Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

[optimist]

If we're talking about a paradigm shift to primarily BVR air to air combat, how is that served by flying Alpha jets, KFIR's, F-5's and A-4's? Further, can any of these aircraft come close to simulating the BVR capabilities of an SU-35, J-10 or a J-20? Because those are the worst case scenario confronting our pilots, and it would make sense to train for worst case - in jiu jitsu to air to air combat.

Unless these new F-16's are coming replete with powerful AESA's, I just can't see it. Even then, the size of the radar you can jam into the nose of an F-16, F-5 etc pales in comparison to something like an F-15. Do we not have some low mileage F-15's in the boneyard that could be retrofitted with AESA's?

It's not going to be cheap, but if we're going to devote 80% of the training to BVR and 20% to WVR it would seem that's what would need to transpire. Or am I missing something, where these mostly 3rd gen jets can replicate a Flanker?

I would think they are used for mostly for WVR training
I would think they do the BVR training mostly in the pilot in loop sims. I don't know what the max number is, but they run multination piloted sim exercises.
I would think that with the f-22, f-35 and f-teens available to red air. That would be able to detune to simulate other threats. That blue f-teens and f-35 get all the air tactical training they need, along with the pilot in loop sims.

[madrat]

Well considering they get fed data by the computer, its not even necessary to turn on radars.

The training coordinators have your position constantly fed to them AND they have transponders. The information is then distributed based on filtering.

[zerion]

F-35 Software Upgrade Program Will Field Capabilities Sooner, But Delay Purchase of New Fighters

CAPITOL HILL – A move to a continuous upgrade system for the Joint Strike Fighter software will help pilots deploy with the latest and greatest warfighting capabilities, but the move is costing the Navy the ability to procure more new planes in the near-term, officials told the Senate this week.

According to written testimony to the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee, Navy and Marine Corps aviation leadership wrote that, as the JSF program nears the end of development and demonstration of the 3F software version – the final one planned – the services are searching for ways to keep the planes’ software equipped with “advanced capabilities to maintain the advantage over advancing adversary fighters and ground-based radar threats.”

“Towards that end, the Department restructured the original Block 4 Follow-on Modernization acquisition strategy into a more agile Continuous Capabilities Development and Delivery (C2D2) model. The C2D2 approach leverages commercial practices, develops capability in smaller, more easily managed increments, and accelerates delivery of warfighting capability. The approach also advances departmental goals of reducing C2D2 risk and lowering cost.”

This effort would cost the Department of the Navy $806.6 million in research, development, test, and evaluation money in the Fiscal Year 2020, under the service’s budget request...

Hirono also asked Conn during the hearing about a tactical aircraft shortfall the Navy faces – currently about 54 planes short of need – and why the Navy is asking to buy fewer planes in the coming years than previous plans called for. She noted that, between FY 2019 and 2023, the Navy now only wants to buy 289 TACAIR planes instead of the 308 it previously called for, despite the ongoing shortfall in inventory.

“Quite frankly, some of the reduction in aircraft were to pay bills. Some of them were to get wholeness in certain weapons systems: F-35 C2D2 Block 4, it came with a bill we had to pay,” Conn said.

On the fighter inventory shortfall, Conn noted that FY 2020 will be the low point, with a 51-plane shortfall, and that by FY 2024 the shortfall will be reduced to single-digits...

According to the written testimony, the Navy is buying 10 F-35Bs, 20 F-35Cs and 24 FA-18E/F Block III Super Hornets between FY 2020 and 2024.

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/11/f-35-s ... w-fighters

[marauder2048]

Hirono also asked Conn during the hearing about a tactical aircraft shortfall the Navy faces – currently about 54 planes short of need – and why the Navy is asking to buy fewer planes in the coming years than previous plans called for. She noted that, between FY 2019 and 2023, the Navy now only wants to buy 289 TACAIR planes instead of the 308 it previously called for, despite the ongoing shortfall in inventory.

“Quite frankly, some of the reduction in aircraft were to pay bills. Some of them were to get wholeness in certain weapons systems: F-35 C2D2 Block 4, it came with a bill we had to pay,” Conn said.

They cut outyear Super Hornet buys; is C2D2 really the reason for it?

[marauder2048]

Aboulafia also claimed the F-35C could diminish the Navy’s case for large-deck carriers. “If the [F35B] works, and Marines deploy Bs and Cs together and the difference isn’t all that great, then you have a situation where the case for large carriers is a little undercut,” he said.

In a worst-case scenario — at least for a sea service that wants to keep operating a fleet of large aircraft carriers — the Navy could lose support for even a carrier fleet of 10 ships and see an argument for smaller carriers supplemented by amphibious ships gain a lot of steam, Aboulafia argued.

Hadn't heard this theory before. But given the travails of the Ford class and studies recommending CVLs...


https://seapowermagazine.org/questions-continue-to-surround-f-35c/

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Look, every service COULD use F-35Bs, if they wanted to give up their range and payload and in the case of the USAF 9G and better acceleration. There is a reason that three variants were built. You think an LHD is going to be able to get closer than a Ford by enough to offset the difference in range?

[SpudmanWP]

The USN was the one service demanding internal 2k bombs. No way they settle for not only the short range of the F-35B (relative to the C), but no way they give up on 2k internal. Also, the F-35B can't do STOVL with LRASM class weapons on the wings.

[marauder2048]

and payload and in the case of the USAF 9G and better acceleration.

I mean why would STOVL be useful in A2/AD environments where airbases are going to come
under sustained attack?

There is a reason that three variants were built. You think an LHD is going to be able to get closer than a Ford by enough to offset the difference in range?

Neither can get close to modern threat environments. But the former is about a 1/4th -> 1/3rd the cost
of the CVN. And at those ranges the superior sortie generation rate of the CVN (i.e. what the Ford class was built
around) becomes irrelevant.

[marauder2048]

The USN was the one service demanding internal 2k bombs. No way they settle for not only the short range of the F-35B (relative to the C), but no way they give up on 2k internal.

I don't think Aboulafia was suggesting that the Navy would settle for it; it would be settled for them.

Also, the F-35B can't do STOVL with LRASM class weapons on the wings.

Is there anything preventing you from taking off fuel light in STOVL and hitting VARS on the way out?

[sferrin]

Is there anything preventing you from taking off fuel light in STOVL and hitting VARS on the way out?

"VARS"? I assume you mean some kind of tanker? If so you'll need the CVNs for those, and if you have CVNs you'd be better off with F-35Cs. More range, more payload.

I still don't understand why people are going through Olympic level mental gymnastics in order to REDUCE capability.

[marauder2048]

VARS: V-22 Aerial Refueling System.

"Capacity" arguments are all the rage these days and the Navy's isn't helping itself
with future fleet studies typically showing much smaller CVWs. And the Navy's
NGAD study head said that they were abandoning the penetrating mission to the Air Force.

[weasel1962]

Also, the F-35B can't do STOVL with LRASM class weapons on the wings.

...without a ski-jump. Rather than reducing fuel loads, for LHD's Bs might as well just carry JSMs. Will work for most targets smaller than a CV (not that many non-NATO CVs out there).

[SpudmanWP]

LRASM is not just about big targets, it's about long-range targets that are well protected in an EM denied environment. A JSM would not make it in that environment.

[Corsair1963]

LRASM is not just about big targets, it's about long-range targets that are well protected in an EM denied environment. A JSM would not make it in that environment.

So, the F-35B can't take-off from a USN LHD with two external 2,500 lbs class weapons on it's inner pylons???

[spazsinbad]

The F-35B performed better than predicted when STOing off of a flat deck during testing. What that means in practice? ???