F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

Why is the stealth needed?

Current and future air defence systems that are many magnitudes cheaper than aircraft……and the possibility that sometime in the future a Canadian Government may deem it necessary to bomb someone with said air defence networks………..

in any case, I've expressed my alternative preferences many times over. It doesn't include so-called 'first-strike' capabilities...

or the nothingness that F-35 "stealth" means... or will mean.

Or the pumped up vagueness that "5th gen" means. It doesn't align with imaginary boogeyman invasions of Canada... or the convenient Arctic sovereignty buzzword politicization - one Harper Conservatives have even bailed on now.

ah yes, the much ballyhooed "stealth" JSFail F-35 capabilities. And yet, voices of reason clamor for attention amongst the grinding wheels of the military machine! Enter, the U.S. Navy... never hesitant to publicly undercut the F-35 in the past; from continuing to place additional orders for F/A-18E and F Super Hornets, to, for all intents and purposes, abandoning the JSFail F-35 by issuing a separate RFI for a new replacement jet fighter. And now along comes the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, speaking 'truth to power' about stealth, further publicly undercutting the F-35:

U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert

: The Limits of Stealth

The rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain above and below the water. First, though, military sensors will start to circumvent stealth of surface ships and aircraft through two main mechanisms:

• Operating at lower electromagnetic frequencies than stealth technologies are designed to negate, and

• Detecting the stealth platform from angles or aspects at which the platform has a higher signature.

U.S. forces can take advantage of those developments by employing long-range sensor, weapon, and unmanned-vehicle payloads instead of using only stealth platforms and shorter-range systems to reach targets.

Stealth ships and aircraft are designed to have a small radar or infrared electromagnetic signature at specific frequencies. The frequency ranges at which stealth is designed to be most effective are those most commonly used by active radar or passive infrared detection systems. At lower frequencies detections do not normally provide the resolution or precision necessary for accurate targeting. Using more powerful information-processing, however, military forces will be able to develop target-quality data from these lower-frequency passive infrared signals or active-radar returns.

The aspects at which stealth platforms are designed to have their smallest signature are those from which detection is most likely. For example, an aircraft or ship is designed to have a small signature or radar return when it is approaching a threat sensor—or has a “nose-on” aspect. Improved computer processing will produce new techniques that can detect stealth platforms at target aspects from which they have higher radar returns. Multiple active radars, for instance, can combine their returns through a battle-management computer so radar detections from a stealth platform’s less-stealthy side, underside, or rear aspect can be shared and correlated to allow the stealth platform to be detected and attacked. Similarly, passive radar receivers can capture the electromagnetic energy that comes from transmitters of opportunity—such as cell-phone or TV towers—and bounces off a stealth platform at a variety of angles. With better processing in the future, those weak, fragmented signals can be combined to create actionable target information.

Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons.

Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counterdetection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them.

... translation: forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack.

[bush_cheney2004]

... translation: forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack.

More American strategy and solutions that Canada doesn't want to pay for. Try to get the rotary winged aircraft fiascos solved first, then think about becoming masters of EW.

[PIK]

let's see those wet dreams of yours play out first, hey?

anyway, let me leave you with the following: I'll be gone for a few days (mountain climbing)... try not to pollute this thread with too much jingo-porn, hey?

Try not to polute the mountain. It seems that is all mountain climbers do.

Edited July 5, 2012 by PIK

[Guest Derek L]

ah yes, the much ballyhooed "stealth" JSFail F-35 capabilities. And yet, voices of reason clamor for attention amongst the grinding wheels of the military machine! Enter, the U.S. Navy... never hesitant to publicly undercut the F-35 in the past; from continuing to place additional orders for F/A-18E and F Super Hornets, to, for all intents and purposes, abandoning the JSFail F-35 by issuing a separate RFI for a new replacement jet fighter. And now along comes the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, speaking 'truth to power' about stealth, further publicly undercutting the F-35:

... translation: forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack.

That’s an interesting “translation” Waldo………..And yet the F-35 and Stealth hasn’t been cancelled by the Navy………….Why only last week we had:

First External Weapons Test Flight for the F-35C

And

LCS Completes First Stage Of Surface Warfare Developmental Testing

Two different Lockheed produced stealth platforms completing milestones in their testing prior to entry into service of the United States Navy……..And of course you missed this last part of the Admiral‘s paper:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course

Decoupling the development of payloads from the development of platforms is an imperative for us to take advantage of the fundamental trends shaping our operating environment. Technology, especially information-processing, will continue to evolve more quickly and become more widely available, while new ship and aircraft classes likely will continue to require more than a decade to join the Fleet. We appear to be reaching the limits of how much a platform’s inherent stealth can affordably get it close enough to survey or attack adversaries. And our fiscal situation will continue to require difficult trade-offs, requiring us to look for new ways to control costs while remaining relevant.

Common hulls and airframes will decrease and stabilize shipbuilding and aircraft construction costs through the learning curve of serial production. At the same time, shifting to modular payloads as the primary source of capability enables us to more rapidly and affordably incorporate new technology. Just as Apple’s fleet of platforms has provided incentives for the development of new ‘apps’ and peripheral devices that easily plug into its operating system, the Navy can spur the development of new capabilities and payloads to plug into the Fleet. This model will help us to maintain our warfighting edge, build the Fleet capacity that keeps us forward, and improve our readiness for today’s missions. We will work together with our industry partners to put this concept into action, so our Navy can continue to sustainably protect our nation’s security and prosperity.

Common hulls and aircraft? Could a common aircraft be defined as an aircraft operated by the USN, USMC and USAF, not to mention various other allies…….

Again, your translation appears “muddled”, for you interpret the “end of Stealth/F-35”, all the while from the other side of your mouth, mention the USN program to replace the Super Hornet with a 6th generation Stealth aircraft………..Learn to aim and shoot, this shotgun approach isn’t working out so good for you.

[Guest Derek L]

And in other F-35 news:

F-35 undergoes pit testing

7/5/2012 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- F-35 tail number AF-1 underwent stores static ejection testing at the F-22 Combined Test Force for the past three weeks. The aircraft is carefully positioned over a pit filled with foam, and instrumented inert weapons are released from the aircraft. This type of testing, also known as pit testing, allows the engineers to evaluate how the aircraft is physically affected by the release of the weapon, as well as the how the onboard stores management computers work. Pit testing is a pre-requisite to in-flight weapons release testing. The F-35 CTF tested both a Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and an Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)

Counting down till the in-flight weapons releases later this summer…………And the inherent jingo porn to follow….

[bush_cheney2004]

And in other F-35 news:

Sorry F-35 haters....the Mapleleaf is still on the aircraft:

http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012%5C07%5C120703-F-ZZ999-004.jpg

[DogOnPorch]

Nice picture. Though I prefer the old flag.

[DogOnPorch]

No more all over the windscreen....

[waldo]

ah yes, the much ballyhooed "stealth" JSFail F-35 capabilities. And yet, voices of reason clamor for attention amongst the grinding wheels of the military machine! Enter, the U.S. Navy... never hesitant to publicly undercut the F-35 in the past; from continuing to place additional orders for F/A-18E and F Super Hornets, to, for all intents and purposes, abandoning the JSFail F-35 by issuing a separate RFI for a new replacement jet fighter. And now along comes the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, speaking 'truth to power' about stealth, further publicly undercutting the F-35:

... translation: forgo the F-35 stealth platform money-pit in favour of long-range weaponry and/or electronic-warfare attack.

That’s an interesting “translation” Waldo………

yes indeedee, it is... isn't it? Nothing quite like the U.S. Navy openly and so transparently undercutting the JSFail F-35... once again! Not sure why you would want to highlight the U.S. Navy Chief's reference to, 'common hulls and airframes'. Next thing you know some wag will point out the glaring redundancy... and lack of, 'common hulls and airframes' in a little thing called the U.S. Navy's issuance of a separate RFI for a jet fighter that can fly from a carrier; one that can perform, 'air warfare, strike warfare, surface warfare and close air support'. You know... everything the JSFail F-35 is "supposed to do"! Now why would the U.S. Navy do such a thing, hey?

[waldo]

Which nations have left the program again?

tick tock, tick tock

Most Dutch MPs back ditching the JSF fighter jet

The future of Dutch plans to buy dozens of JSF fighter jets is in doubt on Tuesday after it emerged a majority of MPs think the agreement should be scrapped.

Labour MP Angelien Eijsink said on Tuesday her party will enter a motion in parliament to cancel the JSF jet fighter project, according to media reports..

With Labour joining in calls for the project to be cancelled, there is now a parliamentary majority going into a debate on the subject on Thursday.

Dutch plans to buy F-35 fighter jets in doubt

The Netherlands should scrap plans to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets because it cannot afford the project's ballooning costs as the country attempts to cut spending, a majority of parliament said on Thursday.

One leading party, Labour, will submit a proposal to the 150-seat legislature on the last session before Sept. 12 elections calling for an end to Dutch participation in the Lockheed Martin Corp warplanes project.

[Guest Derek L]

yes indeedee, it is... isn't it? Nothing quite like the U.S. Navy openly and so transparently undercutting the JSFail F-35... once again! Not sure why you would want to highlight the U.S. Navy Chief's reference to, 'common hulls and airframes'. Next thing you know some wag will point out the glaring redundancy... and lack of, 'common hulls and airframes' in a little thing called the U.S. Navy's issuance of a separate RFI for a jet fighter that can fly from a carrier; one that can perform, 'air warfare, strike warfare, surface warfare and close air support'. You know... everything the JSFail F-35 is "supposed to do"! Now why would the U.S. Navy do such a thing, hey?

Care to point out where in the article he specifically disparages the F-35? His description of adaptable platforms as the future happens to coincide very nicely with the USN’s ongoing procurement programs, namely the LCS, Virginia class SSN, flight III Burkes, Ford class CVNs and F-35C…..

[Guest Derek L]

Today in F-35 news:

Lockheed Gets Approval Of Next F-35 Production Contract

Undersecretary for AcquisitionFrank Kendall in a two-page Acquisition Decision Memo yesterday approved proceeding with the next contract for as many as 36 aircraft, including 23 Air Force versions, seven aircraft carrier models and six Marine Corps short-takeoff and vertical-landing models. The contract includes five for international customers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Today in F-35 news:

Lockheed Gets Approval Of Next F-35 Production Contract

BA-ZINGGGGGG! When will Canada get one....for Xmas?

[Guest Derek L]

BA-ZINGGGGGG! When will Canada get one....for Xmas?

No, we’re not participating in the pre-production & flight testing stage to that extent, but these following Canadian companies & divisions of Americans companies are already producing components:

Canadian Partners

Avcorp, a Canadian company situated about 15 minutes drive from me, won the sole source contract to produce all the outboard, folding wing sections for the F-35C’s……….

But according to this site, most Canadians have a vested interest in the F-35 and don’t even know it:

Canada's Six Largest Pension Funds and their $2.4 billion Investments in Contractors for the F-35

[waldo]

Care to point out where in the article he specifically disparages the F-35?

really? The U.S. Navy Chief's assessment of stealth is a direct hit... an, 'in your F-35 face' slap - big time! I note you didn't bother to answer as to why the U.S. Navy would issue a separate (undercutting F-35) RFI for an alternate jet fighter - is there a problem?

Not sure why you would want to highlight the U.S. Navy Chief's reference to, 'common hulls and airframes'. Next thing you know some wag will point out the glaring redundancy... and lack of, 'common hulls and airframes' in a little thing called the U.S. Navy's issuance of a separate RFI for a jet fighter that can fly from a carrier;

one that can perform, 'air warfare, strike warfare, surface warfare and close air support'. You know... everything the JSFail F-35 is "supposed to do"!

Now why would the U.S. Navy do such a thing, hey?

[waldo]

Today in F-35 news:

Lockheed Gets Approval Of Next F-35 Production Contract

that's a fine read; although the subtleties of the contract negotiations are lost. You know... we've talked on this before... how, for the first time evah, evah... Lockheed Martin is finally being forced to meet performance metrics. Uhhh... something about mega cost overruns and failed delivery - have you heard? Also missing is that little tidbit that, unfortunately, by law, the Pentagon is only allowed to hold back 5% of funding when tied to performance results... shamefully lame/weak; but, then again, this is the sacred cow defense industry, after all!

[waldo]

The same oxygen pressure vests worn by the F-22 pilots, are also used by those pilots/aircrew flying the Super Hornet, later block Falcons and Strike Eagles and the F-35.……..The issue plagues the F-22 alone due to the higher altitudes and G-rating flown by the Raptors which cause the vests to not deflate 100% of the time…….It’s an issue with the vests, not the aircraft.

so... not the vests then, hey? What could it be, what could it be?

[Guest Derek L]

really? The U.S. Navy Chief's assessment of stealth is a direct hit... an, 'in your F-35 face' slap - big time! I note you didn't bother to answer as to why the U.S. Navy would issue a separate (undercutting F-35) RFI for an alternate jet fighter - is there a problem?

I did long ago Waldo, The RFI proposal is to replace the Super Hornet in the early 2030s……….

[Guest Derek L]

that's a fine read; although the subtleties of the contract negotiations are lost. You know... we've talked on this before... how, for the first time evah, evah... Lockheed Martin is finally being forced to meet performance metrics. Uhhh... something about mega cost overruns and failed delivery - have you heard? Also missing is that little tidbit that, unfortunately, by law, the Pentagon is only allowed to hold back 5% of funding when tied to performance results... shamefully lame/weak; but, then again, this is the sacred cow defense industry, after all!

Your point? The sixth batch is on the way of the "JSFail"

[Guest Derek L]

so... not the vests then, hey? What could it be, what could it be?

The NY Times?

That's all you've got?

[waldo]

I did long ago Waldo, The RFI proposal is to replace the Super Hornet in the early 2030s……….

ya, ya... that's the U.S. Navy false-fronting a 'party line'. But let's work with that anyway, hey? I thought you said there was no alternative to the F-35... that you forever denigrated any alternate, with particular 'Derek L' criticism being thrown at the Super Hornet. And yet, even following a false narrative 'party line', somehow... the F-35 isn't a viable alternative for the U.S. Navy's Super Hornet retiring in, 'the early 2030s'. Oh wait - is that because the F-35 won't be ready by then?

[waldo]

so... not the vests then, hey? What could it be, what could it be?

The NY Times?

That's all you've got?

such an odd... and lame, response. I mean, really! Are you that vested in anything/everything LockMart related that you can't stand any form of critical comment/assessment... even an "unknown" aspect, simply because it presumes to tag LockMart with being unable to, so far, solve the problem. Man, I thought you had thicker skin - go figure!

[Guest Derek L]

ya, ya... that's the U.S. Navy false-fronting a 'party line'. But let's work with that anyway, hey? I thought you said there was no alternative to the F-35... that you forever denigrated any alternate, with particular 'Derek L' criticism being thrown at the Super Hornet. And yet, even following a false narrative 'party line', somehow... the F-35 isn't a viable alternative for the U.S. Navy's Super Hornet retiring in, 'the early 2030s'. Oh wait - is that because the F-35 won't be ready by then?

You speak of the F/A-XX as an alternative?

Senior official raises F/A-XX doubts while retired USMC Generals question USN’s F-35 commitment

The US Navy has issued a request for information (RFI) for a new F/A-XX fighter that would start to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030s--effectively starting the search for that aircraft's successor. The USN says that the F-35C will replace the earlier Boeing F/A-18A to D-model jets, but not the larger Super Hornet.

But how the USN hopes to pay for a new tactical fighter programme given the US' fiscal situation is an open question.

"There is no expectation of additional funds for this effort. It is also in direct competition with the next generation bomber for the USAF [uS Air Force] and follow-on UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] platforms," a senior DoD official says. "Looking at CV[aircraft carrier] life plans and E/F life plans, points to a 2025 full-on RDT&E [Research, Development, Test & Evaluation] effort in order to meet a 2030 initial LRIP [low rate initial production]."

Say what?

A bigger problem is that the USN is working on the F/A-XX effort by itself. Not even the US Marine Corps, with which the USN's tactical fighter force is integrated, has had any input into the F/A-XX.

"They once again seem to want to go it alone," the official says, "Big mistake."

But the DoD has ordered the services to fund research and development efforts where ever possible in order to preserve the US industrial base for the future.

"Considering the guidance to fund science, technology and general RDT&E accounts, I expect DoN [Department of the Navy] will get support for this at some level," the official says.

Retired USMC Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former principal deputy director of the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), says that there are lots of reasons to be sceptical about the USN's ability to fund the F/A-XX.

But why not the Lockheed F-35?

"It sort of validates the naval aviators' overall lack of commitment to the F-35," he says. "It shows how much they're in bed with Boeing to include a whole host of retired navy aviators who work for Boeing. And it shows, frankly, their lack of commitment to unmanned systems."

Gardner concurs that the USN's relationship with Boeing is playing a role in the service's push towards a new tactical fighter programme.

"I think it's Boeing. There is a huge Boeing lobby in the navy," Gardner says. "That has a lot to do with it."

But to blow out your candle:

The USN, for its part, strongly defends its support for the F-35C.

"The RFI to which you refer does not affect in any way the Navy's continued strong support for our F-35 program of record," the USN says. "The AoA [analysis of alternatives] will study manned, unmanned, and optionally manned alternatives to fill capability requirements associated with a predicted 2030 threat and service life expiration of the Super Hornet airframes."

The service notes that the RFI specifically calls for an F/A-XX aircraft that is complementary to the F-35C. The USN adds that it takes about 20 years to develop a new aircraft.

Next?

[waldo]

Your point? The sixth batch is on the way of the "JSFail"

there is a handy post I could resurrect if you persist. You know... the one where I detail the reduced/delayed procurement numbers for the respective U.S. military branches, along with all the JSFail partner nations. Would you like those numbers - how would you like those procurement apple numbers, hey?

by the by... no comment on the Dutch pulling out - tick tock, tick tock!

[waldo]

Next?

"in bed with Boeing"!!!... and "complimentary"! Oh my.