F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[waldo]

I clearly mentioned my error, if your're going to play games I can't be bothered.

that's rich! No games playing - your words. It's either 'proof of concept' or it's a legitimate IOC designation... per the internal Pentagon report it's not the latter!

[Derek 2.0]

that's rich! No games playing - your words. It's either 'proof of concept' or it's a legitimate IOC designation... per the internal Pentagon report it's not the latter!

Said report covered the trials aboard the USS Wasp, several months prior to the IOC. Said trials were a "proof of concept".

[waldo]

Said report covered the trials aboard the USS Wasp, several months prior to the IOC. Said trials were a "proof of concept".

are you saying the U.S. Marines did not use that trial (less than 2 months prior... no matter your insistence in always referring to that period as "several months prior) as a key component of the IOC designation - yes or no?

are you saying the U.S. Pentagon report, released days prior to the IOC designation, doesn't emphasize IOC as it's principal point of reference within that report - yes or no?

do you maintain that "something magical" happened in the less than 2 month period between the trial and the designation being made... something "magical" that allowed the U.S. Marines to completely ignore the failures of the trial and suddenly give the IOC designation? "Something magical" - yes or no? If yes, what was the magic?

[Derek 2.0]

are you saying the U.S. Marines did not use that trial (less than 2 months prior... no matter your insistence in always referring to that period as "several months prior) as a key component of the IOC designation - yes or no?

No.

are you saying the U.S. Pentagon report, released days prior to the IOC designation, doesn't emphasize IOC as it's principal point of reference within that report - yes or no?

No.

do you maintain that "something magical" happened in the less than 2 month period between the trial and the designation being made... something "magical" that allowed the U.S. Marines to completely ignore the failures of the trial and suddenly give the IOC designation? "Something magical" - yes or no? If yes, what was the magic?

Yes and tbd. Yes in that the issues discovered were highlighted and given time to be addressed prior to and after the IOC. TBD if said issues have been addressed prior to the USMC deploying said squadron aboard a LHD with operational mission requirements......

[On Guard for Thee]

Sounds to me like the "tests" on the Wasp were a bit of a flop, even with a bunch of extra contractor hands on deck that wouldn't normally be available in the "real" world.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-says-f-35-operational-test-aboard-uss-wasp-did-not-measure-up-1.368281

[Wilber]

Sounds to me like the "tests" on the Wasp were a bit of a flop, even with a bunch of extra contractor hands on deck that wouldn't normally be available in the "real" world.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-says-f-35-operational-test-aboard-uss-wasp-did-not-measure-up-1.368281

When something new goes into service there are always manufacturers reps on hand. They will be with our people at the beginning regardless of what aircraft we buy, even if it is a 20 year old design. That part means nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

When something new goes into service there are always manufacturers reps on hand. They will be with our people at the beginning regardless of what aircraft we buy, even if it is a 20 year old design. That part means nothing.

Agreed...it would be very unusual for contractor reps not to be present at the beginning...and throughout the life cycle of maintenance and upgrades. Same thing happens in shipyards and mechanized armour depots.

[On Guard for Thee]

When something new goes into service there are always manufacturers reps on hand. They will be with our people at the beginning regardless of what aircraft we buy, even if it is a 20 year old design. That part means nothing.

It would be interesting to have a more detailed description of just what the "significant assistance" the contractor personnel had to provide to achieve the relatively poor serviceability during this test.

[Derek 2.0]

When something new goes into service there are always manufacturers reps on hand. They will be with our people at the beginning regardless of what aircraft we buy, even if it is a 20 year old design. That part means nothing.

Exactly, likewise a portion of our air force relies upon contractor services, today, for regular operation.

[On Guard for Thee]

And by the sounds of it they are going to have to rely on a lot of contractors for a long time to get any kind of serviceability out of this thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada still relies on foreign contractors to keep its CF-18s airworthy. How old are they ?

[waldo]

When something new goes into service there are always manufacturers reps on hand. They will be with our people at the beginning regardless of what aircraft we buy, even if it is a 20 year old design. That part means nothing.

no - not when the actual trial and designation that hinges on the trial are being considered. Like I initially stated, LockMart "greased the wheels" and did everything/anything to attempt to ensure a successful outcome. Per that same highly critical internal Pentagon report speaking to the failures of the sea trial:

In order to have a bona fide operational test with results that would enable the Department to determine if the F-35B is operationally effective and suitable, and to demonstrate readiness for real-world operational deployment, testing would have to have been conducted under conditions that were much more representative of real-world operations than those that were used during this deployment. Among other things, the following would be required:

.

.

.

It would require that all maintenance activities be conducted by uniformed military personnel with complete maintenance manuals and troubleshooting capabilities, and any contractor technical support would have to be strictly limited to what can be expected in real-world operations in combat. On this deployment demonstration, the uniformed military maintenance personnel received significant assistance from embarked contractor personnel who would not be part of combat operations, in areas where the uniformed maintainers currently lack organic troubleshooting capability

[Big Guy]

I would suggest that perhaps we could use a formula:

C = cm * 2

Where C is the cost of the airplane.

Where cm is the cost of a missile that is capable of bringing it down.

Where 2 is the multiple.

This formula would guarantee that the cost of creating the aircraft should not be any greater then twice the cost of the missile that can bring it down. This would assume that the first missile would not bring it down but only the second one.

Does that not make fiscal sense?

[Wilber]

I would suggest that perhaps we could use a formula:

C = cm * 2

Where C is the cost of the airplane.

Where cm is the cost of a missile that is capable of bringing it down.

Where 2 is the multiple.

This formula would guarantee that the cost of creating the aircraft should not be any greater then twice the cost of the missile that can bring it down. This would assume that the first missile would not bring it down but only the second one.

Does that not make fiscal sense?

You forgot the millions and years you have invested in the guy flying it.

[ReeferMadness]

When something new goes into service there are always manufacturers reps on hand. They will be with our people at the beginning regardless of what aircraft we buy, even if it is a 20 year old design. That part means nothing.

Agreed.

What is unusual is that serious problems are magically fixed within 2 months.

[Big Guy]

I have been scanning through this thread and others on this subject. The amount of money that should be put towards this new airplane appears to be the focus of discussion. I have little knowledge and/or interest in military hardware but it appears that there are experts in the field who post here.

For those who understand these specs - what would be the cost of a missile that had the capability of shooting down the F-35 or F-35 A or B or whatever?

What should be the ratio of cost between a military airplane and a missile capable of knocking it out of the air?

[Wilber]

I have been scanning through this thread and others on this subject. The amount of money that should be put towards this new airplane appears to be the focus of discussion. I have little knowledge and/or interest in military hardware but it appears that there are experts in the field who post here.

For those who understand these specs - what would be the cost of a missile that had the capability of shooting down the F-35 or F-35 A or B or whatever?

What should be the ratio of cost between a military airplane and a missile capable of knocking it out of the air?

Missile from where? If the F-35 sees its opponent first, that opponent will never get to launch a missile.

Forgetting the fact he is a human being, what about the cost of the pilot you will have to replace, if you can replace him. The Brits came close to losing the Battle of Britain because they were running out of pilots, not aircraft.

[waldo]

per the recent days Throne Speech:

“To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the Government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military.”

speaking of reviews, the biggest hawk in the U.S. Congress is also calling for one:

McCain Says F-35's Cost May Force Pentagon to Cut Back Purchases - Dec 2, 2015

The Pentagon must reevaluate whether it can afford to buy its entire planned fleet of F-35 jets, the costliest U.S. weapons system, Senator John McCain said.

Under the original plan crafted after Lockheed Martin Corp. beat Boeing Co. in 2001 in a competition to build the fighter, 1,013 of the program’s 2,443 jets were supposed to be delivered by next Sept. 30. So far, 179 have actually been delivered, McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee

“That leaves well over 2,000 to complete the program” so “we would have to purchase 100 F-35s per year for more than 20 years at a cost of $10 billion to $12 billion a year,” said McCain, an Arizona Republican. “That seems unlikely, and all that assumes the F-35 will provide the necessary capability.”

I just want to know how you get there,” McCain said, adding that the Senate report accompanying the annual defense authorization measure requires an evaluation within six months of how many F-35s can be purchased. “If it’s not a realistic estimate shouldn’t we have a realistic estimate?”

oh my! McCain, as chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, sees it all... when he outright raises an assumption on the F-35 providing necessary capabilities...

.

[Big Guy]

Missile from where? If the F-35 sees its opponent first, that opponent will never get to launch a missile.

Forgetting the fact he is a human being, what about the cost of the pilot you will have to replace, if you can replace him. The Brits came close to losing the Battle of Britain because they were running out of pilots, not aircraft.

From where? - land, sea or air.

That is what I am questioning. Cost vs Reward

"If the F-35 sees its opponent first, that opponent will never get to launch a missile."

If it does not then a $hundred million machine is destroyed by a $100,000 machine.

The United States (and the other military building countries) could build an impregnable war killing machine for a trillion dollars but the cost would not be worth what it would serve to do.

[Wilber]

From where? - land, sea or air.

That is what I am questioning. Cost vs Reward

"If the F-35 sees its opponent first, that opponent will never get to launch a missile."

If it does not then a $hundred million machine is destroyed by a $100,000 machine.

The United States (and the other military building countries) could build an impregnable war killing machine for a trillion dollars but the cost would not be worth what it would serve to do.

You really don't understand the concept of stealth do you? You can't shoot at something you can't see and it doesn't even have to be invisible, it just has to see you before you see it. In a way it's like a quick draw contest, there is no reward for coming second, only oblivion.

[Big Guy]

You really don't understand the concept of stealth do you? You can't shoot at something you can't see and it doesn't even have to be invisible, it just has to see you before you see it. In a way it's like a quick draw contest, there is no reward for coming second, only oblivion.

I do not share your enthusiasm for these "invisible" machines. So what happens when a Russian stealth fighter meets an American stealth fighter.

for me there is a limit to pay for these things:

http://gizmodo.com/360090/b-2-stealth-bomber-crashes-12-billion-dollars-turn-to-smoke

Poof, $1.2 billion gone. Do you understand how many peoples lives can be saved with $1.2 billion?

Then there is Feb 2010, another serious incident involving a B-2 occurred at Andersen AFB. The aircraft involved was AV-11 Spirit of Washington. The aircraft was severely damaged by fire while on the ground and underwent 18 months of repairs in order to enable it to fly back to the mainland for more comprehensive repairs. Spirit of Washington was repaired and returned to service in December 2013. At the time of the accident the USAF had no training to deal with tailpipe fires on the B-2s.

More millions and millions gone POOF!

I have numerous examples of how to better spend that money.

[Wilber]

I do not share your enthusiasm for these "invisible" machines. So what happens when a Russian stealth fighter meets an American stealth fighter.

Well I know what will happen when a non stealth fighter meets a steal fighter. It won't.

[ReeferMadness]

You really don't understand the concept of stealth do you? You can't shoot at something you can't see and it doesn't even have to be invisible, it just has to see you before you see it. In a way it's like a quick draw contest, there is no reward for coming second, only oblivion.

Your comments make me wonder how well you understand how stealth actually works. You seem to think that stealth is some all purpose invisibility cloak. In reality, it's rather more complicated. Before a fighter (stealth or otherwise) can shoot down the opponent, it has to use radar to find and track the opponent. And while the radar is turned on, the plane is no longer stealthy.

The sweet spot for a stealth fighter is defending friendly territory against non-stealthy opponents. Ground radar tracks the opponent and vectors the stealth fighter to the area where it can take a shot. However, even then, your opponent will detect your tracking radar and missile, know you are there and take counter measures.

Radar isn't the only way of detecting you. Infrared (heat) detection is getting better all the time. And the butterball, with its one huge engine is really not great in that regard. So if your first opponent dumps chaff and your first shot misses, your opponent may be within range of IR tracking and you will find yourself up against a faster and more maneuverable adversary.

In your one-on-one example, if there is no ground radar tracking, whoever turns on their radar first becomes the target. And if nobody does, it comes down to a battle of "passive" detection methods (like infrared tracking). And unlike truly stealthy planes, the butterball has a round engine exhaust which makes it easier to spot.

Finally, stealth doesn't work against all radars.

JSF and the F-22 are protected from higher frequencies in the Ku, X, C and parts of the S bands. But both jets can be seen on enemy radars operating in the longer wavelengths like L, UHF and VHF.

“I don’t see how you long survive in the world of 2020 or 2030 when dealing with these systems if you don’t have the lower frequency coverage,” the former official said.

Bottom line: compromising aircraft design to gain stealth is an extremely risky strategy. Having a single flawed design for the entire western world is insane. No matter whose stock prices suffer.

[Derek 2.0]

Your comments make me wonder how well you understand how stealth actually works. You seem to think that stealth is some all purpose invisibility cloak. In reality, it's rather more complicated. Before a fighter (stealth or otherwise) can shoot down the opponent, it has to use radar to find and track the opponent. And while the radar is turned on, the plane is no longer stealthy.

And that is why the F-35 has passive sensors that don't give off emissions.

Radar isn't the only way of detecting you. Infrared (heat) detection is getting better all the time. And the butterball, with its one huge engine is really not great in that regard. So if your first opponent dumps chaff and your first shot misses, your opponent may be within range of IR tracking and you will find yourself up against a faster and more maneuverable adversary.

Infrared detection is constrained by both distance and relative humidity........and of course, unlike legacy aircraft, the F-35 has the benefit of modern technology to help reduce its signature, including using its own fuel as a heat sink...unlike legacy aircraft.

In your one-on-one example, if there is no ground radar tracking, whoever turns on their radar first becomes the target. And if nobody does, it comes down to a battle of "passive" detection methods (like infrared tracking). And unlike truly stealthy planes, the butterball has a round engine exhaust which makes it easier to spot.

Airborne infrared systems are limited to ~10km and can't target radar guided missiles........versus the F-35's DAS, that is capable of tracking something as small (and fast) as a artillery shell......well being able to target the aircraft's missiles in a 360* degree sphere around the aircraft, making the F-35 the first aircraft able to target other aircraft above, below and behind it:

Finally, stealth doesn't work against all radars.

Low frequency radars can't target or guide missiles........full stop.

Bottom line: compromising aircraft design to gain stealth is an extremely risky strategy. Having a single flawed design for the entire western world is insane. No matter whose stock prices suffer.

Have you considered the bloggers and handful of critics are wrong, and that despite marketing efforts by legacy aircraft makers, the F-35 partner nations might, just might, know what they're doing? No mater whose stock prices suffer?

Edited December 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Wilber]

I've never maintained stealth makes anything invisible, but it does give a major advantage. Radar is line of sight as is infrared. The closer an aircraft can get to a target without being detected, the bigger advantage it has. Also, the moment a ground radar lights up, it becomes a target, that's what ARM's are for. Chaff is not very effective against Doppler radars. Electronically, the F-35 is huge step forward and a completely different animal compared to contemporary fighters, that is a big reason it is taking so long to develop.

It's much more than just stealth.

The Advantages of Advanced Fusion

The system is so advanced and revolutionary in its design that there were concerns that test pilots would have difficulty isolating and testing a single sensor because the collective integrated suite would kick in.

Engineers deliberately put specific pilot vehicle interface into the airplane to allow the pilots to select a single sensor and tell the fusion engine to allow only that sensor’s track to come through. This feature enables test pilots to verify individual sensors.

Now the enemy, instead of just working against the radar, is forced to fight an integrated and fused sensor suite.

The redundancy and comprehensive nature of the sensor suite gives the F-35 a tremendous advantage over legacy fighters. This is the huge advantage of advanced fusion.

The F-22 Raptor has this ability, so while it’s not new, it’s being perfected in the F-35, and is a key characteristic of 5thGeneration fighters.

“We know how to do this; we’ve done it before,” says Mike Skaff, principal engineer for the F-35’s pilot vehicle interface.”

“The airplanes that are coming off the line right now have this capability. Although it’s not in its final form, it will get better and better with each block of the software.”

We are getting closer to a software-defined airplane.

Advanced fusion does three things for the pilot.

• First, it assembles a single integrated picture from all of the sensors.
• Second,it tasks the sensors to fill in missing data
• Third, it shares the information with everyone else on the network.

This is where fusion synergy really comes into play: all the F-35 pilots in the battlespace see the same picture.

Envision the following scenario.

An enemy pilot effectively neutralizes sensor A from one F-35 in a formation of several. The likelihood that enemy will be able to do the same to another F-35 in the same formation is slim to none.

It is extremely difficult for the enemy to defeat multiple sensors on multiple F-35s simultaneously.

Because the sensors between the F-35s are fused, the pilot in aircraft #1 can simply tap in to aircraft #2’s sensor suite.

Let’s look at the F-35’s sensor suite in more detail and remember each sensor is connected and controlled by an advanced fusion software engine, which results in more than the sum of the parts.

The Radar

The radar, like all radars, transmits and receives energy. The F-35’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is built up of multiple transmit and receive modules, which can be thought of as individual miniature radars. They work together under a computer’s control, which can steer beams through space almost instantly.

The AESA radar operates differently than a fourth generation fighter that has a mechanically scanned antenna that must be moved left, right, up and down.

Because an AESA scans electronically, we overcome the inertia of a physical antenna moving around and can build beams in space wherever we need. We steer these beams throughout the field of regard to perform numerous radar functions.

From the pilot’s point of view, the radar seems to be doing air-to-air and air-to-surface simultaneously. It’s really not. It’s in very quick, serial fashion; but by the time the information gets to the displays, the pilot sees air and ground at the exact same time.

The radar does various functions such as: track while scanning, single target track and air combat mode. The modes aren’t unique, but the AESA makes them even better.

Air combat mode allows the pilot to initialize a beam along the line of sight of the helmet mounted display. This capability is useful when the pilot wants to queue the radar along the helmet line of sight.

The result is an immediate lock as well as simultaneously generating a fire control solution for missiles and gun employment.

Prior to the helmet this could only be done through the head up display, which basically looks forward only. This advanced radar can also perform numerous air-to-surface functions such as ground-moving target indication and ground-moving target track. It can image the ground with high resolution.

The advantage of synthetic aperture radar is pilots get targeting imagery even through the clouds and light precipitation enabling them to see what’s on the ground.

The F-35 also has color-weather radar. For the pilot who is trying to get through thunderstorms, squall lines, and fronts; the color-weather radar is important, and marks a first for fighters.

Most of the time fusion commands the radar to detect and track targets without much, if any, pilot involvement. Fusion uses the radar as one of its inputs and displays the result to the pilot and shares fused tracks with the other F-35s on the network.

The Distributed Aperture System

The Distributed Aperture System (DAS) is a new and unique sensor.

The DAS is comprised of six staring focal point arrays.

These are infrared cameras flush-mounted on the skin of the airplane, which detect the entire sphere around the airplane – that’s 4 pi steradians for the mathematically inclined. The entire sphere is about 41,000 square degrees whereas the radar sees about 10,000 square degrees.

There is an intersection of the two sensors however. Where they’re both looking through the same angular volume of space, fusion will work them synergistically, and they can queue each other.

Fusion really does the queuing. As soon as one sensor detects something, fusion then queues every other sensor to look along that line of sight and try to find information about the track.

The impressive thing is that this occurs without pilot involvement.

When fusion recognizes a DAS track is in the same angular space as the radar it will indicate to the Radar: “Radar, go look along this line of sight and get range on this track that DAS found.”

Or if the radar has a track and it gimbals, or in other words, the track goes beyond the radar’s field of regard, fusion will tell DAS, “You keep updating this and hold onto the track for the pilot until it comes back into the field of regard of the radar or comes back into the field of regard of some other sensor on the airplane,” according to Skaff.

It is this synergy of the sensors onboard the airplane and the fact that the fusion engine is doing this for the pilot which results in a manageable cockpit workload.

These things are laborious for the pilot to control manually, but are easy for a computer to control algorithmically.

The F-35 is returning the pilot to the role of tactician.

”The DAS performs a number of functions. It does short range situation awareness infrared search and track (IRST). For the pilot, the days of someone sneaking up on him are almost gone. In clear air, it can detect and track other airplanes by their thermal signature.It also does missile launch detection, which is its primary function. It’s tuned to a spectrum such that it can see rocket motors. If it detects a launch, it will say, “Launch, right 2:00 low,” according to Dr. Skaff.

(Note:the systems really do annunciate this message to the pilot).

In this instance, fusion will place a symbol on the helmet visor around the missile and the launch point. Pilots often say: “If I can see the missile, I can defeat it.” With a symbol in the helmet-mounted display the pilot will know there’s a missile inside the symbol even if he can’t see the missile with the naked eye.

The other function DAS performs is called GTL, ground target launch. This is the ability of fusion to extrapolate the DAS missile track back to the ground. Fusion places a symbol on the head down display at the point of origin.

This is a tremendous capability for the pilot and especially for other F-35 pilots in battlespace.

Fusion will automatically place the GTL symbol on all of our displays so that we can avoid the launch site.

The last function DAS does is imaging. This is a fall-out capability, which allows the pilot to look through the DAS cameras.

Each of the cameras is seamlessly stitched together to present the full sphere of imagery for pilot use. The pilot can look straight down through the airplane or look anywhere throughout this sphere even on the darkest of nights.

EOTS

The electrical optical targeting system is called TFLIR on the cockpit displays. The targeting forward-looking infrared (TFLIR), is a familiar term that’s been used in other airplanes. The F-35’s TFLIR is very similar to the SNIPER targeting pod and can do most of what SNIPER does.

It is a high magnification thermal imager which looks along a line of sight and performs tracking and imaging functions.

Here is the most important feature: it’s mounted inside the airplane.

If you look at an F-16, F-15 or even a B-1, the TFLIR pod is big and hangs outside in the airstream. Consequently, it results in a lot of radar cross-section and a lot of aerodynamic drag.

To have this pod reengineered small enough to fit up inside the airplane is a key enabler. It looks out through a window under the radome.

The TFIR’s line of sight may be controlled manually by the pilot or automatically by fusion. Fusion does an extremely good job, which means the pilot has one less thing to manage.

The Electronic Warfare Suite

The plane has an electronic warfare suite. It has multiple functions and performs in an integrated manner with fusion.

Some of these functions include radar warning receiver (RWR), electronic support measures (ESM), and electronic countermeasure (ECM). These are functions that are federated on most 4th generation fighters.

In the F-35, the electronic warfare suite has all of these functions built into it, and it’s able to use the antennas all around the airplane, including the multi-function array, all under fusion control and with minimal pilot involvement.

As the airplane flies through battlespace, the EWS is tasked by fusion to build a picture of the electronic order of battle. It identifies emitters, locates them, classifies them and then reports to the pilot what it detects in battlespace.

CNI

The Communications, Navigation, and Identification (CNI) suite is a software-defined radio.

This means that there really aren’t radios in the traditional sense in an F-35. There is one real physical radio in the airplane hooked to the battery for emergencies, but other than that, everything else is a software radio.

Radios don’t exist until the pilot instantiates them with software.

The CNI system actually builds the radio in software once the computers initialize and run their programs.

Radio frequency (RF) waveforms such as Link 16, multi-function data link, instrument landing system, and voice get defined and built in software rather than being fixed in hardware. This scheme allows for tremendous growth and opportunity for change.

New data links and new waveforms are created in software, which, in many cases, means no new hardware to buy and install.

The Implications for Combat Learning and Evolution of the F-35

The F-35 was designed based on lessons learned.

The most salient lessons learned were from the world’s only other 5th generation fighter. The F-22 was developed more than a decade ago, and engineers now have the benefit of newer technology and lessons learned.

The F-35 is the next step in the line of 5th generation fighters.

One of Col. John Boyd’s legacies is the famous OODA loop: observe, orient, decide, and act. He said that to be decisive in combat the fighter pilot must run through his OODA loop faster the enemy can run through his.

Advanced fusion is the key enabler which allows a 5th gen fighter to do just that.

Advanced fusion is at the heart of the 5th generation. We are closing in on a software-defined airplane.

While the F-35 isn’t quite there it is the closest to achieving that vision than any aircraft yet.