The USN is dragging its feet on 5th gen fighters.

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24613
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Aug 2016, 19:47

I see the USN being criticised for being overly conservative and resistant to change. There are good reasons for changing aircraft and flight ops carefully. Until perhaps the 1960s the loss of carrier aircraft during flight ops was ..... [insert your own ideas about this here]. I can post a graph that has been posted before here that shows the losses. It also makes clear that new aircraft with good equipment with standardised procedures with excellent training/NATOPS has cut the loss rate.

Perhaps the IDLC/Delta Flight Path in the F-35C on automatic may become the standard in future years however as has been made clear pilots will need to be able to land manually when required for whatever reason. Always good to have options.

Using the V-22 as a COD aircraft on CVNs is REVOFRICKINlutionary for the USN - so you see they can change - and FAST but carefully.
Attachments
NavAvMishapHistory.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post04 Aug 2016, 22:41

The original article complains about the high cost of the Ford class carriers. A lot of acquisition programs are going over budget. Scrapping the Ford class to return to the supposedly cheaper Nimitz class might not result in savings if the reason for high costs come from inefficiencies in the acquisition process rather than the specific pieces of equipment on the Ford class.

The original article promotes developing a fighter with a longer range than the F-35C. Given the current cost issues with acquisitions of all kinds, I can certainly understand why the Navy would not want to develop a new fighter with a longer range. This is probably why the new unmanned aircraft is being seen as a tanker. With a tanker, the F-35C will have a longer effective range. The tanker might need to be unmanned as it is too easy to shoot down in a contested environment with BVR missiles.

The original article also mentions cruise missiles from submarines and carrier aircraft. As far as cruise missiles launched by carrier aircraft, it seems like the LRASM has a secondary land attack capability. The LRASM is apparently based on the JASSM-ER, which has a 500 nm range.

So to sum up, the Navy already seems to be moving towards tankers and cruise missiles that can be launched by carrier aircraft. This addresses the range issue to a large degree without the need for a new manned aircraft.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Aug 2016, 22:56

Per the official Navy Fact File

Each ship in the new class will save more than $4 billion in total ownership costs during its 50-year service life, compared to the Nimitz-class. The CVN 78 is designed to operate effectively with nearly 700 fewer crew members than a CVN 68-class ship. Improvements in the ship design will allow the embarked air wing to operate with approximately 400 fewer personnel. New technologies and ship design features are expected to reduce watch standing and maintenance workload for the crew. Gerald R. Ford is the first aircraft carrier designed with all electric utilities, eliminating steam service lines from the ship, reducing maintenance requirements and improving corrosion control. The new A1B reactor, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), advanced arresting gear (AAG) and dual band radar (DBR) all offer enhanced capability with reduced manning. The Gerald R. Ford class is designed to maximize the striking power of the embarked carrier air wing. The ship's systems and configuration are optimized to maximize the sortie generation rate (SGR) of attached strike aircraft, resulting in a 33 percent increase in SGR over the Nimitz class. The ship's configuration and electrical generating plant are designed to accommodate new systems, including direct energy weapons, during its 50- year service life. The Gerald R. Ford class builds upon the Navy's legacy of aircraft carrier innovation stretching back to the first aircraft carrier, USS Langley (CV-1) and continuing to the present day. The introduction of jet aircraft, angled decks and nuclear power were all innovations that kept the fleet relevant for Cold War needs. Gerald R. Ford continues the aircraft carrier history of innovation and adaptability that will enable her to serve our country for decades to come.


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... d=200&ct=4

On top of being cheaper in the long run, it can generate sorties at a higher rate
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post05 Aug 2016, 05:37

SpudmanWP wrote:
On top of being cheaper in the long run, it can generate sorties at a higher rate


And SHOOT FREAKIN LASER BEAMS man!!!!!!!!!!!! But really that makes it one tough cookie to take out in the future, surrounding ships with SM-6 and SM-3 missiles and the Ford class shooting lasers all crazy into the air knocking down cruise and ballistic missiles. :drool:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24613
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 08:36

Over the page there was a question about whether the COD C-2 flew at night. Nope - DO NOT - see below.
V-22 Experiment On Carrier Shows Increased Flexibility Over C-2 In COD Mission
18 Aug 2016 Megan Eckstein

"...the Osprey can land on the aircraft carrier at night whereas the C-2 does not perform nighttime carrier landings. So the V-22 could land day or night, and even on days when the rest of the airwing is not flying and therefore the catapult and arresting gear isn’t running...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2016/08/18/v-22-e ... od-mission
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 974
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 10:43

The Future of Naval Aviation- CSIS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0mk7w9cKz0
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 11:41

spazsinbad wrote:I see the USN being criticised for being overly conservative and resistant to change. There are good reasons for changing aircraft and flight ops carefully. Until perhaps the 1960s the loss of carrier aircraft during flight ops was ..... [insert your own ideas about this here]. I can post a graph that has been posted before here that shows the losses. It also makes clear that new aircraft with good equipment with standardised procedures with excellent training/NATOPS has cut the loss rate.

Perhaps the IDLC/Delta Flight Path in the F-35C on automatic may become the standard in future years however as has been made clear pilots will need to be able to land manually when required for whatever reason. Always good to have options.

Using the V-22 as a COD aircraft on CVNs is REVOFRICKINlutionary for the USN - so you see they can change - and FAST but carefully.


LOL who is this grandpa pettibone guy LOL.

Grampaw Pettibone says:

Well, that went from routine to ugly in the blink of an eye! Kids, these guys had a lot of snakes show up in the cockpit in a short period of time, and I don’t like to play Monday morning quarterback, but you know ol’ Gramps’ job is to take these events apart and see what we could have done better. Now, there is always a period where the boys and girls in the game don’t have all of the info and have to rely on training and instinct, but this one got so squirrelly so fast, it seems to this old timer like the best course of action would have been to get that flying machine on terra firma and sort out everything else with the steed tied down and an adult beverage in hand.

Seems to me that both the pilots and the skivvie-waving LSOs had a bit of “let’s get the machine back to the maintainers” attitude. Don’t get me wrong, that is often a great call and better for the squadron. When you are already set up for a full stop, however, and the fire lights are on and engines are shutting themselves down, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say, let’s land that gnarly beast! If you landed and you didn’t need to, well shoot, you can take right back off, right? In this case, it may be that an immediate landing without raising and lowering the gear would have left some pressure for brakes.

So gather ‘round kids and let’s make sure we get this lesson: If the airworthiness of your machine is in question, your priority needs to be your own skin. It’s good to think of the organization and the troops, but don’t let getting the bird fixed take precedence over looking after your own self.

And as an aside, I got a burr under my saddle that our leaders made the decision to remove arresting gear for budgetary reasons. The whole purpose for an outlying field is to be a mini full-up NAS. We got crash crews (thank the almighty!) and in this geezer’s opinion, we should have had some spaghetti on that runway when it was needed. This event cost over a million dollars of mama Navy’s money! How much did we save pulling the gear out of that OLF?

Now you kids get on back to work, Gramps is gonna go take a spin around the patch in my own flyin’ machine.
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... ttibone-9/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24613
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 11:52

Go here to read about the GRAMPS with CRAMPS: http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... pettibone/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 12:15

Ya I don't mean to be off topic, but this one I really interesting.

I didn't realize in naval aviation how important briefs, checks, and Natops are.

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... 1/19/1804/

A section of AV-8B Harriers was scheduled to fly a day training sortie and hot pit, and then perform night carrier qualification to regain currency. Shortly after takeoff, the mishap pilot reported to his lead that he had a fuel-flow proportioner, or PROP, caution. He secured the PROP system and balanced the fuel manually in accordance with NATOPS procedures. After landing from the day event, the mishap pilot, his flight lead, and the squadron landing signal officer (LSO) discussed the situation and decided to continue the mission and launch the aircraft into the pattern for the required night landing. A fuel proportioner malfunction is a downing discrepancy, a fact known to all three.

Because of an unrelated malfunction, the flight lead’s aircraft was shut down prior to the night event. After taking on fuel and water, the mishap aircraft was launched into the Case III pattern for his night landing. Approximately two miles from landing, the engine RPM began to fluctuate. The pilot executed his NATOPS immediate action items and initiated a waveoff. After climbing to 1,500 feet, the pilot reported his RPM was fluctuating between 75 and 95 percent and began a turn downwind to enter the Case I pattern. After turning off of the 180, the aircraft descended below glide path. Passing the 90, the pilot selected full power and leveled his wings, but could not arrest his rate of descent. The pilot ejected at approximately 40 feet AGL.


Grampaw Pettibone says:

Only two good things can come from this kind of knuckleheadery. The first one is we got that fine Marine out of the briny not too worse for the wear. The second is that you kids will hopefully learn something that may keep you from making the same mistake. Heck, that’s what we do here in Gramp’s house, right?

Back when Gramps was an instructor, we had an adage: “Live to fly, die for the ‘X.’” We said it jokingly—but only half jokingly—’cause after all, what kind of Naval Aviators would we be if we didn’t get the job done for the old man? But there’s a line kids, and these gents were so far beyond it they didn’t even know where it was! Gramps loves me some hard charging Marines (is there any other kind?) but gee-whiz, there weren’t bad guys coming over the horizon, this was C-darned-Q. It was nothing but a training mission and three smart, disciplined, and highly trained aviators all thought it was ok to launch that jump jet on a demanding night evolution, even though it wasn’t really airworthy—and that just don’t make sense.

So come here kids and let’s talk about what’s important here. We get paid to take risks, sometimes extreme risks, but a training sortie ain’t the time to do it. Training’s important, but it ain’t so important that you should unduly risk your air machine, much less your hide.

Now you kids run along, Gramps is gonna wander down to the barn and muck some stalls.

Maybe we need an entire section or thread for old war stories, and grandpa pettibones.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24613
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 12:32

IF you read about the history of CrampyGramps you will see there will be a lot of material. The long standing direct to the point honest style of Naval Aviation Flight Safety as evidenced by GRAMPS in NAN (Naval Aviation News) and APPROACH the USN Flight Safety Magazine has saved my life at least.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 12:45

Spaz if you have old war stories, we would love to hear them. Make a thread
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24613
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 13:37

Told 'em already in the F-35 forum ages ago now. Start a thread yourself in the modmilaircraft forum about the GRAMPS and I'll point to the story.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24613
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 22:44

Back on point or back on topic or BACK TO THE FUTURE ('maus92' are you disseminating this?) or what are they going to think of NEXT? Same old same old the USN have been spruiking for years now but I guess no one ['maus92'] is listening.
New U.S. Naval Aircraft Integrating for Longer Range Operations
19 Aug 2016 Megan Eckstein

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy has begun integrating its newest airplanes into the air wing and joint forces during training and finding that these platforms, including the EA-18G Growler and F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, are extending the range and increasing the sophistication of operations, the Navy’s Air Boss said.

Commander of Naval Air Forces Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said recent testing around the country and particularly at Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada have been so successful that the Navy had to incorporate virtual and constructive training opportunities because the planes are pushing the boundaries of available air space and electromagnetic spectrum.

The service opened its Air Defense Strike Group facility there and has already run four integrated air defense exercises with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes and surface ship counterparts, and the live/virtual/constructive training opportunities are set to expand at Fallon and at the fleet concentration areas, Shoemaker said at an event cohosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute.

Exercises at Fallon and elsewhere with joint forces have only increased demand for the Growler, which is the only dedicated electronic attack plane in the Defense Department’s inventory. Tests with the Growler, Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 have proven joint forces “clearly value the contributions of that Growler, what it brings to that fight, so they remain in high demand.” The upcoming addition of the Next Generation Jammer pod will only make the plane “more formidable,” Shoemaker said.

As for F-35C integration, Shoemaker said the planes have come to Fallon a few times for testing.

“That’s been a very unique opportunity to start that fourth and fifth (generation) integration and understand what that really brings from a capability perspective,” he said.

“Flying with Rhino (Super Hornet) and Growler, we understand the low-observable penetration capability of F-35, but when we look at the ability to fuse data, put it all together, both active and passive sensors, and share that with the other platforms in the air wing and joint force, give us long-range combat ID – that’s where I think the true value you’ll see in F-35.” In Naval aviation will rely on the JSF and Super Hornet into the 2030s, and Shoemaker said the future looks bright with these two platforms.

“When you pair those two up together I think they bring a very good complement in terms of, if you call it a high-low mix and the low part of that mix is Super Hornet, we’re in a good spot,” he said.

The Air Boss noted the long-range ID aspect of F-35 but said the service is building sensors and weapons to bring this extended reach to other planes too.

“The key is the long-range ID, being able to ID at range in both a surface and air context – and that’s where the sensors and our integration of both manned and unmanned, joint, space, all domains, and really the networks that will bring all that information together and share it” will be important for future operations and extending the reach of the air wing well beyond what previous generations could have done...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2016/08/19/new-u- ... operations
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3083
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post19 Aug 2016, 23:32

Perhaps most notably, a Block 2B/3i F-35 (not even out of SDD yet) is the HIGH end of the capability set compared to a Super Hornet that has been in service and upgraded for ~15 years (since its IOC).

Not sure how a Growler with all of maybe ~400nm unrefueled combat radius gets billing as 'long range.'
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Aug 2016, 18:29

Love the V-22 posts, thank you 8)
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 14 guests