That's something the Navy is planning on doing as we speak. They'll be working in conjunction with the USMC to fully exploit the F-35's capabilities and advantages. Those capabilities and advantages are new to the Navy and they need to learn how to use them fully:
Sound like they have a plan.
Graff
But the Navy has never operated a stealthy aircraft with the kinds of sensors found onboard the F-35C before. In order to learn how to best utilize the new fighter, one of the first units to receive the F-35C will be the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC)—which is the home of the Navy’s famous TOPGUN school.And that's the key to the successful deployment of the F-35 - fully testing it's strengths and weaknesses and then developing tactics, operational concepts and strategies which fully exploit the strengths of the F-35 while guarding against any weaknesses.
“One of the earliest places we’re going to put Joint Strike Fighter is at NSAWC,” Manazir said. “We’ll operate them out at [Naval Air Station] Fallon [Nevada] and be able to develop those tactics real-time on the range with Block II AESA [Active Electronically Scanned Array] F/A-18Es and Fs and F-35Cs.”
Moreover, because all three F-35 variants have the same mission systems, the Navy is working very closely with the U.S. Marine Corps to develop tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for the JSF. Manazir noted that the USMC would operate the F-35C from the Navy’s Nimitz and Ford-class supercarriers in addition to the F-35B, which will be operated from amphibious assault ships.
“We’ll be able to exploit the advantages of both kinds of aircraft,” Manazir said. Right now the Marines are ahead of the Navy in developing the concepts of operation for the F-35.
Sound like they have a plan.
Graff
I wonder how long it's going to take one of the anti F-35 bloggers/reporters/morons (I'll be following de Brigante, Kopp/Goon/Palmer (they're all the same, really), and Winslow Wheeler to check for the last one) to claim that this bit of news is "evidence" that the Navy doesn't want the F-35 because one of the first units to deploy with it won't be a "front-line combat unit."
ReplyDeleteI remember when some people in this blog said the stand off weapons are not the best solution to destroy hide enemy targets. Now the USNavy is planing to use the F-35C to find those targets to share the data with other airplanes to use the Stand Off weapons. If what you need is to find those targets, all you need are some stealth drones. That's the way of the inevitable future.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcXKPQbiOAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6FdruyXPJg
Once you locate the targets all you need is a LO airplane, stand off bombs and well trained pilots.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7RQ50gwFY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Well, I'll just start off by saying that using Pravda (whoops, I meant "Russia Today") as a source pretty much drops your credibility to abysmally low levels. Anyways...
ReplyDeleteUsing drones works as long as the enemy doesn't attempt to block your signal. Since drones are controlled via geostationary satellite relays (due to pesky things like line-of-sight communication), and geostationary communications satellites have pathetic power outputs, they are relatively easy to jam. Since the more powerful transmitter (between the jamming source and the legitimate transmitter) tends to overpower the other, the jamming source will almost always win. Unless you boost the satellite's signal strength, your relay isn't going to do very well so long as the enemy has an operational jamming transmitter.
To provide an example, most geostationary communications transmitters have signal strengths of just under twenty-five watts (after the path loss, that leaves you with a ground signal strength of less than -155 dBW). A few really strong transmitters produce a touch below fifty watts. In comparison, there are radio jamming systems with power outputs of over ten MEGAwatts -- almost half a million times more powerful than a geostationary transmitter with just under twenty-five watts. Of course, not all jamming systems will be that powerful (mobile systems, which would be more survivable, might have a power output in the kilowatt range), but the result is the same: the jamming signal is orders of magnitude more powerful than the drone's relay signal, and so it would be easy to drown out the transmission. Unless you increase the satellite's transmitting power, the results are not favorable for the drone.
And that's one of the reasons why we still use piloted aircraft. Drones might cost less, but you really don't want your ace-in-the-hole completely unable to do its job because it can't get a signal.
Big Deal, all you need to do is to send one or several of those Stealth Drones with an pr-established route, once they recollect all the info they can go fast out of the enemy jammers range and to pass that info to the Growlers, the E-2D Hawkeye or the Super Hornets. Then you can launch whatever you want to use to destroy those targets, radars, comunication center of control etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-US-Navy-Demo-New-Targeting-and-Data-Systems-on-EA-18G
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrT2KtSzMd0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3I4i1iDND4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
... Because of course the highly mobile and camouflaged target will not be able to move out of the way or hide itself in the hour (and that's an optimistic time frame) it takes for the drone to fly over the target, fly out of the 415+ mile radar horizon, transmit the data, make the decision to launch the standoff weapon, launch the weapon, and get the weapon to the target. That would be completely inconceivable.
DeleteA lot of the time, you need to be able to launch a weapon at close range, quickly after "seeing" the target, to minimize the time from detection to impact. Hour-old data is too imprecise in many situations.
To resolve this issue, you either need to have a human pilot or a direct connection to the drone. The first requires a manned aircraft, and the second would require a powerful satellite transmitter in a hostile electromagnetic environment. So, unless you can boost the power of the satellite transmitter, your idea just won't work reliably.
Who needs to destroy the mobile SAMs at the beginning necesarily? What you want to destroy with those stand off weapons are the command centers, weapon deposits, comunication facilities, refineries, military bases, runways, airplanes, trucks, tanks, etc. Etc. Do you want manned airplanes to locate those SAMs? Just send a couple of Growlers and they will jam them. When was the last time the USA start a war with oit stwnd off weapons or Tomahawks? 24 years ago?
ReplyDelete... you were the one who was suggesting using standoff weapons.
DeleteAnyways, my point is completely unrelated to whether you choose to use dumb bombs, guided munitions, or cruise missiles (assuming it is related is a strawman argument). I'll list my actual argument so it's easy to understand:
1) Actual combat requires human-analyzed, real time data. Hour-old images are far too outdated, and drones don't have the analytic capabilities to determine the correct course of action the way humans can (computers are great at calculating, but terrible at decision making).
2) Therefore, your argument of using drones to scout out an area can only work if you have a stable communications link with the drone.
3) Unless you increase the power of satellite transmitters beyond the current low-double-digit-watt level, you cannot rely on satellite communications being available in a contested environment while fighting a sophisticated enemy with sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities.
Is not just me who is talking about the use of the Super Hornets with stan off weapons, is the USNavy trying to find a way to use the F-35, now as a target designator.
ReplyDeleteTo obtain the location of very important fix targets as the ones I just mentioned, all you need is to buy images from comercial satellites or to use your own satellites. Then the Stand off weapons using advanced algorithms and images will arrive and destroy those targets, not even using satellite signals.
In case you want to destroy other moving targets you have several options, like to use the Growlers to collect all the ellectromagnetic signals, jamming the enemy radars and creating a general map of the battlefield using also it's Aesa radar. Then they can destroy those radars using advanced antiradiation missiles or stand off weapons or Jdams from the Super hornets in the area.
They also can use Malds to saturate the enemy air defenses if they want.
Boeing is even talking about the use drones launched from the super hornets at safe distance, commanded by the copilots in the Super Hornets or Growlers to locate and destroy those mobile targets, using their Aesa radars for secure comunication and their jammers to protect them.
If the US wants to spend Trillions to locate targets using the F-35 instead of peanuts using the growlers and drones is because L.Martin has hijacked the congress.
Go ahead and keep on talking about how you'll apparently be able to find out the location of a mobile target from months-old commercial satellite pictures. And advanced algorithms and other handwavium/MacGuffinite stuff.
DeleteAnd you keep going on about jamming and anti-radiation missiles. I see you still have yet to realize that AESA radars exist (at least in applications other than on your precious Growler). As for MALDs: as with any decoy, if you're not VLO, launching MALDs simply creates more targets. MALDs do nothing to prevent the enemy from seeing and destroying you, they simply provide a large number of targets, and you hope that the enemy doesn't happen to decide to shoot at you, because if he does (either because he can differentiate between you and the MALD, because he has enough missiles to attack everything, or he just makes a lucky guess), you're hardly better off with the MALDs than without.
Wouldn't it be so much better if there was a plane that could still use MALDs as decoys, but that is VLO so it could actually use decoys to their fullest extend and get the greatest benefit from them? A system that could launch decoys and also remain hidden so that its survivability wasn't dependent on (more or less) dumb luck? I wonder what that kind of platform would be called...
BTW, nice use of the shill gambit!
Raptor
DeleteThe Raptor's great if you're doing air-air. If you're doing air-ground, CAS, or attempting to search for a ground target, however, it's poorly equipped. It was engineered to fit a single role: to shoot down other aircraft. It can serve in secondary roles, but it simply does not have the equipment to perform well in them. If you're looking for a VLO aircraft for air-air, then yes, the Raptor is a good choice.
DeleteHowever, if you're looking for a VLO aircraft capable of performing air-ground, CAS, or targeting, the only real contender is the F-35.
I also find it funny that, in the span of a single post, you went from condemning LockMart to advocating the use of one of their latest aircraft. The irony...
DeleteI'm not proposing anything I'm just answering your question. The F-35 is not at all around a VLO aircraft like the Raptor, just at the front as the Super Hornet, specially after all the pop ups and aditions at the base and engine they put on it, that's pretty obvious when you compare it with the original X35. With the use of the external gun pod and racks to carry Aim-9X is even worst than the Advanced Super Hornet. CAS? are you kidding me? Even an AK-47 will explode it with a single bullet. There are many situations where it's imposible to use a JDAM with out blowing up your own camarades, when the enemy is very close to them, that's when you need to use the Canon. Irak and Afganistan wars have plenty of stories abouit it. Now is not just the USNAVY, the USAF also is showing how confident is in the capacity of the F-35 to be in contested areas. They are talking to use Jassm with the the B2 to not put at risk other escort airplanes. I wonder what kind of platform are they talking about to be the natural escort of the Low Observable B2, the F-16? www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123376707
DeleteYes, the F-35 is all-aspect VLO. That has been stated many times by the *engineers who actually designed the aircraft* (i.e. people who actually are involved with the project, are privy to top secret information regarding its design, and know what they're talking about -- in other words, the exact opposite of you). This information was based off of extensive radar pole tests, where an actual F-35 body was elevated on a stand and illuminated by an actual radar from every angle to determine its full RCS. In other words, they're not just pulling numbers out of their asses (unlike Kopp/Goon). The fact that Kopp (a man with no experience whatsoever with the military, aircraft design, aircraft flight/maintenance, or radar systems) can draw cartoon pictures and claim "Aha! My stupidity shows that the F-35 isn't all-aspect stealth!" by completely forgetting how the ninety-degree rule works does NOT change the fact that the F-35 is all-aspect VLO.
DeleteTL;DR version: bumps only compromise a structure's RCS if they form ninety degree angles. The bumps on the F-35 don't.
DeleteSecondly, the F-35 will be able to carry AIM-9s internally. It has an internal launcher specifically for this purpose. The AIM-9X has been developed to have lock-on-after-launch capabilities specifically for that purpose. If you paid any attention to the program, you would know this.
DeleteYes, CAS. Your statement regarding the cannon belies an extreme lack of knowledge. You assume that using an cannon simply involves pointing at the target and shooting -- zero collateral damage! Of course, in reality, this is not the case. When an aircraft cannon is fired, the rounds tend to land within a relatively large cone around the target -- even in perfect conditions, twenty percent of the rounds from a GAU-8 will land more than forty feet from the target -- and the M61 Vulcan is even worse. In most situations, the accuracy is lower. Most cannon runs cover a pretty large swath of land -- and if that area contains any friendlies or civilians, you can't conduct the run. In comparison, precision guided light weapons, such as the SDB, are much, much better from a collateral damage standpoint.
Yes, the Air Force is developing the JASSM-ER. You got that right, at least (do you want a cookie?). You immediately venture back into falsehoods, however, when you claim that the development of the JASSM-ER (or any other stand-off weapon, for that matter), negates the use of VLO. There are several reasons:
1) Target ID: the JASSM-ER may have a range of 925+ km, but I can guarantee you that it will never be used at that range, except against large, immobile, soft, and uncamo'd targets (since I'm feeling in an aerospace mood today, I'll use SatGCS as an example). However, if the target you want to attack is small, mobile, hardened, and/or camouflaged, you're almost certainly going to need to get much, much closer to positively ID it and/or conduct damage assessment after the munition has impacted.
2) Cost: The JASSM-ER costs almost $1.5 million a pop. The JDAM costs around $20,000. In a large scale war, you'll have at least several dozen targets to remove. You do the math.
Is funny how this blog stills showing he X-35 in their main page.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
Ah, AusAirPower. The ultimate in fanboy sites, where actually telling the truth and basic reality mean nothing, and someone with a computer science degree can claim to be "Australia's preeminent radar expert" without any of his drooling followers calling him on his bullshit.
Deleteamen!
DeleteKopp still circulating that bogus RAND report from 2008 as well as old outdated f35 specs from 2009. Amazing what lows this guy goes through over his obsession over the F22
Why the F-35?
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=LvHlW1h_0XQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Yes! You've uncovered the conspiracy! Clearly Lockheed Martin is nefariously thinking up nefarious tactics to over-hype F-35s nefariously so they can sell more planes and make money! Nefariously!
DeleteAnd, to top it off, they're also developing a cruise missile that can (apparently) make the F-35 totally obsolete and replace it! At the same time, they're spending billions of dollars developing the plane which will (apparently) be made useless by this missile that will (apparently) make them much less money!
...
Boy, I haven't heard of an economics idea more stupid than that since the claim that 9/11 was an inside job to collect insurance money...
They are not apending their billions, they are earning. money as crazy.
ReplyDeleteGo on, keep lecturing us on your amazing knowledge of economics. You've already proven you know *so much* about warfare and aerospace engineering, so I'm sure you'll positively dazzle us with your revelations about LockMart's fiscal policies.
DeleteThe US Navy’s variant of the F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter has successfully completed its first-ever landing on an aircraft carrier, marking a major milestone for the programme. Two F-35C aircraft landed on the USS Nimitz off the coast of San Diego, California, as part of the fifth-generation fighter’s initial at-sea testing phase.
ReplyDelete