F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WingsofFury]

..there are no very good grounds for pessimism over the prospects for US airpower to achieve tolerable survivability by tactical skill and technical excellence.

Technical excellence...hmmm...sounds to me like he's suggesting that a superior technical edge works with the tactical skill you mention below.  Why have one without the other?

What I'm saying is, in the long run aircraft type is of lesser significance than getting the strategy right -- what do we want our aircraft to accomplish? Sure, I'd love to have the coolest, latest technology, but in the absence of justification -- ok, rational justification (wringing one's hands and saying "do you want to go with the Padre..." doesn't cut it) -- I've still not seen anything to warrant that sort of expenditure.

Even in its most simplistic form, we want our aircraft to accomplish either an Air to Air or Air to Ground campaign against any possible country and against any possible defences that country might bring to bare on those aircraft.  Low observability gives the aircraft the ability to fight against a larger spectrum of enemy armament.  Given that we don't know who or what we'll be going against in the next 40 years, just as we didn't when we acquired the CF-18, why not get a platform based on a system which is already successful, in low observability?

 

[aesop081]

in low observability?

LO is great, no doubt about it. It is also a technology that is no a "holy grail". Technology development against it does not stand still.

I'm not saying that as an argument against the F-35 but i put less faith in LO than most people. SEAD and defeating IADS requires more than LO.

I'm not a fighter expert but EW and SEAD/IADS are in my area of expertise.

 

[WingsofFury]

LO is great, no doubt about it. It is also a technology that is no a "holy grail". Technology development against it does not stand still.

Agree, eventually SAM and others will catch up to LO observability platforms.  When that day comes, with consistency I might add, I believe it to be a long time away.  With that being said, I think that we can all agree that it will be easier for SAM tech to first down a fighter with no LO properties before they down one that does have LO properties engineered into it.

I'm not saying that as an argument against the F-35 but i put less faith in LO than most people. SEAD and defeating IADS requires more than LO.

 

Understandable, and I agree that SEAD and the defeat of IADS requires more than LO aircraft.  I do believe that an LO aircraft, though, has to be a part of the equation.

I'm not a fighter expert but EW and SEAD/IADS are in my area of expertise.

And given what you fly, you'd know more about such topic matter than most on here.

So my question to you would be this:  would the conversion of F/A-18 Super Hornets into Growler configuration with appropriate tech and kit be something that would aid in the SEAD and the defeat of current IADS systems of those who we may find ourselves taking action against?

 

[Infanteer]

Aircraft do get shot down, with the odds increasing as you go against a more technologically competent adversary. For that reason offensive air operations occur as a complete strike package; the USN will launch EA-6B and F-18 together for SEAD, with E-2C for airborne control, and F-18s for the actual strike. They don't pretend to have one all-singing/all-dancing aircraft that will do it all. But yes, even after a SEAD package goes through, aircraft get shot down. It's a reality that I understand. If that is unacceptable, then get out of the "in harm's way" business.

Has this point ever entered the equation?

I ask because I've wondered the same thing about land/naval systems as well.  We continually cut numbers for fleets as they become more technologically sophisticated and expensive.  What's going to happen when we actually employ these things.  As Journeyman has said, no matter how sophisticated your toy is, someone will shoot it down.  How do we replace limited, expensive pieces of equipment with long manufacturing times when a wartime attrition rate sets in?  (Same question goes for ground/naval platforms too.)

What are the most recent kill ratios in air battle?  IAF in 1972?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I think that we can all agree that it will be easier for SAM tech to first down a fighter with no LO properties before they down one that does have LO properties engineered into it.

I'm not so sure that is always true. Keep in mind that LO aircraft sacrifice a lot of payload for their LO properties. Also keep in mind that an air defence systems primary purpose isn't to down enemy aircraft, it's to force them to deal with the defence systems to the point that their ability to accomplish their primary mission is diminished. It's called "virtual attrition". And it works in spades once you bring LO into it.

An F-35 carrying a pair of HARM's or jammers as well as it's internal weapons isn't going to have a whole lot less of an RCS than a Super Hornet carrying the same payload. And it'll cost a lot more to move that payload than the Super Hornet.

 

[aesop081]

I believe it to be a long time away. 

I estimate within 5 to no more than 10 years. 

And given what you fly, you'd know more about such topic matter than most on here.

Not so much what i fly, but my current billet gives me unique insights.

  would the conversion of F/A-18 Super Hornets into Growler configuration with appropriate tech and kit be something that would aid in the SEAD and the defeat of current IADS systems of those who we may find ourselves taking action against?

Dedicated EA capability is essential, IMHO, even with an F-35 or similar aircraft.

 

[aesop081]

I think it is also important to remember that the overwhelming majority of SAM kills were acheived not by radar-guided systems but by IR-guided missiles.

I'm looking for the graph and stats i got on course for exact numbers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest from the PM in QP:

Mr. Speaker, I am having a lot of trouble following the Liberal Party on this particular issue. For almost 10 years it had us involved in the development of the F-35s and spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Then, after the Liberals were defeated, they came out against it. Today they are mad that we have not yet signed a contract. Obviously we will sign a contract when and if that is the appropriate thing to do. We will always ensure that when we reach the end of the useful lives of our present aircraft that we have the best aircraft for the Canadian Forces.

Latest from Associate Minister Fantino in QP:

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understood the answer.  I would like to quote the Minister of National Defence, who said on December 15, 2010 in the House of Commons, “Here is the truth. The truth is that the cancellation of the F-35 purchase could cost this country up to $1 billion.”  And yet, no contract has yet been signed. Can the minister explain to Canadians what he meant?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to explain one more time that we are involved in a development process with the--

    An hon. member: Explain yourself.

The Speaker:  Order, please. The hon. associate minister has the floor.

Hon. Julian Fantino:  Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of nine countries involved in the joint strike fighter program. We have been engaged with our partners in the development of an aircraft not yet purchased. No contract has yet been signed.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker:  Order, please. The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie has the floor.

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, the government has bungled the CF-18 replacement right from the beginning. Will it now do the right thing, which is: first, define a statement of requirements based on our objectives from a defence and foreign policy point of view; second, hold an open and transparent competition; and third, choose the best aircraft based on performance, cost, industrial benefits and, I need to add, availability? In other words, do what the Liberals did 30 years ago when we chose the CF-18.

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, that is pretty rich talk from the party that sent our men and women to Afghanistan in green uniforms and wearing black boots and that cut the military budget over the length of its tenure. It became the era of darkness in the military. The Liberals are not the ones to criticize this government.

 

[Haletown]

An F-35 carrying a pair of HARM's or jammers as well as it's internal weapons isn't going to have a whole lot less of an RCS than a Super Hornet carrying the same payload. And it'll cost a lot more to move that payload than the Super Hornet.

Except the F-35 doesn't need to "carry" any jammers because they come equipped as part of their integral and integrated EW suite and Raytheon is contracted to produce an internal carry HARM replacement.

So the RCS of that external pod & HARM hanging Super Bug will be extremely large and it will have to fly in  a package of aircraft to get anywhere near and do anything like what a single 35 will do.

So what costs more now to do that EW mission?

 

[aesop081]

Except the F-35 doesn't need to "carry" any jammers because they come equipped as part of their integral and integrated EW suite

This is true but, there are limitations to what self-protection jammers can do. The F-35's AESA radar does have some advanced application for jamming but that is inherent to AESAs, not the F-35 specificly.

I look forward to see the results of EW-specific testing for the F-35 and see if it does deliver what the brochure says as it does indeed offer some pretty impressive capabilities. Regardless, in my opinion only, it will not be able to operate against sophisticated IADS without employing other means (EA, stand-off weapons strikes, etc...).

 

[observor 69]

This is true but, there are limitations to what self-protection jammers can do. The F-35's AESA radar does have some advanced application for jamming but that is inherent to AESAs, not the F-35 specificly.

I look forward to see the results of EW-specific testing for the F-35 and see if it does deliver what the brochure says as it does indeed offer some pretty impressive capabilities. Regardless, in my opinion only, it will not be able to operate against sophisticated IADS without employing other means (EA, stand-off weapons strikes, etc...).

And some of these wouldn't do any harm:  or maybe they could do some "HARM."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler#Specifications_.28EA-18G_Growler.29

 

[aesop081]

And some of these wouldn't do any harm:

I did say "EA" in my post.

 

[observor 69]

I know, just showing off.  ;D

 

[aesop081]

I know, just showing off.  ;D

I think the RAAF got it right.

They plan on the F-35, bought the F/A-18F in interim but some are already pre-wired for conversion to G. This will give them a robust EA capability in adition the what the F-35 brings to the table.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Except the F-35 doesn't need to "carry" any jammers because they come equipped as part of their integral and integrated EW suite and Raytheon is contracted to produce an internal carry HARM replacement.

The Super Hornet carries internal jammers as well.

The internal HARM carriage will most likely be instead of other weapons. That reduces an LO F-35 payload to 0, and completely removes it's ability to carry out it's primary mission.

So the RCS of that external pod & HARM hanging Super Bug will be extremely large and it will have to fly in  a package of aircraft to get anywhere near and do anything like what a single 35 will do.

It would probably have to fly as part of a package, but so would the F-35. The difference is that the Super Hornet could carry enough weapons to actually accomplish it's primary mission as well as protect itself, while an F-35 in LO configuration couldn't.

So what costs more now to do that EW mission?

That would be a division by zero problem....

 

[Haletown]

Regardless, in my opinion only, it will not be able to operate against sophisticated IADS without employing other means (EA, stand-off weapons strikes, etc...).

Agreed . .  .  however it will take a much smaller package of various assets in the F-35 era to accomplish the same mission.

Less costly missions, fewer lives put down range to get the job done.

 

[WingsofFury]

An F-35 carrying a pair of HARM's or jammers as well as it's internal weapons isn't going to have a whole lot less of an RCS than a Super Hornet carrying the same payload.

The AGM-88E AARGM is a medium-range air-to-ground missile employed for Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD).  It is designed to be compatible with the internal weapons bay of the F-35.  It is in production and has met all objectives.  It can currently be carried on the external weapons pylons of the F/A-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G as well as the Tornado IDS.

Source -> http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=AF4153AA-5454-44D2-B01A-AA69417C5B49

Super Hornets are designed and built (EA-18G) to carry HARM and jammers, and are replacing the old EA-6B Prowler airframes in the electronic warfare role. 

According to the linked article below, there is a program in place to select the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ).  Originally there were plans to also put the technology onto the F-35, but...

Streamlining aside, contractors worry about some aspects of the project. They do not think the NGJ will be added to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on time, or perhaps at all, because there have been so many delays in getting through the JSF program basics, according to a vice president in one of the competing companies. “There is a concept for making [the F-35] an electronic attack platform, but they can’t even think about those sorts of things yet,” the official says. That means NGJ production might stretch out considerably, unless the system is adapted to other designs, most likely unmanned platforms with both stealthy and non-stealthy designs, which could be a boon to industry, contractors agree.

“There’s a discussion of stand-in jamming at closer ranges versus a modified escort [jamming] mission that would require a higher-power, standoff capability,” says a second industry executive, also involved in the competition. “The Navy’s primary motivation is that the Growlers provide the escort for the F/A-18E/Fs Super Hornets so that they can get close enough [to targets] to operate. But they can’t do that without electronic attack support. I wouldn’t be surprised if NGJ migrated to unmanned aircraft to keep aircrews safe.”

Article ->  http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/16/AW_01_16_2012_p27-413263.xml&headline=null&next=0

IMHO, this is where the F-35 and the Super Hornet family would work well together, hence my belief that a multi platform fleet wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[The Bread Guy]

More from the Government of Canada Info-machine - highlights mine:

Canada’s participation in Joint Strike Fighter program will respect taxpayers’ money

OTTAWA – The Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, today highlighted the Government of Canada’s successful ongoing efforts to renew the Canadian Forces in remarks to members of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). In his speech, Minister Fantino highlighted Canada’s ongoing participation in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program.

“The multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program represents a new model for international cooperation and development,” said Minister Fantino. “Our historic efforts to renew the Canadian Forces include participating with our allies to develop a new state-of-the-art aircraft for the 21st century.”

The Government of Canada’s decision to modernize its current CF-18 fleet ensures the Canadian Forces the necessary flexibility to transition to the replacement aircraft that will be required to protect our airspace beginning in the early 2020s.  Our Government has set a budget for replacement aircraft and has been clear that we will operate within that budget. A contract for replacement aircraft has not yet been signed.

“The Royal Canadian Air Force plays a vital  role in protecting our airspace and sovereignty, as well as  defending our interests internationally,” said Minister Fantino. “Our flexible plans ensure that our Air Force will continue to have the aircraft necessary to do the job we ask of them.”

As a result of our decision to participate in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program, skilled Canadian workers continue to benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in additional work that otherwise would not have existed. Since 1997, our participation has already resulted in contracts worth $435 million to the Canadian aerospace industry that employs nearly 80,000 Canadian workers.

"Our Government is proud of its responsible approach to replacing our aging CF-18 aircraft," added Minister Fantino.

 

[PuckChaser]

I think the RAAF got it right.

They plan on the F-35, bought the F/A-18F in interim but some are already pre-wired for conversion to G. This will give them a robust EA capability in adition the what the F-35 brings to the table.

I don't think we have the political will and/or public support to buy 2 airframes. If we buy a handful of F/A-18F models while we wait for the F-35, the opposition will have even more of a field day trying to declare wasteful spending in purchasing the F-35s and the cost to upgrade the 18 to G models.

 

[WingsofFury]

I don't think we have the political will and/or public support to buy 2 airframes. If we buy a handful of F/A-18F models while we wait for the F-35, the opposition will have even more of a field day trying to declare wasteful spending in purchasing the F-35s and the cost to upgrade the 18 to G models.

$9B is $9B - if it falls within that budget then any combination of platforms shouldn't be an issue.

To use the Australian purchase as a reference point, though, wouldn't we have to spend MORE than $9B to get the same number of Super Hornets (65) along with training and support over 10 years? Their purchase of 24 Super Hornets cost US$4.6B back in 2007.