Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23910
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post31 Dec 2013, 17:48

Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet 31 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
"The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be the eyes and ears of the fleet inside highly contested airspace when it enters the U.S. Navy’s arsenal in large numbers in the 2030s.

“Let’s say we’re in an anti-access environment and we’re going to go deep, we would launch all the airplanes off, get them all set, and we would push the F-35C way inside,” Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare told USNI News on Dec. 20. “He would go in there using his X-band stealth technology, and go in there and he would get radar contacts and surface contacts and would ID them for us.”

Under the service’s forthcoming Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) network, Manazir said targets discovered by the F-35C’s advanced sensor suite would be passed back to a Northrop Grumman E-2D to be shared with the rest of the carrier strike group. Further, F-35Cs flying deep inside enemy territory would also play a key role in providing terminal guidance for long-range stand-off weapons launched by other platforms such as Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or a warship.

However, the F-35C will need some data-link modifications, which are expected for the jet’s Block IV configuration, to perform the role the Navy intends for it. While the current version of the Link-16 data-link does not have enough of a low probably of intercept capability that would allow it to be used inside highly contested airspace, the Navy is working on a solution.

“They’re working right now, because it is a follow-on development item, Lockheed Martin is working with other contractors to make that capability happen,” Manazir said. “We need to have that link capability that the enemy can’t find and then it can’t jam.”

In order to extend the F-35C’s range, the Navy hopes to refuel the stealthy new fighter from the service’s future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft, Manazir said. While the UCLASS would not be as stealthy as the F-35C, it could accompany the JSF into some of the more modestly contested high threat environments.

But the Navy has never operated a stealthy aircraft with the kinds of sensors found onboard the F-35C before. In order to learn how to best utilize the new fighter, one of the first units to receive the F-35C will be the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC)—which is the home of the Navy’s famous TOPGUN school.

“One of the earliest places we’re going to put Joint Strike Fighter is at NSAWC,” Manazir said. “We’ll operate them out at [Naval Air Station] Fallon [Nevada] and be able to develop those tactics real-time on the range with Block II AESA [Active Electronically Scanned Array] F/A-18Es and Fs and F-35Cs.”

Moreover, because all three F-35 variants have the same mission systems, the Navy is working very closely with the U.S. Marine Corps to develop tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for the JSF. Manazir noted that the USMC would operate the F-35C from the Navy’s Nimitz and Ford-class supercarriers in addition to the F-35B, which will be operated from amphibious assault ships.

“We’ll be able to exploit the advantages of both kinds of aircraft,” Manazir said.
Right now the Marines are ahead of the Navy in developing the concepts of operation for the F-35.

Manazir described a recent long-range air dominance simulation exercise in which there were Marine Corps weapons officers flying the F-35C.

“They’re kind of at the leading edge of tactics development,” Manazir said. “They’re helping us into the future.”"

http://news.usni.org/2013/12/31/f-35c-w ... ears-fleet
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6168
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jan 2014, 04:34

You can bet the second all of the Hornets are replaced by F-35B/C's. Then the USN will find reasons to continue purchasing F-35C's and/or UCLASS to replace the current fleet of Super Hornets.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2889
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post01 Jan 2014, 13:56

Corsair1963 wrote:You can bet the second all of the Hornets are replaced by F-35B/C's. Then the USN will find reasons to continue purchasing F-35C's and/or UCLASS to replace the current fleet of Super Hornets.


F/A-18C/D
MTOW-51,900 lb
Range-1,089 nmi

F-35C
MTOW-70,000 lb
Range-1,400 nmi

F/A-18E/F
MTOW-66,000 lb
Range-1,275 nmi

Happy New Year! :)
Offline

f35phixer

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 13 May 2009, 22:38

Unread post01 Jan 2014, 15:08

In order to extend the F-35C’s range, the Navy hopes to refuel the stealthy new fighter from the service’s future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft, Manazir said. While the UCLASS would not be as stealthy as the F-35C, it could accompany the JSF into some of the more modestly contested high threat environments.

guess i won't be going over there anytime. not going to work a refuel platform :bang:
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post02 Jan 2014, 02:55

"However, the F-35C will need some data-link modifications, which are expected for the jet’s Block IV configuration, to perform the role the Navy intends for it. While the current version of the Link-16 data-link does not have enough of a low probably of intercept capability that would allow it to be used inside highly contested airspace, the Navy is working on a solution.

“They’re working right now, because it is a follow-on development item, Lockheed Martin is working with other contractors to make that capability happen,” Manazir said. “We need to have that link capability that the enemy can’t find and then it can’t jam.”"

Note that a new waveform / datalink technology will be needed to transfer data back to the E-2D with LPI. It will not be MADL due to range limitations. Probably satcom in the interim, something TBD in later blocks, considering that the E-2s and Tritons - and probably Growlers - will need to be modified.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post02 Jan 2014, 03:20

Corsair1963 wrote:You can bet the second all of the Hornets are replaced by F-35B/C's. Then the USN will find reasons to continue purchasing F-35C's and/or UCLASS to replace the current fleet of Super Hornets.


By the time SH need to be replaced, it will be with the F/A-XX, whose program gets serious shortly. F-35C is already slated to be purchased in limited numbers (nowhere near the 600+ or so SHs by 2017/8), and due to combined effects of sequestration, greater than planned cost, and new technology - UCLASS being an unknown when the Navy's 260 C's were forecast - probably much fewer than 340 F-35Cs will be acquired. UCLASS is more of a competitor to F-35 than it is to SH.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6168
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post02 Jan 2014, 03:36

maus92 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:You can bet the second all of the Hornets are replaced by F-35B/C's. Then the USN will find reasons to continue purchasing F-35C's and/or UCLASS to replace the current fleet of Super Hornets.


By the time SH need to be replaced, it will be with the F/A-XX, whose program gets serious shortly. F-35C is already slated to be purchased in limited numbers (nowhere near the 600+ or so SHs by 2017/8), and due to combined effects of sequestration, greater than planned cost, and new technology - UCLASS being an unknown when the Navy's 260 C's were forecast - probably much fewer than 340 F-35Cs will be acquired. UCLASS is more of a competitor to F-35 than it is to SH.



The F/A-XX if it ever happens is 20-30 years off.........
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post02 Jan 2014, 22:52

Corsair1963 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:You can bet the second all of the Hornets are replaced by F-35B/C's. Then the USN will find reasons to continue purchasing F-35C's and/or UCLASS to replace the current fleet of Super Hornets.


By the time SH need to be replaced, it will be with the F/A-XX, whose program gets serious shortly. F-35C is already slated to be purchased in limited numbers (nowhere near the 600+ or so SHs by 2017/8), and due to combined effects of sequestration, greater than planned cost, and new technology - UCLASS being an unknown when the Navy's 260 C's were forecast - probably much fewer than 340 F-35Cs will be acquired. UCLASS is more of a competitor to F-35 than it is to SH.



The F/A-XX if it ever happens is 20-30 years off.........

Yep. If the SH Mafia and other detractors had had their way, the Navy would have essentially been deaf and ,blind, seriously handicapped in it's ability to operate in denied airspace. The CONOPs described by Adm.Manazir highlight how the Navy will leverage the new jet's inherent strengths in stealth, SA and networking to shape the future battlespace, something the legacy Navy jets simply cannot hope to match. Let others nitpick e.g. acceleration, STR, poor cockpit visibility, etc. but their FUD arguments are really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post03 Jan 2014, 18:41

popcorn wrote:Yep. If the SH Mafia and other detractors had had their way, the Navy would have essentially been deaf and ,blind, seriously handicapped in it's ability to operate in denied airspace. The CONOPs described by Adm.Manazir highlight how the Navy will leverage the new jet's inherent strengths in stealth, SA and networking to shape the future battlespace, something the legacy Navy jets simply cannot hope to match. Let others nitpick e.g. acceleration, STR, poor cockpit visibility, etc. but their FUD arguments are really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.


Funny, when air forces want to operate in denied airspace, they call the Navy to provide electronic measures to defeat AD systems.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post03 Jan 2014, 21:39

maus92 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yep. If the SH Mafia and other detractors had had their way, the Navy would have essentially been deaf and ,blind, seriously handicapped in it's ability to operate in denied airspace. The CONOPs described by Adm.Manazir highlight how the Navy will leverage the new jet's inherent strengths in stealth, SA and networking to shape the future battlespace, something the legacy Navy jets simply cannot hope to match. Let others nitpick e.g. acceleration, STR, poor cockpit visibility, etc. but their FUD arguments are really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.


Funny, when air forces want to operate in denied airspace, they call the Navy to provide electronic measures to defeat AD systems.

The times they are a-changin'... AF recognizes the value of EW nd Growler can continue to provide some,service in stand-off mode but the future belongs to those who can venture where oldies cannot.. continuing the LO paradigm RQ-180 supporting LRS-B..
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post04 Jan 2014, 11:47

maus92 wrote:Funny, when air forces want to operate in denied airspace, they call the Navy to provide electronic measures to defeat AD systems.


Jamming alone only goes so far. And when the Navy needs substantial airborne ISR for mission planning, or deep strikes in denied airspace beyond what can be enabled through jamming (i.e. via stealth aircraft), it calls the USAF.

Now the Navy's getting the F-35C, the Navy will be better rounded and less dependent on the USAF, while the USAF is still without its own dedicated jammers for the near future. No one is downplaying the Navy's Growlers, rather it's a question of who can get the most out of Growler support. Growler + F-35C is simply superior to Growler + SH, given that the F-35C's stealth and own substantial EW capability allows the Growlers to devote more time and energy to non-radar EW targets. Until the F-35C gets jammer pods, Growler + F-35C is more versatile than purely F-35C.

The F-35C benefits the Navy immensely, despite all the irrational kicking and screaming about it from some corners.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post04 Jan 2014, 17:15

cantaz wrote:
maus92 wrote:Funny, when air forces want to operate in denied airspace, they call the Navy to provide electronic measures to defeat AD systems.


Jamming alone only goes so far. And when the Navy needs substantial airborne ISR for mission planning, or deep strikes in denied airspace beyond what can be enabled through jamming (i.e. via stealth aircraft), it calls the USAF.

Now the Navy's getting the F-35C, the Navy will be better rounded and less dependent on the USAF, while the USAF is still without its own dedicated jammers for the near future. No one is downplaying the Navy's Growlers, rather it's a question of who can get the most out of Growler support. Growler + F-35C is simply superior to Growler + SH, given that the F-35C's stealth and own substantial EW capability allows the Growlers to devote more time and energy to non-radar EW targets. Until the F-35C gets jammer pods, Growler + F-35C is more versatile than purely F-35C.

The F-35C benefits the Navy immensely, despite all the irrational kicking and screaming about it from some corners.


Or, the Navy shoots TLAMs or its successor.

"Growler + F-35C is more versatile than purely F-35C." An admission I didn't expect to see, despite all the irrational kicking and screaming about it from some corners.

Growler + UCLASS is more versatile than F-35C is something else to consider. UCLASS will be able to fulfill LRS, plus a slew of other mundane functions, which makes it a better value than a mess of F-35Cs. Expect fewer F-35Cs to be procured if the F-35 mafia in the DoD can be stifled.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2638
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Jan 2014, 19:53

Why doesn't the AF just acquire a bunch of Growlers and use it?

Instead of developing a brand new EW platform, just use an existing one.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23910
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jan 2014, 20:45

'maus92' do not be coy. Who is doing this about what/when/why?
"...despite all the irrational kicking and screaming about it from some corners...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 01:59

maus92 wrote:"Growler + F-35C is more versatile than purely F-35C." An admission I didn't expect to see, despite all the irrational kicking and screaming about it from some corners.


What in the world are you talking about? There is a general consensus on this forum that standoff jammers are valuable. Right now that means the Growlers. Your insinuation that people here undermine the value of the Growler is a strawman.

Growler + UCLASS is more versatile than F-35C is something else to consider. UCLASS will be able to fulfill LRS, plus a slew of other mundane functions, which makes it a better value than a mess of F-35Cs. Expect fewer F-35Cs to be procured if the F-35 mafia in the DoD can be stifled.


F-35 mafia? You seem to be slipping closer and closer to being a POGO mouthpiece with every post.

Given the still wildly swinging requirement for the UCLASS, with the current most robust requirement still asking for less stealth and strike than the F-35, while taking a massive size increase, you're simply suggesting packing the decks with less capability.

It's pretty clear which corner of this room is actually kicking and screaming.
Next

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests