Forum: General F-35 Forum

Why Air Force Needs Lots Of F-35s: Gen. Hostage On The 'Combat Cloud' By Robbin Laird and David Deptula 10 Jan 2013

http://defense.aol.com/2013/01/10/why-t ... n-the-com/

"Technology is not enough. What's equally essential is ideas for how to use it. Wielding new weapons in the same old way is a recipe for defeat. As the US military today invests in innovative programs, none larger than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, it must also invent innovative concepts of operation

The Air Force's point man on global deployments is Gen. Michael Hostage, head of Langely, Va.-based Air Combat Command. Recently, two members of the AOL Defense Board of Contributors, Dr. Robbin Laird and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, sat down with Hostage to discuss not just the new weapons systems, but a new vision of how to use them, an emerging concept of operations that Gen. Hostage calls "the combat cloud." [I recall the 'wolf pack' term being used by SLDinfo earlier - see below.]

Instead of focusing on individual planes, squadrons, or "strike packages" executing a particular mission, the new concept looks at all the deployed aircraft as a whole, linked together by secure wireless networks into the "combat cloud." This cloud would be enabled by "fifth generation" aircraft -- specifically F-22s and a substantial number of F-35s -- and their ability to connect electronically both to each other and to legacy aircraft. This critical connectivity would be built in to any systems added in the future, such as the proposed long-range intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and strike aircraft....

...Laird & Deptula: How important are numbers for the F-35 from this perspective?

Hostage: Very important. It is not a boutique aircraft. The full impact of the F-35 aircraft comes with its fleet operational capabilities for the enablement of the air combat cloud.

Another advantage of the F-35 is that is built to evolve over time as the environment evolves. Software and hardware upgradeability will allow changes over time to the fleet, not just individual aircraft.

Laird & Deptula: In other words, your focus on the air combat cloud is joined at the hip with an emphasis on shaping distributed operational capabilities. The two meet in a fundamental reality-21st century air operations need to be re-shaped to ensure mission success in the period ahead. It is distributed; it is global; and it is about connectivity across a distributed battlespace...."

http://o.aolcdn.com/mars/25378/635/357/ ... eplane.jpg

As always best to read this long article at source URL above.
_______________________________________

Here stroll down to: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... olf#200853

FIFTH GENERATION AIRCRAFT AND 3 DIMENSIONAL WARFARE Or, How to Build the Honeycomb 07/19/2011

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21086

F-16.net Sponsor

I think it is fair to say that most people really don't fundamentally understand what the F-35 and the associate upgrades and changes being made in US defense systems are going to do to warfare. I would guess that warfare with these systems will come much closer to a video game experience than any past way of fighting. You will have broad spectrum awareness and near instant information fusion.

Cloud has been an abused term...

bigjku wrote:

I think it is fair to say that most people really don't fundamentally understand what the F-35 and the associate upgrades and changes being made in US defense systems are going to do to warfare. I would guess that warfare with these systems will come much closer to a video game experience than any past way of fighting. You will have broad spectrum awareness and near instant information fusion.

In some ways -- most video games give you the kind of situational awareness that only the F-35 provides, but they typically dumb down important things like stealth while vastly reducing engagement ranges and times.

At any rate, very interesting.
If, historically, air engagements have been primarily determined by surprise, and that matters more than any other considerations, then, with stealth and situational awareness, the F-35 is ideally suited to it.
We shall see.

True... as well as how wielding enhanced and evolved 'legacy type' weapon systems along side those 'new weapons' will also require operating in new ways, and not the 'same old ways' which would indeed be a recipe for defeat. In fact, it's arguably even more critical to emphasize how upgraded and evolved older Legacy weapon designs will need to have their methods of operation modified and updated. (as an asymmetrical offset).

That is, there's no monopoly that only 'new weapons' will require new methods of course, nor do only 'new weapon' platforms such as the F-35 represent a monopoly on 'Innovation' in terms of Defense requirements and capabilities. Continuous and robust Enhancements and evolution to legacy platforms also represent the critical Innovation necessary to guard against certain recipes for weakness and hollow force structures.

To lose that broader perspective and analysis and to put too much unilateral emphasis on any one New Platform, could have the potential of 'clouding' the greater strategic picture and cloud prudent planning of the aggregate force structure as an effective mix.

Legacy jets should make nice decoys to bait the trap.. Smile

Popcorn, yes, That would most likely be an obvious part of the tactics in next-gen air combat (employed by both teams) as could be envisioned. I.e. part of deceptive tactics.

It could theoretically work the other way too... i.e., if you saw a flight of 5-6 opposing-team legacy aircraft (Red Flag 2018, eg) operating in a similar pattern as was operated when 5th gen was accompanying them in prior engagements, you might calculate to back off and disengage -- effectively yielding the air space to your 'bluffing' opponent -- thinking you might be at a disadvantage, when if fact you actually had a superior edge.

However, next-gen SoJ jamming tactics will also have similar capabilities of 'clouding' the complete tactical package picture even if it's assumed the other guys know you're out there in some exact unknown force size. Hence, potentially a good capability requirement as well to include a robust legacy platform upgrade procurement (eg, acting as Jamming support and escort platforms) for a force-multiplied next-gen TACAIR force.

popcorn wrote:

Legacy jets should make nice decoys to bait the trap.. Smile

I thought the plan was to use MQ-1s with ECM to confuse ground radar. The EQ-4s are kind of expensive for that role. The pentagon might consider using MQ-9C Avengers modified for as EW/ECM UAVs.

@megasun: The term "Network Centric Warfare" is more commonly used than "Combat Cloud", MADL on the F-35 and EQ-4 "communications gateway" jets make that a reality. Coupled with E-2 and E-3s for airborne command & control. This would technically fit the definition of "cloud".

Gone are the days when a bunch of fighters with limited fire-control radar escorting attack jets based on on being vectored for intercepts and targeting by radio only.

neurotech wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Legacy jets should make nice decoys to bait the trap.. Smile

I thought the plan was to use MQ-1s with ECM to confuse ground radar. The EQ-4s are kind of expensive for that role. The pentagon might consider using MQ-9C Avengers modified for as EW/ECM UAVs.

@megasun: The term "Network Centric Warfare" is more commonly used than "Combat Cloud", MADL on the F-35 and EQ-4 "communications gateway" jets make that a reality. Coupled with E-2 and E-3s for airborne command & control. This would technically fit the definition of "cloud".

Gone are the days when a bunch of fighters with limited fire-control radar escorting attack jets based on on being vectored for intercepts and targeting by radio only.

The current generation of UAVs are not survivable in a contested battlespace doing passive ISR. IMO, putting them in the ECM/EW role likely means you consider them dispensable like a MALD/MALD-J but would be a steep price to pay.

popcorn wrote:

The current generation of UAVs are not survivable in a contested battlespace doing passive ISR. IMO, putting them in the ECM/EW role likely means you consider them dispensable like a MALD/MALD-J but would be a steep price to pay.

I think your confusing my two points. The MQ-9C is steath and is significantly improved survivability in high threat environments than a "current" UAVs such as the MQ-9B and RQ-4.

The EQ-4 gateway jet would stay high and out-of-the-way of a high threat environment, while maintain the network between 4th gen assets, 5th gen F-22s and F-35s, along with MQ-9C Avengers and UCAS aircraft. Currently the F-22 can't talk via direct datalink to F-35s or transmit to 4th gen fighters via Link-16. EQ-4B BACN is needed.

neurotech wrote:

popcorn wrote:

The current generation of UAVs are not survivable in a contested battlespace doing passive ISR. IMO, putting them in the ECM/EW role likely means you consider them dispensable like a MALD/MALD-J but would be a steep price to pay.

I think your confusing my two points. The MQ-9C is steath and is significantly improved survivability in high threat environments than a "current" UAVs such as the MQ-9B and RQ-4.

The EQ-4 gateway jet would stay high and out-of-the-way of a high threat environment, while maintain the network between 4th gen assets, 5th gen F-22s and F-35s, along with MQ-9C Avengers and UCAS aircraft. Currently the F-22 can't talk via direct datalink to F-35s or transmit to 4th gen fighters via Link-16. EQ-4B BACN is needed.

GH and and Avenger are more survivable than their predecessors but neither are VLO as I understand it. Long-range, high-altitude AAMs/SAMs would be the primary threat.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ic-379839/
USAF: Current unmanned aircraft irrelevant in the Pacific

By: DAVE MAJUMDAR WASHINGTON DC

Source:

The US Air Force's current fleet of unmanned aircraft will be irrelevant in the Pacific theater, a top service official says.

Over the past 10 years, the US Air Force has built up a still growing fleet of slow moving but persistent General Atomics MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft. While those aircraft provided US ground forces with unprecedented situational awareness, they are too vulnerable to be used in a high threat environment.

"We are now shifting to a theatre where there is an adversary out there who is going to have a vote on whether I have that staring eye over the battlefield 24[hours], seven [days a week], 365 [days a year], and pretty certain they are not going to allow that to happen," says Gen Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "The fleet I've built up-and I'm still being prodded to build up too- is not relevant in that new theatre."

Avenger is VLO. From what I've heard, the radar signature is in the ballpark of an F-35. Not F-22 level, but still considered stealth.

Previous versions of the MQ-9 are obviously not LO level RCS.

popcorn wrote:

neurotech wrote:

popcorn wrote:

The current generation of UAVs are not survivable in a contested battlespace doing passive ISR. IMO, putting them in the ECM/EW role likely means you consider them dispensable like a MALD/MALD-J but would be a steep price to pay.

I think your confusing my two points. The MQ-9C is steath and is significantly improved survivability in high threat environments than a "current" UAVs such as the MQ-9B and RQ-4.

The EQ-4 gateway jet would stay high and out-of-the-way of a high threat environment, while maintain the network between 4th gen assets, 5th gen F-22s and F-35s, along with MQ-9C Avengers and UCAS aircraft. Currently the F-22 can't talk via direct datalink to F-35s or transmit to 4th gen fighters via Link-16. EQ-4B BACN is needed.

GH and and Avenger are more survivable than their predecessors but neither are VLO as I understand it. Long-range, high-altitude AAMs/SAMs would be the primary threat.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ic-379839/
USAF: Current unmanned aircraft irrelevant in the Pacific

By: DAVE MAJUMDAR WASHINGTON DC

Source:

The US Air Force's current fleet of unmanned aircraft will be irrelevant in the Pacific theater, a top service official says.

Over the past 10 years, the US Air Force has built up a still growing fleet of slow moving but persistent General Atomics MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft. While those aircraft provided US ground forces with unprecedented situational awareness, they are too vulnerable to be used in a high threat environment.

"We are now shifting to a theatre where there is an adversary out there who is going to have a vote on whether I have that staring eye over the battlefield 24[hours], seven [days a week], 365 [days a year], and pretty certain they are not going to allow that to happen," says Gen Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "The fleet I've built up-and I'm still being prodded to build up too- is not relevant in that new theatre."

I'd agree that current battlefield UAVs are not suited for contested airspace, and would not be used until air supremacy is achieved - which is unlikely over mainland China, but is achievable over contested islands. BAMS and BACN aircraft would be on station outside of likely threat envelopes, and would be defended like any other HVT - AWACS, J-STARS, tankers, EW aircraft, etc.

neurotech wrote:

Avenger is VLO. From what I've heard, the radar signature is in the ballpark of an F-35. Not F-22 level, but still considered stealth.

Previous versions of the MQ-9 are obviously not LO level RCS.

Neuro, do you have a source for that?
I'm not disputing the claim, I just find that Avenger a very interesting creature that hasn't been discussed much since GA introduced it. From what I recall they were told to make it larger than their initial design?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Why USAF Needs Lots Of F-35s: Gen. Hostage On 'Combat Cloud'