"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:25:22 GMT, "Ski"
wrote:

OK, couple of good comments in the replys

- stealth needed for the high threat IADS
- better technology always assumed since in fact it is newer

First day war needs stealth but this I think is the role being laid for the F-22 that will not require tanks or racks to keep its stealth value, whereas the JSF still would have to have a load with it and in the end it would compromise its stealth requiring "suppression", stand off or escort or onboard "jamming", diversion tactics, etc, in the way the F-117's had to play.

Remember that F-22 is primarily an air dominance fighter. It will have
A/G capability, but that is augmentation of the basic mission rather
than predominant. Raptors will insure that the US record of
controlling the sky over the battle area remains as it has for the
last 55 years.

F-35 is very stealthy, but you can parallel the 22/35 synergy to 15/16
roles. There is limited mission cross-over for both pairs, but the
basic mission relationship applies.


So I still wonder what we are really buying. "Old" F-15's and F-16's and F-18's can be made new and for sure the F/A-18E/F may be in the JSF class as to internal systems and OBOGS and modernized self-support features - but - all of this is retrofitable to the fleet of these lets say legacy aircraft including the AESA radar features which already is underway. Now the internal FLIR and night attack features of the JSF for the current wars and near future are matched well by the family of advanced targeting pods (LITENING, SNIPER, FLIR AT, ATLAS, etc) so in effect all of the aircraft share around the same range - payload - performance - night capability with the Strike Eagle edging out on top with the brute force cpabilities and the JSF holding still to a more refined cockpit and stealth when you button it up. The mission planning and off board stuff could all trickle down to all the platforms.

The major differences in the new generation are stealth and data
fusion. Stealth adds immeasurably to the survivability of the system
and as an add-on benefit it requires the internalization of those
systems which you list as bolt-ons. The bolt-ons were technology of a
time that didn't worry about observability issues and did need fairly
large processors and hard-coded software. Current technology allows
built-ins with much smaller space requirements and much more flexible
updating.

The real quantum leap forward of the new aircraft is in the
transparent merging of data from multiple sources and sensors. Where
the 15/16 aircraft had fixed, forward looking radar as the primary
sensor, the new aircraft provide full spherical coverage and
presentation of prioritized data in a way that is much more
manageable.

And, don't even begin to bring in off-the-wall cost figures for
comparison. Upgrading a pair of 30-40 year old airframes for new
production with state-of-the-art technology would not be cheap and
would still leave you with a comprised system that would be woefully
out of date in another decade. In other words a very short-term
solution which simply defers the high-cost investment.

What we can't do well in all of these machines is strafe: the F-18 and F-15 have canted guns that makes it dicey, the F-16 has a boresight system but a small ammo load and the JSF is a no can do - for Iraq and Afghanistan that is a tough call. And even the A-10 with the 30 mm is wished now to have a smaller gun to make less collateral damage.

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception. In general the cost-benefit
discussion of strafe effectiveness is that it is very difficult to
balance the risk to a $100M airframe against the damage to the enemy.
Gotta kill a lot of $10K trucks to balance one loss.

CAS is continuing to morph into a stand-off delivery game. The
troops-in-contact provide accurate coordinates or laser-designation
and the stand-off platform dumps iron on the cross-hairs. It isn't as
glamorous as snake-n-nape at 50 feet, but it is much more accurate and
effective.

Well what about the Rapiers and handheld IR SAM's - every one of these jets are too hot, too contrast prone for low altitude and all the too noisy - so they use countermeasures, tactics, and agility which is sometimes not enough. But for sure the Apache has been ruled out and the Cobra given real trouble.

Stand-off, stand-off, stand-off. The new jets aren't that hot or
noisy, but there isn't that much requirement for low altitude work.
MANPADS have always been the threat to rotary wing systems and
slow-movers, but seldom of great concern to fast-movers.

If the JSF did not cost three times an F-16 or twice a F-15E then you might say lets press with the F-35 and let the maturity build up fix all this, but with the F-35 is dragging dozens of billions of dollars in investment that goes into its employment - money i think we can not afford now.

Have you heard of the concept of "sunk costs"?

The front-end costs are expended and the product is nearing
production. What we can't afford is to suddenly decide that the
decisions of the last fifteen years of the program were all wrong and
we need to regress to 1970 technology.

Just for grins think of an extended development JSF leveraging all the good things now realized but add a real laser weapon to rid it totally of racks, weapons, and pylons - then merge in the UCAS/UCAV ideas of creating both manned and un-manned versions, then to balance out dropping the STOVL (most costly investment) move to a vectored thrust system that would really help the unmanned version and be a safety factor to the manned. All this 10 or 15 years down the road when knocking on Iran's or North Korea's front door would be very realistic and this done at around $4 billion a year, something of a 80% savings to invest in infrastructure and this COIN Air Component idea.

What a collection of garbled concepts. Of course there will be
extended development and weaponry upgrades. That is always the case.

First generation laser weapons are more likely to be large platform
than tactical aircraft. Think satellite or AC(B)-2 Spirit.

You don't need unmanned versions of manned aircraft--you sacrifice too
much weight and support systems to make it practical. Build a
dedicated unmanned platform.

Drop STOVL but build a "vectored thrust system"? Do it but don't?

Iran and N. Korea aren't 10-15 years down the road.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why.
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:25:22 GMT, "Ski"
wrote:

OK, couple of good comments in the replys

- stealth needed for the high threat IADS
- better technology always assumed since in fact it is newer

First day war needs stealth but this I think is the role being laid for the F-22 that will not require tanks or racks to keep its stealth value, whereas the JSF still would have to have a load with it and in the end it would compromise its stealth requiring "suppression", stand off or escort or onboard "jamming", diversion tactics, etc, in the way the F-117's had to play.

Remember that F-22 is primarily an air dominance fighter. It will have
A/G capability, but that is augmentation of the basic mission rather
than predominant. Raptors will insure that the US record of
controlling the sky over the battle area remains as it has for the
last 55 years.

F-35 is very stealthy, but you can parallel the 22/35 synergy to 15/16
roles. There is limited mission cross-over for both pairs, but the
basic mission relationship applies.


So I still wonder what we are really buying. "Old" F-15's and F-16's and F-18's can be made new and for sure the F/A-18E/F may be in the JSF class as to internal systems and OBOGS and modernized self-support features - but - all of this is retrofitable to the fleet of these lets say legacy aircraft including the AESA radar features which already is underway. Now the internal FLIR and night attack features of the JSF for the current wars and near future are matched well by the family of advanced targeting pods (LITENING, SNIPER, FLIR AT, ATLAS, etc) so in effect all of the aircraft share around the same range - payload - performance - night capability with the Strike Eagle edging out on top with the brute force cpabilities and the JSF holding still to a more refined cockpit and stealth when you button it up. The mission planning and off board stuff could all trickle down to all the platforms.

The major differences in the new generation are stealth and data
fusion. Stealth adds immeasurably to the survivability of the system
and as an add-on benefit it requires the internalization of those
systems which you list as bolt-ons. The bolt-ons were technology of a
time that didn't worry about observability issues and did need fairly
large processors and hard-coded software. Current technology allows
built-ins with much smaller space requirements and much more flexible
updating.

The real quantum leap forward of the new aircraft is in the
transparent merging of data from multiple sources and sensors. Where
the 15/16 aircraft had fixed, forward looking radar as the primary
sensor, the new aircraft provide full spherical coverage and
presentation of prioritized data in a way that is much more
manageable.

And, don't even begin to bring in off-the-wall cost figures for
comparison. Upgrading a pair of 30-40 year old airframes for new
production with state-of-the-art technology would not be cheap and
would still leave you with a comprised system that would be woefully
out of date in another decade. In other words a very short-term
solution which simply defers the high-cost investment.

What we can't do well in all of these machines is strafe: the F-18 and F-15 have canted guns that makes it dicey, the F-16 has a boresight system but a small ammo load and the JSF is a no can do - for Iraq and Afghanistan that is a tough call. And even the A-10 with the 30 mm is wished now to have a smaller gun to make less collateral damage.

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception. In general the cost-benefit
discussion of strafe effectiveness is that it is very difficult to
balance the risk to a $100M airframe against the damage to the enemy.
Gotta kill a lot of $10K trucks to balance one loss.

CAS is continuing to morph into a stand-off delivery game. The
troops-in-contact provide accurate coordinates or laser-designation
and the stand-off platform dumps iron on the cross-hairs. It isn't as
glamorous as snake-n-nape at 50 feet, but it is much more accurate and
effective.

Well what about the Rapiers and handheld IR SAM's - every one of these jets are too hot, too contrast prone for low altitude and all the too noisy - so they use countermeasures, tactics, and agility which is sometimes not enough. But for sure the Apache has been ruled out and the Cobra given real trouble.

Stand-off, stand-off, stand-off. The new jets aren't that hot or
noisy, but there isn't that much requirement for low altitude work.
MANPADS have always been the threat to rotary wing systems and
slow-movers, but seldom of great concern to fast-movers.

If the JSF did not cost three times an F-16 or twice a F-15E then you might say lets press with the F-35 and let the maturity build up fix all this, but with the F-35 is dragging dozens of billions of dollars in investment that goes into its employment - money i think we can not afford now.

Have you heard of the concept of "sunk costs"?

The front-end costs are expended and the product is nearing
production. What we can't afford is to suddenly decide that the
decisions of the last fifteen years of the program were all wrong and
we need to regress to 1970 technology.

Just for grins think of an extended development JSF leveraging all the good things now realized but add a real laser weapon to rid it totally of racks, weapons, and pylons - then merge in the UCAS/UCAV ideas of creating both manned and un-manned versions, then to balance out dropping the STOVL (most costly investment) move to a vectored thrust system that would really help the unmanned version and be a safety factor to the manned. All this 10 or 15 years down the road when knocking on Iran's or North Korea's front door would be very realistic and this done at around $4 billion a year, something of a 80% savings to invest in infrastructure and this COIN Air Component idea.

What a collection of garbled concepts. Of course there will be
extended development and weaponry upgrades. That is always the case.

First generation laser weapons are more likely to be large platform
than tactical aircraft. Think satellite or AC(B)-2 Spirit.

You don't need unmanned versions of manned aircraft--you sacrifice too
much weight and support systems to make it practical. Build a
dedicated unmanned platform.

Drop STOVL but build a "vectored thrust system"? Do it but don't?

Iran and N. Korea aren't 10-15 years down the road.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why.

Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart
of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save
lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent
with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire
need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period. Ain't no one in a
place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close.
Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter
is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full
conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for
more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at
once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point.

So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty
figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No,
those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money
will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political
climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to
make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't
let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce
collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less
"unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building
those planes.

TV

TV wrote:
Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why.

Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart
of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save
lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent
with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire
need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period.

Don't agree...and you even mentioned China. It doesn't have to be a
WWlll type scenario to 'need' stealthy A/C..How about when(not if)
China decides it wants Taiwan back? China has NOT sat still as they
design and buy Russian and Euro technology. Altho a sliver of the tech,
Euro-fighter, Rafale, Flanker/Fulcrum follow-ons are not to be sneared
at.


Ain't no one in a
place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close.

Balderdash...4 years into an ill concieved 'war' with no end in sight.
Your thinking of large, massed armies going toe to toe is not
realistic.

Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter
is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full
conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for
more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at
once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point.

So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty
figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No,
those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money
will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political
climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to
make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't
let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce
collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less
"unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building
those planes.

TV

On 21 Dec 2006 05:52:03 -0800, wrote:


TV wrote:
Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why.

Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart
of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save
lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent
with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire
need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period.

Don't agree...and you even mentioned China. It doesn't have to be a
WWlll type scenario to 'need' stealthy A/C..How about when(not if)
China decides it wants Taiwan back? China has NOT sat still as they
design and buy Russian and Euro technology. Altho a sliver of the tech,
Euro-fighter, Rafale, Flanker/Fulcrum follow-ons are not to be sneared
at.

You selectively edited TV's comment to imply the opposite of what he
said. He points out the dollar versus lives value of advanced
technology and the difference between long and short term planning. He
further notes that the value placed on warrior lives is both immediate
for the warrior and political for the government decision-makers. The
total argument concludes (as do you here) that while you could vote
short term retro-fit of teen-fighters, the better choice for beyond
current scenarios is the high-tech investment.


Ain't no one in a
place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close.

Balderdash...4 years into an ill concieved 'war' with no end in sight.
Your thinking of large, massed armies going toe to toe is not
realistic.

The "war" was over when Baghdad fell. The reconstruction and
democratization which is being attempted is a considerably different
issue. We are not well served by the continued failure by the media to
ignore the distinction between the war and the current efforts at
establishing security against the sectarian violence.

Buying fighters based on what is going on in Iraq is a non-sequitur.

Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter
is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full
conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for
more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at
once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point.

So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty
figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No,
those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money
will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political
climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to
make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't
let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce
collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less
"unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building
those planes.

While I could make a good, albeit emotional, argument regarding the
preference of tactical crewmembers for aircraft that are survivable,
you note very properly the reluctance of American's namby-pamby
generations to see combat through to a decisive conclusion when the
body-bags start appearing.

I watched Patton again last night and was really struck by the opening
speech in front of the giant flag--it was so true in the '40s and so
regretably gone today.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception.


"A fighter without a gun...is like an airplane without a wing."
--Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.


Jack

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:04:24 GMT, Jack wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception.


"A fighter without a gun...is like an airplane without a wing."
--Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.


Jack

Very good, Jack. But please note that strafing is NOT using a gun in
air-to-air.

And, one should also note that when Robin went to war in SEA, he chose
to go in the F-4, which at that time was sans gun. He did OK and if
you talk to him about it, he'll tell you that the "God-damned AIM-4"
was a lot more of an issue than his lack of a gun.

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:04:24 GMT, Jack wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception.


"A fighter without a gun...is like an airplane without a wing."
--Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.


Jack

Very good, Jack. But please note that strafing is NOT using a gun in
air-to-air.

And, one should also note that when Robin went to war in SEA, he chose
to go in the F-4, which at that time was sans gun. He did OK and if
you talk to him about it, he'll tell you that the "God-damned AIM-4"
was a lot more of an issue than his lack of a gun.

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Cheap, reliable, last ditch weapon...a must in almost every military
tactical A/C..maybe even the V-22

On 23 Dec 2006 09:24:11 -0800, wrote:

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.


Ed Rasimus


Cheap, reliable, last ditch weapon...a must in almost every military
tactical A/C..maybe even the V-22

ROTFLMAO. The real question would be which way to point it on
installation.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 23 Dec 2006 09:24:11 -0800, wrote:

We've got no disagreement about putting a gun in every fighter that
has any possibility of being engaged air-to-air.


Ed Rasimus


Cheap, reliable, last ditch weapon...a must in almost every military
tactical A/C..maybe even the V-22

ROTFLMAO. The real question would be which way to point it on
installation.

We used to rag our A-7 buddies that they needed to install the AIM-9
pointing rearward to be most effective.

Ditto on the gun.

My old boat school roommate was passing through yesterday enroute to
Christmas with his mom in FL. He's a project engineer at Fort Worth for
F-35C. Slow (despite 40K thrust), weight issues, maintenance/logistics
issues (the engine is so big it won't fit into the ship's jet shop!?, is too
big to fly a spare aboard?!?). OTOH, the cockpit is PERFECT for the
Nintendo-savvy next generation aviator.

R / John