GAO Report on F-35 FoM (ie Block 4 and forward)

[element1loop]

I guess that you completely misunderstood my point here. Yes, I was exactly thinking in "system-of-systems terms".My point was (I believe) rather simple which I'll try to resume the best as I can, below:
- 'Western' "system-of-systems" are much better and advanced than the opposing 'Eastern' (for example Chinese or Russian) "system-of-systems" which allows the detection of 'Eastern' warships by 'Western' forces sooner than otherwise which IMO offsets the Range advantage that 'Eastern' (again, for example Chinese or Russian) Anti-Ship Missiles have over Western Anti-Ship Missiles.

That's quite an 'under-estimating the enemy' type presumption, their weapons have extra range because it's a requirement, not a manufacturers bonus to a customer.

[Conan]

I discussed the surface fleet only, I didn't even bother with the sub force, as it's so small and operates from one base in south western WA, and how many are available any one time? Not enough to take seriously. And its replacement is 15 to 25 years away if we're lucky. Plus they're incredibly slow. This isn't WWII any more, they have the wrong propulsion, and can barely field crews on them. Anyone who thinks that's a primary attack force within our regional geography and context is not dealing with reality. The term tokenistic capability (at best) springs to mind.

Like I said, far too RAAF centric thinking...

In short order:

1. 2 subs is the peace time deployment model. Not wartime. You have no problem accepting that RAAF assets will be surged, but RAN won’t? Please.

2. Operates from one base? And? So do the AWD’s. So do the LHD’s... So do the Wedgetails and SASR for that matter... That is their permanent base, not the only place they operate from, like all the other assets in military service...

3. They’re ‘slow’. Ah-huh. Compared to a tactical fighter of course they are. But they have what no aircraft in the world has, persistence. Time on station that no aviation capability can match.

4. The wrong propulsion? For what role? The Collins class are amongst the most capable subs on the planet and that includes nuke boats.

5. Crews. It ain’t 1999 - 2005 any more... RAN has addressed the crewing issue. There is no crewing issue for the Collins today and a clear path forward to expand to double the size of the operational fleet including crews.

6. Anyone who looks at holistic military capability does, rather than being fixated on one capability element, yes. We operate a regionally superior submarine capability now, it’s far more than a tokenistic effort. Love the idea that 6 large ocean going subs is ‘tokenistic’ but 6 Wedgetails or 7 refuellers, isn’t... And the problem with the replacement entering service in 2030’s makes it irrelevant but not on the Hunters entering service in a similar timeframe? Okay...

Frankly an extremely cheap fleet of just 6 Reapers with JSM anti-ship missiles would make a far better anti-ship force than 6 Collins Class subs ever will. And they can be out there 24/7, all weather, addressing an area 100 times the size a Collins could address in one day, getting there and back fast, and could work with JORN, P-8A and MQ-4 for patrol shadowing and ASW, along with LHD and Hunters, while we invest in a national hydrophone array, and some actual anti-sea-mine capability.

Quite frankly that is a ludicrous statement. The weight of a JSM exceeds the entire payload capacity of any hard point on a Reaper... Let alone the rest of this nonsense.

Anyway it’s the wrong forum for it.

[marauder2048]

What is confirmed is that the RAAF already had the JASSM in mind when they bought the P-8A.' Smart and not surprising.

See pg 62, para 2.2.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/183991.pdf

Not only JASSM but also mid-course guidance e.g. launch by F-35A/F-18, guided by P-8 & possibly triton.

Ah, so there it is

ANNEX A
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND AUSTRALIAN OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
...
Integration of Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
JASSM-MI Link 16 mid-course guidance ...

'MI' is LRASM

JASSM-MI and WDL (on which the former was based) were already known dead by the time that MOU was signed
so it's nothing more than a wish-list.

MI was a conceptual basis for LRASM but lacks the RFS and was much lighter as a consequence.

[element1loop]

Like I said, far too RAAF centric thinking...

Not at all, it is a fair and relative assessment of the effective and efficient strike capacity, and time taken to provide it, and then to repeat it. It has nothing to do with being air-warfare-centric. If the naval approach (sans dedicated carriers) had more on offer there would be more to consider, but there isn’t.

1. 2 subs is the peace time deployment model. Not wartime. You have no problem accepting that RAAF assets will be surged, but RAN won’t? Please.

Surge? Please, have a close look at the geography and the distances involved with a spread sheet and the rate of submerged cruise distance per day and the time taken to get to patrol areas or to loiter in choke points, and the corresponding time to return again, and the time to repeat. Then calculate, as a ratio, how much of that total time the subs will be available to achieve their war aim and role? Disappointing to say the least.

2. Operates from one base? And? So do the AWD’s. So do the LHD’s... So do the Wedgetails and SASR for that matter... That is their permanent base, not the only place they operate from, like all the other assets in military service...

Yes, but ~2500 nm away by sub, on the other side of the continent, from most of the rest of the fleet. There’s been talk about putting them on the east-coast as well, but nothing has come of it. So calculate the time it takes to transit from Perth to Sydney, to become a part of a useful integrated task force. You are left relying on intel to give timing cues (months ahead) for when to position them to be useful.

3. They’re ‘slow’. Ah-huh. Compared to a tactical fighter of course they are. But they have what no aircraft in the world has, persistence. Time on station that no aviation capability can match.

Already covered, their presumed persistence is theoretical, not realistic or achievable with the numbers and geography they have to operate in. They’re not ineffective of course, it’s just that an OPFOR is unlikely to encounter one, at least to do so rarely, so they're much freer to operate.

4. The wrong propulsion? For what role? The Collins class are amongst the most capable subs on the planet and that includes nuke boats.

For getting from point A to point B any time soon.

Yes, they’re extremely capable, but only in a performance limited context or in an area like the Baltic Sea, not in the two largest oceans on earth. OPFOR knows Collins has nowhere near the sustained performance needed to intercept them in open ocean, so Collins will be restricted to more predictable choke-points. RAN needs propulsion that changes that. Advocates or fans may think that’s still OK, I think it’s really piss-poor-performance.

[
5. Crews. It ain’t 1999 - 2005 any more... RAN has addressed the crewing issue. There is no crewing issue for the Collins today and a clear path forward to expand to double the size of the operational fleet including crews.

That may be largely so, but a P-8A crew can go home to the family far more often. Which one would a young married person prefer to be on, in order to detect and kill subs or ships and gather copious regional data? Hence the crewing problem is far from over in the long-term. And nor was it over during the post-2009 mining and energy extraction building-out boom. There will be more waves of that sort of energy build-out boom to come.

6. Anyone who looks at holistic military capability does, rather than being fixated on one capability element, yes. We operate a regionally superior submarine capability now, it’s far more than a tokenistic effort. Love the idea that 6 large ocean going subs is ‘tokenistic’ but 6 Wedgetails or 7 refuellers, isn’t... And the problem with the replacement entering service in 2030’s makes it irrelevant but not on the Hunters entering service in a similar timeframe? Okay...

No good dragging in other platforms to make your point, those are all performing to expectations, and slot into the JOINT framework as required and they're COTS too, if we want or else need more, fairly quickly.

I'm only interested in JOINT capabilities, there's no single-service fixation involved, I look at the implications of the current and building force. You may not like the assessment but you’ve said nothing to change it.

And no the timeframe is not similar as you claim, the first Hunter is expect in 2027-2028, the first Barracuda delivered (possibly) by 2035 (i.e. 16 years to get the first from an existing sub hull) and the last one delivered at around 2056 (37 years) on the present expectations .............................. and they're not even joking.

Frankly an extremely cheap fleet of just 6 Reapers with JSM anti-ship missiles would make a far better anti-ship force than 6 Collins Class subs ever will. And they can be out there 24/7, all weather, addressing an area 100 times the size a Collins could address in one day, getting there and back fast, and could work with JORN, P-8A and MQ-4 for patrol shadowing and ASW, along with LHD and Hunters, while we invest in a national hydrophone array, and some actual anti-sea-mine capability.

Quite frankly that is a ludicrous statement. The weight of a JSM exceeds the entire payload capacity of any hard point on a Reaper... Let alone the rest of this nonsense.

Which ignores the fact that these drones have not been built and the SkyGuard Reaper version has a stronger wing with 8 weapon stations as opposed to the prior 6 weapon stations, and its inside pylons can carry 1,500 lb. The anti-ship potential of a persistent, cheap continuously available Reaper fleet with an anti-ship weapon makes the Collins Class anti-ship capability look anemic in comparison.

Your prior assertion that Collins constitutes ADF's primary anti-ship attack force is actually a single-platform-centric focus, and obviously misses the forest for the trees.

So, being all 'holistic' then, it would be fair to say that such a Reaper anti-ship capability with a VLO missile would (JOINTLY) relieve Collins of the need to be going after almost all other surface ships within other locations and open waters, so they could actually lurk more often at one or two key choke-points. Or to mine them and then move on to other essential tasking. The HOLISTIC JOINT COMBINATION of the two thus raises the overall sub fleet's deterrence, and wartime potential and flexibility.

And mass-killing ships is what F-35A + tankers with JSOW, JSM or LRASM provides way more of (and the P-8A). So it's more than reasonable to conclude that RAN subs are not now and will not be in future, the ADF's primary anti-ship capability. Right?

Those subs will be focused on going after a limited subset of the OPFOR fleet. And its questionable they will be doing much of that, more like mining and going on to other tasks that the aircraft allow them to be freed up to do more convincingly.

You can clarify via PM if you wish to debate that.

Happy New Year to you any way Conan.

[element1loop]

What is confirmed is that the RAAF already had the JASSM in mind when they bought the P-8A.' Smart and not surprising.

See pg 62, para 2.2.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/183991.pdf

Not only JASSM but also mid-course guidance e.g. launch by F-35A/F-18, guided by P-8 & possibly triton.

Ah, so there it is

ANNEX A
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND AUSTRALIAN OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
...
Integration of Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
JASSM-MI Link 16 mid-course guidance ...

'MI' is LRASM

JASSM-MI and WDL (on which the former was based) were already known dead by the time that MOU was signed
so it's nothing more than a wish-list.

MI was a conceptual basis for LRASM but lacks the RFS and was much lighter as a consequence.

And an indication of intents.

[ricnunes]

Your figures aren't close to correct as given by RAN itself (or the Wikipedia page).

Hunter Class:
Displacement: 8,800 t (8,700 long tons; 9,700 short tons) full load displacement
Beam: 20.5 m (67 ft)

Ticonderoga Cruiser:
Beam: 55 feet (16.8 meters)

Hunters in fact do have more full-displacement than most Arleigh Burkes and they have slightly more beam than A/Bs as well. Hunters of course have a lot more beam than a Tricon cruiser.

The point of my saying that being that there's a lot of deep wide hull there (for a frigate), for more VLS cells to go in, but RAN shows no interest in upping cell numbers to provide Hunter with a long-range strike weapon or even some more air defense. So clearly these ships are getting the minimum necessary cells to go hunt subs, and defend itself while doing it.

I can see why the USN would want a smaller and cheaper to buy and also operate hull for its future frigates.

Beam is not the only measurement of a ship you know?

And from the same place where you came up with your values (and I with mine), the Ticonderoga has a 1,000 ton higher displacement and more than 23 meters long compared to the Type 26/Hunter. That's IMO, QUITE or even a LOT bigger (on the Tico side that is).

Yes, according to your values about the Hunter, I concede that it has a bigger displacement than an Arleigh Burke Flight I or Flight II but the Hunter is still more than 4 meters shorter in length compared to them.

However I would like to point out that Flight IIA and Flight III Arleigh Burkes which are much more contemporary to the Hunter than Arleigh Burkes Flight I and II have a much bigger displacement (than the Hunter) at 9,100 tons for the Flight IIA and 9,600 tons for Flight III.
Moreover of the 66 Arleigh Burkes already built and 82 planned, "only" 28 Arleigh Burkes are Flight I and II. All others are Flights IIA and III.

[steve2267]

Yeah, but...

Would a Hunter beat an Arleigh Burke in a dogfight ???

Guns only? Or BVR missiles only?

Which does a rudder-only turn better?

[ricnunes]

That's quite an 'under-estimating the enemy' type presumption, their weapons have extra range because it's a requirement, not a manufacturers bonus to a customer.

And I never said that the longer range of their Anti-Ship missiles was not a requirement or that it was a "bonus", did I?

However requirements sometimes aren't met with real expectations or something that you design in a way that was thought to overcome what the opponent have (such as designing a longer range anti-ship missile) in practical terms it didn't overcome/surpass and doesn't work as it was fully intended to (such as not having a way to exploit the missile's full range).

Actually the "Eastern side", namely the Russians are full of military systems whose requirements were to surpass equivalent western systems but for a myriad of reasons they fell very short from expectations/requirements.
For example: It was a requirement that the Su-57 was to surpass the F-22 and the F-35. We all know what happened to this requirement, don't we?

[ricnunes]

Which does a rudder-only turn better?

The one that can fit the rudder in its VLS

[spazsinbad]

Yeah, but... Would a Hunter beat an Arleigh Burke in a dogfight ??? Guns only? Or BVR missiles only? Which does a rudder-only turn better?

I knew it I knew it I knew it - why does every thread to into a 1v1 ACME DogPuddle (nearly typed POO but WHAATT!?)

[element1loop]

Yeah, but... Would a Hunter beat an Arleigh Burke in a dogfight ??? Guns only? Or BVR missiles only? Which does a rudder-only turn better?

I knew it I knew it I knew it - why does every thread to into a 1v1 ACME DogPuddle (nearly typed POO but WHAATT!?)

LMAO ......

[steve2267]

Yeah, but... Would a Hunter beat an Arleigh Burke in a dogfight ??? Guns only? Or BVR missiles only? Which does a rudder-only turn better?

I knew it I knew it I knew it - why does every thread to into a 1v1 ACME DogPuddle (nearly typed POO but WHAATT!?)

Spaz... whaddya expect when a thread turns into a dick measuring argument? My destroyer is bigger than your destroyer? (Thot this was F-16.net not SeamanBattles.org). Butt butt butt... my destroyer is wider than yours! Oh yeah? Mine has longer range miskuhls than yours...

[spazsinbad]

Navy Awards $1.8 Billion Contract for F-35 Block 4 Capabilities
10 Jun 2019 Richard R. Burgess

"ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Navy has awarded to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. a contract to continue development of Block 4 capabilities for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

Naval Air Systems Command awarded a $1.8 billion “cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-award-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for continued design maturation and development of Block 4 capabilities in support of the F-35 Lightning II Phase 2.3 Pre-Modernization for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participants,” according to a Defense Department announcement.

Details of the Block 4 capabilities have not been released by the F-35 Joint Program Office, but they are mainly incremental software and sensor upgrades intended to add to the aircraft’s agility, lethality and situational awareness to enable the aircraft to keep ahead of the threats anticipated in the future."

Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-award ... abilities/

[optimist]

if it hits the fan. the us want Jorn and the subs, in that order. So I wouldn't discount them too quickly.
The few F-35 we can deploy and sustain is in a coalition. Is a token gesture and flag waving.

[spazsinbad]

F-35 Production Deal is Largest in DOD History; Block 4 Contract Also Inked
10 Jun 2019 Brian Everstine

[links in article at URL]"... the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.8 billion contract for the continued design of Block 4 upgrades for all variants of the F-35. The contract covers “continued design maturation and development” of the Block 4 suite as part of continued follow-on modernization of the aircraft, according to a Pentagon release. It includes $732 million for US Air Force variants of the jet, [does not the meaning is 'the F-35A for everybody?'] with work expected to be completed in August 2026.

The Block 4 software suite for the jet includes 53 improvements to advanced air- and ground-based threats. None of the changes will affect the exterior of the jet; the mods will instead focus on software updates to be rolled out in stages, beginning this year. “Instead of doing two-year deliveries … we decided to go to a more continuous capability framework,” said Vice Adm. Mat Winter, F-35 program executive officer, in a December interview with Air Force Magazine.

While specifics about the upgrade are mostly secret, they largely include integration of new weapons such as the Small Diameter Bomb II; logistics and support changes; electronic warfare updates; interoperability and networking changes; cockpit and navigation upgrades; and radar and electro-optical system enhancements.

The Joint Program Office expects more updates to follow-on after the Block 4 upgrades are complete, with a Block 5 likely in about 2028.

The contract award went against recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, which said the Defense Department should hold off until it has created a business case for the upgrade, and has conducted an “independent technology assessment” for it. While the contract is now awarded, the Pentagon doesn’t expect to have a technology readiness assessment, independent cost estimate, and test and evaluation master plan until the October-December timeframe, the GAO said in an April report. In a response to the GAO report, the F-35 JPO said it expected a Block 4 test and evaluation master plan in June, with approval from the Defense Secretary in the fall.

In addition to the Air Force funding, the cost-plus-incentive-fee and cost-plus-award-fee contract includes $371 million for the Navy, $345 million for the Marine Corps, and $358 million for non-US participants. It is the latest in a series of contracts for Block 4 work, including a $104 million modification in August 2018 and a $130 million modification in November 2018."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... Inked.aspx