F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2019, 10:29
by spazsinbad
Panel Session #2 – TOPGUN Today [video] [1st F-35C course + USN/USMC pilots starts soon - BFM included]

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019 ... /195959204 [06/07 Sep 2019 TOPGUN PANEL with instructors - 39 minutes]

ALL VIDEOS of Panels start here: https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019

Panel Session #1 – History of TOPGUN [103 min] https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019 ... /195915485

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2019, 12:56
by Dragon029
From the OPNAV panel:

Image

Also VMFA-314 (F-35C) are going to be changing home-port to MCAS Iwakuni in FY2021 (joining VFA-121).

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2019, 17:21
by doge
spazsinbad wrote:

:notworthy: Thanks to Spaz! :notworthy:
Dragon029 wrote:

The road to AARGM-ER looks farther than I had imagined. (Wait about 9 years! :doh: )
On the other hand, The TR-3 / Sidekick I expect looks pretty close. (About 4 years!) Good news. 8)

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2019, 02:36
by reaper
I was kinda excited about the MQ-25x5 on each carrier. The ability to offload 14,000 Lbs of fuel at 500 mi range would go a long way toward extending the range of a strike package if you could tank them again at the same location on the return trip. Basically add 500 miles to the combat radius of the "C", which we already think is pretty good.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2019, 02:54
by Corsair1963
doge wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:

:notworthy: Thanks to Spaz! :notworthy:
Dragon029 wrote:

The road to AARGM-ER looks farther than I had imagined. (Wait about 9 years! :doh: )
On the other hand, The TR-3 / Sidekick I expect looks pretty close. (About 4 years!) Good news. 8)



Hard to believe they wouldn't integrate the AARGM-ER into the F-35C until 2028! As it would be a key weapon for the F-35C. Especially, against near peer threats like China.

:? :? :?

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2019, 03:51
by spazsinbad
reaper wrote:I was kinda excited about the MQ-25x5 on each carrier. The ability to offload 14,000 Lbs of fuel at 500 mi range would go a long way toward extending the range of a strike package if you could tank them again at the same location on the return trip. Basically add 500 miles to the combat radius of the "C", which we already think is pretty good.


FROM OPNAV Panel Video: https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019 ... /195986586

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2019, 09:09
by Dragon029
Corsair1963 wrote:Hard to believe they wouldn't integrate the AARGM-ER into the F-35C until 2028! As it would be a key weapon for the F-35C. Especially, against near peer threats like China.

AARGM-ER does have a range in the ballpark of 300km, so it's more important that Super Hornets or Growlers (which will be available in greater quantities and be fairly safe launching them near max range) be prioritised in having them integrated.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 00:57
by blain
Why is there a gap transition in 2021 and 2023? The navy is sure slow rolling the C.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 02:26
by Corsair1963
Dragon029 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Hard to believe they wouldn't integrate the AARGM-ER into the F-35C until 2028! As it would be a key weapon for the F-35C. Especially, against near peer threats like China.

AARGM-ER does have a range in the ballpark of 300km, so it's more important that Super Hornets or Growlers (which will be available in greater quantities and be fairly safe launching them near max range) be prioritised in having them integrated.


Not so sure about that??? As the F-35C's Stealth would allow it to deeply penetrate enemy airspace. Something the Super Hornet and even Growler would have a hard time doing. That is against a serious near-peer threat. (i.e. China and/or Russia)

This would give the US and Allies a critical advantage.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 03:30
by element1loop
Corsair1963 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:AARGM-ER does have a range in the ballpark of 300km, so it's more important that Super Hornets or Growlers (which will be available in greater quantities and be fairly safe launching them near max range) be prioritised in having them integrated.


Not so sure about that??? As the F-35C's Stealth would allow it to deeply penetrate enemy airspace. Something the Super Hornet and even Growler would have a hard time doing. That is against a serious near-peer threat. (i.e. China and/or Russia) This would give the US and Allies a critical advantage.


F-35C will be able to get in close and quietly launch and support JSOW-C1 (GPS/INS with terminal IR homing).

JSOW Block III (JSOW-C1)
Raytheon was as of 2005 under contract to develop the JSOW Block III, which adds a Link-16 weapon data link and moving maritime target capability to the AGM-154C. It was scheduled to be produced in 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_J ... ry_variant)

Allied F-35s will have JSM integrated, so it would make sense for USN to move earlier to add JSM (matching new USN NSM, now on LCS) to supplement LRASM and thus add an internal penetrating land-attack cruise missile to F-35C that can find and kill heavy-SAM emitters, before 2028.

... JSM has sophisticated target acquisition capability that uses autonomous target recognition, made possible by an imaging infrared seeker. ...

[JSM] FEATURES
* Advanced engagement planning system that exploits the geography in the area
* Accurate navigation system for flight close to terrain
* High maneuverability to allow flight planning in close vicinity to land masses
* Discriminating seeker with imaging infrared technology
* Two-way networking data link (compliant with standard military equipment) offering target-update, retargeting and mission-abort capabilities

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jsm

Plus the radar sensor that's also been added since, which may be ideal for finding and killing the primary detection emitter(s).

Would AARGM-ER have better sensor driven terminal guidance and lethality than an F-35C datalinked to JSOW-C1? Possibly. But would it be better than a JSM fed by a two-way datalink to the F-35C's ESM, SAR and EOTS via the fusion-engine supporting it all the way to a kill from ~40 nm radius direct observation of the target and supporting its very low-level approach with EA as well?

I think Dragon's more-or-less right here, F-35C will have the essential VLO tools to get the job done, until AARGM-ER is on it, and 2 x F-35C can cover and support SH to kill heavy SAMs in the interim (with a couple of VLO missile options already on the SH).

Don't forget these as well:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... berg_2.jpg

http://www.difesaonline.it/sites/defaul ... 016f35.jpg

In other words, that 2028 delay may actually be a case of waiting to see if AARGM-ER is even needed when F-35 would be able to carry 6 x JSM, and 6 x AAM simultaneously after 2025. If F-35 can get that close in to support such a missile with the F-35's own sensors and supports, why would you even need AARGM-ER?

Indeed, why not just put JSM on both SH and F-35C before that, and maybe not even bother with AARGM-ER?

And I think this may be happening, for example

AGM-88G AARGM-ER
The Navy's FY 2016 budget included funding for an extended range AARGM-ER that utilizes the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E with a solid integrated rocket-ramjet for double the range. Development funding will last to 2020. In September 2016, Orbital ATK unveiled its extended-range AARGM-ER, which incorporates a redesigned control section and 11.5 in (290 mm)-diameter rocket motor for twice the range and internal carriage on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The U.S. Navy awarded Orbital ATK an contract for AARGM-ER development in January 2018. The AARGM-ER would serve as the basis for the land-attack Stand In Attack Weapon (SiAW).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM#cite_note-19

Which would mean AARGM-ER loses its primary specialist roll of killing SAMs but re-packages itself as a fast extended-range land-attack missile which also fits inside an F-35A/C.

As per this article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ike-weapon

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 04:31
by Dragon029
Corsair1963 wrote:Not so sure about that??? As the F-35C's Stealth would allow it to deeply penetrate enemy airspace. Something the Super Hornet and even Growler would have a hard time doing. That is against a serious near-peer threat. (i.e. China and/or Russia)

This would give the US and Allies a critical advantage.

You're using the AARGM-ER against enemy SAMs; if your anti-radiation missile has a greater range than almost all of their SAMs, why do you need to penetrate further? If you're up against an S-400 with 40N6 missiles in the tubes, you'd still be able to use a Growler to get a bit closer in, or you'd just use some LRASMs / JASSMs / TLAMs.

If you're talking about the Growler having to fight against enemy aircraft operating at the edges of their IADS network, then don't you want the F-35Cs armed with AMRAAMs taking care of them rather than Super Hornets? Ultimately the Navy's carrier wings are going to be mostly full of Rhinos and Growlers for the next 20 years and in a major war the Navy can't afford to have those jets just sitting around on the deck doing nothing.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 05:38
by wrightwing
4th generation jets are the priority for the integration of AARGM-ER and AIM-260, much in the same way they got AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block 2 before F-22/35.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 11:51
by spazsinbad
More about different training roles in TOPGUN for different personnel which was news to me - good info to read it all.

TOPGUN’s Impact September 2019 Proceedings Magazine Vol. 145/9/1,399
By Commander Christopher “Pops” Papaioanu, U.S. Navy, and Mr. Brad Elward

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... uns-impact

TOPGUN Patch: https://www.usni.org/sites/default/file ... _Patch.png

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 22:36
by blain
Even though the F-35 has a number of options for SEAD/DEAD I think the AARGM-ER gives them capabilities the other weapons don't, specifically speed.

Sometimes you can't wait until a glide bomb or a subsonic missile hits an emitter or launcher.

Along those lines I wonder what kind of accuracy can the geolocation capabilities of the AN/ASQ-239 provide with regard to weapons cuing for emitters. Can AARGM or AARGM-ER take out an emitter just with GPS coordinates?

If it can then how about the F-16s HTS? With either HARM or would it require something bigger? I believe the USAF only has the AGM-88Cs, which doesn't appear to have GPS targeting.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 00:13
by marauder2048
A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants
is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile.

The Navy doesn't look like it really starts the AARGM-ER quantity ramp until 2026 so 2028
doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Yes, AARGM can target an emitter just with GPS coordinates.

SiAW is retaining the ARH capability of AARGM-ER though they might be able simplify
the passive RF stack since F-35 and B-21 have exquisite ESM and don't need
AARGM to operate on-rail as an emitter detector/tracker.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 00:47
by blain
marauder2048 wrote:A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants
is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile.

The Navy doesn't look like it really starts the AARGM-ER quantity ramp until 2026 so 2028
doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Yes, AARGM can target an emitter just with GPS coordinates.

SiAW is retaining the ARH capability of AARGM-ER though they might be able simplify
the passive RF stack since F-35 and B-21 have exquisite ESM and don't need
AARGM to operate on-rail as an emitter detector/tracker.


My question has more to do with the geolocation capabilities of the AN/ASQ-239 than whether AARGM or AARGM-ER can use GPS coordinates to hit a target. And can you do it with a one ship relatively quickly or do you need to fuse the emitter info from more than one F-35?

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 01:52
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:More about different training roles in TOPGUN for different personnel which was news to me - good info to read it all.

TOPGUN’s Impact September 2019 Proceedings Magazine Vol. 145/9/1,399
By Commander Christopher “Pops” Papaioanu, U.S. Navy, and Mr. Brad Elward

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... uns-impact


... Tactics development and combat systems capabilities go hand-in-hand. The greater the comparative advantage in combat systems capabilities, the less complex fighter tactics need to be, and, as a result, the more effective average fighter aircrew will be. The Navy’s current combat systems are relatively equal to those of our peer adversaries, so fighter tactics have become more complex to ensure they remain effective. This has reached a point where there is growing concern within TOPGUN that fighter aircrew are being asked to do too much. As new capabilities, including the F-35 B and C, are integrated into the Navy–Marine Corps fighter community, TOPGUN will look for opportunities to simplify tactics. As naval aviation adapts from operating in a permissive, counterinsurgency environment to a nonpermissive, high-end fight, TOPGUN’s role in defining the training to go along with this shift will be significant. ...


Very interesting article, amazing how many successful spin-offs and approaches it created.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 02:05
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile. ...


You're forgetting this sensor:

Australia Signs Contract With Kongsberg To Integrate RF Sensor In Joint Strike Missile

Australianaviation.com.au April 7, 2017

Kongsberg Defence Systems has entered into a contract with Defence for the integration of a new capability in the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) worth the equivalent of $23 million. The unique, state-of-the-art radio frequency (RF) seeker sensor developed by BAE Systems Australia will enable the JSM to locate targets on the basis of their electronic signature, Kongsberg said in a statement. ... “The company will provide a low-cost, lightweight and highly sensitive electronic support measure receiver for incorporation on JSM, which will feature an additional land attack and littoral attack capability, as well as a two-way communications line for target adjustment and inflight termination,” BAE Systems stated. [i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs] ...

https://australianaviation.com.au/2017/ ... e-missile/


I take the points about speed and retaining ARH capability.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 03:04
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile. ...


You're forgetting this sensor:

Australia Signs Contract With Kongsberg To Integrate RF Sensor In Joint Strike Missile



I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 08:45
by marauder2048
blain wrote:My question has more to do with the geolocation capabilities of the AN/ASQ-239 than whether AARGM or AARGM-ER can use GPS coordinates to hit a target. And can you do it with a one ship relatively quickly or do you need to fuse the emitter info from more than one F-35?


I get the impression that single ship geolocation even with small baseline interferometers is
on the order of many tens of seconds typically into the minutes.

For (I think) a two-ship T/FDOA, the AT3 goals were a 50 m CEP against an emitter
at 50 nautical in less than 10 seconds. I think they got close and some of AT3 ended up on
the latest HTS R7+ revs.

So HARM HSCM and AARGM/ER can both take the GPS target coordinates (really an ellipse)
inferred from the geolocation techniques. And then you need a seeker to search the error ellipse
or submunitions that can cover it. Which brings the Air Force to SiAW.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 09:34
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.


Why I wrote:

[i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs]


JSM has ESM and a two-way datalink, so can provide ESM data input back to theater-level F-35 coverage, which fuses ESM contact geolocation data, then cues the nearest SAR and EOTS to find the emitter and confirm classification, PID and precise location, then updates JSM with PID precision target location. If it shuts down or moves, the F-35 updates with target-grade moving-target data (SAR, EOTS or even DAS), and JSM homes using F-35-derived data and isn't reliant on its own IR sensor and on a target's radar being active.

It's effectively got virtual multi-spectral target sensor input from any sensor or platform that can still see and track that target.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 10:08
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.


Why I wrote:

[i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs]


If it shuts down or moves, the F-35 updates with target-grade moving-target data


Which in the conditions described above (where IIR isn't useful) will require the F-35 to emit.
Probably continuously both in a SAR/GMTI sense and for in-flight target updates for the weapon
since the weapon time of flight is long and its seeker acquisition range is going to be greatly
reduced by conditions.

This is a not what you want to do in an air defense environment that required AARGM-ER in the first place.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 11:08
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:
element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.


Why I wrote:

[i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs]


If it shuts down or moves, the F-35 updates with target-grade moving-target data


Which in the conditions described above (where IIR isn't useful) will require the F-35 to emit. ...This is a not what you want to do in an air defense environment that required AARGM-ER in the first place.


Is it required?

I'm going to do it:

(1) Tactical EA that's second to none.
(2) MADL for most of the comms involved.
(3) The radar is LPD so let's test it out.
(4) F-15C could not radar-lock an F-22A when visual, F-35 is smaller with better VLO tech, so I'm confident S400 is not going to maintain lock.
(5) I can optimize aspect.
(6) I can use the radius I want once I've found and IDed the target (guided by MDF cue re detection radius).
(7) I have CMs.
(8) I have a towed decoy.
(9) I can dive at the ground to drag a missile down and rely on GCAS to miss the dirt, then terrain mask, using SAR mapping to find the nearest intervening radar shadow.
(10) Once trashed, pop-up to update the JSM, or someone further out can do it.

Risk is low and managed, not so much for the target.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 20:47
by blain
It would seem that on and hunter-killer mission you would want to go in with a lot of options in the tool belt - both AARGM-ER and Storm Breaker. Growler and MALD-X are options tool

The F-35 gets you a lot close to the emitter than a fourth gen aircraft. My question was mainly about the accuracy of ESM geolocation - single ship and multi ship - two or four. A 50 m CEP after 10 sec doesn't sound like it would be enough for AARGM-ER. But does it improve with a four ship? What does it look like after 30 second? If the emitter shuts down, will the F-35 have enough data to shoot AARGM-ER or will it need to cue other sensors like EOTS and radar?

How much of these functions happen in the background without pilot intervention? If the electronic warfare system identifies an emitter will it automatically cue the radar to try and get a more accurate location?

RE: Tailhook.

I am wondering whether the gaps in transitioning squadrons is due to a lack of airframes. From the chart OPNAV showed it appears that each CVW will have a squadron of F-35s by 2030. They will the start adding a second F-35 squadron thereafter, which is weird because a buy of 260/270 does not support two F-35 squadrons per CVW.

NGAD procurement starts in 2031. That's kind of soon for a new program. It must be a mod to an existing fighter or the schedule will slip.

The Marine F-35 program manager mentioned more integration with big deck carriers due to the new commandant's change of course. Does this mean Bs or do the Marines trade B airframes for Cs? I'd do the latter.

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2019, 21:30
by spazsinbad
blain wrote:...RE: Tailhook.
I am wondering whether the gaps in transitioning squadrons is due to a lack of airframes. From the chart OPNAV showed it appears that each CVW will have a squadron of F-35s by 2030. They will the start adding a second F-35 squadron thereafter, which is weird because a buy of 260/270 does not support two F-35 squadrons per CVW....

...The Marine F-35 program manager mentioned more integration with big deck carriers due to the new commandant's change of course. Does this mean Bs or do the Marines trade B airframes for Cs? I'd do the latter.

Latest SAR and several news reports state: "...the Department of Navy (DoN) decision to continue to procure a total [USN & USMC] of 340 F-35C aircraft...." download/file.php?id=27020

Recently there was hoohaa about only ONE CVN being able to operate F-35Cs - not just allow deck quals or F-35C testing. Not even USS Ford has all the gubbins (secure spaces, modified JBDs etc.) because decision to 'save money' during the build. then modify the FORD for the F-35C later. I do not see the USMC changing their F-35C buy because they have already changed it with no talk otherwise. Offhand I don't recall the number of USMC CVN F-35C squadrons. From same source: "...USMC variant mixture change between the F-35B and F-35C (13 additional F-35Bs and 13 less F-35Cs)…"

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2019, 04:33
by marauder2048
blain wrote:A 50 m CEP after 10 sec doesn't sound like it would be enough for AARGM-ER.
[/blain]

Do you have a basis for this? Back of the envelope suggests the entire area is within the beamwidth of AARGM
at a fairly long slant range (with reasonable assumptions about power at 94 GHz). Given typical range resolution
reqs for IADS targets, I don't think this search area imposes excessive scan rate, integration time or
airframe maneuverability reqs.

blain wrote: But does it improve with a four ship? What does it look like after 30 second? If the emitter shuts down, will the F-35 have enough data to shoot AARGM-ER or will it need to cue other sensors like EOTS and radar?


After 20 seconds, a two ship can get the CEP down to around 25 m. In reality, we are talking about error
ellipses so area is the better metric. TDOA and FDOA both like more receivers so accuracy can improve but it
also improves the probability that pairs in the four ship flight are at the desired geometries for the collection
techniques e.g. TDOA wants receivers on different bearings but FDOA wants receivers at different velocities.

Ultimately, It comes back to what sort of target location error AARGM can tolerate.
You may need to cue other sensors but SAR/GMTI can require different collection geometries
and aren't necessarily quick and conditions may not permit EOTS.

Ideally, they'll add the weapons data link to AARGM-ER/SiAW.