventional weapons than they will forces them to either pony up and do the same, or back down and realize the nuclear lose/lose situation is the inevitable choice that will have to be made should war break out. As long as both sides have a reasonable belief they will win a conventional war, no nukes. The first side that realizes a loss is probable, the world will end. 

So you could go down the route of some others countries and just try and develope a nuke and no one will dare to touch you.So why spend billions developing better weapons in the first place as it's a no win situation.

Yes you can have the most advanced weapons and show you can beat them, but as recent conflics show, thats not the end of it then. It's a scary world for sure

[georgeusa]

8 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Is the US really adopting an approach of quality against quantity ? The USAF is today the largest air force in the world, the number of combat aircrafts in USAF service is higher than the number of combat aircrafts fielded by any other air force. Even with a 1:1 kill ratio the USAF is today going to win a war against any competitor based on numbers alone. Add the USN in the mix and the difference becomes even larger. Let's not forget that the US defence budget is today larger than that of the 10 following countries combined together ! Never in History we've seen such a difference.

Granted, tomorrow other countries may start to increase their numbers, but if things get hot and we end up in the unlikely situation where countries resort to mass mobilization, how many countries can hope to match the industrial output of a fully mobilized United States ? Germany during WW2 made wonder in their aircraft production but they were in the end a smallish country competing against the production capabilities of the USA and the USSR, with a sizeable contributio from Britain in the mix, their situation can not be compared to what are the United States today. Only China could today be expected to be able to match the US production. Maybe a fully mobilised Russia could hope to do something, maybe...

Plans for the F-35 production call for 1760 USAF aircrafts, these figures may become lower but it's still a good number of aircrafts. I can't see many other air forces in the world receive more than 2,000 aircrafts in a comparable timeframe. Maybe China will decide to pump up production and try to add another 2500 aircrafts (of which a large part would have to replace around 800 obsolete types anyway), but there's never going to be a 20 Vs.1 situation for the F-35... it's more likely that the USAF will fight the next war with a 10:1 advantage in numbers...

 

PS: of course the numbers here mentioned are of the total force, the size of the forces in the field for a given situation will differ based on all the necessary considerations. For the Gulf War the US and their allies mobilised a large number of aircrafts, other crises required smaller numbers

Giorgio,

i don't really think the newest generation of fighters was developed with combating the proficiency and danger posed by the ISIS Air Force.  Rather, they are developed to be the most technologically advanced aircraft in the world. The subtext is to the world at large, the potential super powers that could actually pose a genuine threat to the U.S., don't mess with us as our toys are much better than yours in a fight. The U.S. has a large Air Force in comparison to the peacetime air forces of the resort of the world that is true. But it's size is minuscule to the aircraft nations deployed in WWII.   If the budget for the F-35 was spent on building instead F-16s, the sheer number of F-16s would overwhelm the effect that could be achieved with the same amount spent on F-35s. The cost, however would be in the numbers of dead pilots. 

For some reason, the U.S. seems to think there is a way to become so technologically advanced, there will be no casualties in a war. This is not realistic or achievable. We are horrified when double digit casualties occcur in a skirmish. Compare that to the daily losses of men in WWII, Korea or even Vietnam.  If you go fight a war, young people die. That is just a basic truth that needs to be weighed by politicians before they spill blood over some new cause. I would like to tell you that I can't count the number of times I watched good men die, but I can; because I remember each one of their faces, both friend and foe and the look of life leaving their eyes