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

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

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post09 Apr 2014, 19:58

And as "second day" of war strikers.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7718
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post10 Apr 2014, 20:40

Robert Work is expected to be confirmed as the No. 2 man at the Pentagon shortly and is a known proponent of using UCLASS to provide the CAW long-range power projection. We shall soon see if he manages to influence the specs in the RFP.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Apr 2014, 21:40

Naval Aviation Vision: A Preeminent Warfighting Force, Today And In The Future 2014 - 2025
(NAVY LIVE BLOG 16 APR 14) … Vice Adm. David H. Buss is Commander, Naval Air Forces.

"...Naval Aviation is committed to sustaining our capability advantages today and in the future, and the first section ofNaval Aviation Vision, 2014-2025 describes how we plan to do so. We highlight some of the key technologies that sustain and advance Naval Aviation’s capabilities, such as the F-35B/C Lightning II and the Ford-class aircraft carrier. We have adopted a strategy to deliver integrated warfighting capabilities. The concept of integrated warfighting capabilities is based on identifying, prioritizing and resolving high-priority gaps in “kill chains” and “effects chains” – the sequence of events that must occur to complete a particular kinetic or non-kinetic mission thread.

Our missions are moving toward greater integration, both from an operational perspective as well as from the earliest stages of the acquisition process. We can look at air warfare as an example. In the future, air warfare will involve greater integration with other naval aircraft – such as the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, EA-18G Growler, and maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms such as the MQ-4C Triton – and with Navy surface assets through the Cooperative Engagement Capability and eventually the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air operational view. Integrated warfare will be similarly imperative to achieving other Naval Aviation missions, including anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, strike warfare, expeditionary warfare and information dominance.,,,

...Naval Aviation Vision, 2014-2025 concludes with an outline of Naval Aviation’s current and projected operational capacity, along with transformation roadmaps that show how we will build the capacity of the future. Today, nearly every aircraft community is in transition to a new, more capable platform. We expect that by 2025 many of these transitions will be complete, with aircraft such as the F-35B/C Lightning II, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and the MQ-C Fire Scout fully operational in the fleet....

...Naval Aviation is a team sport... Fly, Fight, Win! Vice Adm. Buss sends...."

http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/nae/V ... Vision.pdf (11Mb)

SOURCE: http://hrana.org/articles/2014/04/naval ... he-future/
Attachments
USNvision2014integratedBattleSpace.gif
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: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Apr 2014, 04:13

ON page five of this thread 'basher54321' mentioned 'wash'. I do not know the wash interval for Hornets on CVNs however here is an example of WASH even as the aircrew climb down from 'the last voyage of ENTERPRISE'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKt_OZ ... r_embedded

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: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Apr 2014, 03:00

Toward a Balanced Combat Air Force 11 Apr 2014 Mark Gunzinger & David A. Deptula

"In what may prove to be a brief strategic pause following the end of major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and DoD have the opportunity to accord priority to developing a next-generation, balanced Combat Air Force(CAF) comprised of aircraft with the range, survivability, and connectivity with other combat systems needed to operate effectively over extended ranges and in contested environments. Sufficient resources must be allocated to support these priorities, rather than continuing to allocate a “fair share” of the defense budget to each of the Military Departments.

This report suggests that it is time for DoD and the Congress to take a hard look at the mix of combat air forces that will be needed to sustain America’s asymmetric airpower advantage. In particular, it argues that they should give precedence in the current age of austerity to fielding new long-range ISR and strike aircraft that will bolster the U.S. military’s Asia-Pacific posture and enable it to project power rapidly when and where needed."

SOURCE: http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/ ... air-force/

PDF: http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/up ... tation.pdf (1Mb)
Attachments
Integrating Manned and Unmanned Systems for Broad Area, Persistent Surveillance and StrikeCSBA2014.gif
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: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Apr 2014, 07:19

Some info about the above Deptula Briefing: [Just Tops & Tails of article below]

Study: U.S. Combat Aviation Stuck in the Industrial Age 19 Apr 2014 Sandra I. Erwin

"U.S. combat air forces are ill equipped to fight a technologically empowered enemy, and it could be years or decades before the Pentagon deploys more advanced weapons. Such is the grim picture painted in a new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The authors, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula and CSBA analyst Mark Gunzinger, make the case that aviation forces are not up to the challenges of 21st century warfare and the Pentagon has only itself to blame....

...To move its weapons into the 21st century, the Pentagon also needs help from Congress, Deptula added.

If the recent round of military oversight hearings on Capitol Hill is any guide, Congress is less worried about the modernization of the U.S. fleet than it is about protecting favored projects and jobs in members' home districts.

Air Force leaders have argued that, in times of declining budgets, they cannot afford to continue to sink money into aging airplanes and should redirect funding to new systems such as the F-35, a refueling tanker and a long-range bomber. While the plan sounds reasonable in theory, it has turned into a political football. Air Force officials have been hammered by lawmakers for their proposal to retire the entire A-10 fighter force, 46 older C-130 aircraft and the entire U-2 reconnaissance aircraft fleet.

These budget quagmires only keep the military saddled with older technology, the CSBA study said, and contribute to the erosion of the nation’s manufacturing base. “Fifty years ago, the Defense Department was in the process of building six fighters, three bombers, and two antisubmarine warfare aircraft,” said the report. Today, there is one new American fighter in production — the F-35 — and three that are about to end their production runs. “With the exception of the Air Force long-range bomber, the Navy’s P-8 maritime aircraft, and possibly a carrier unmanned combat aircraft, there are no other major new combat aircraft in the Defense Department’s program of record.”"

SOURCE: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1483
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: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Apr 2014, 22:43

"...“Stealth is ‘delayed detection’ and that delay is getting shorter...." :mrgreen: :doh:

"...officials pointed out that the Growler is not fully interoperable with joint forces...." :doh:

"...Greenert’s comments largely mirrors a Boeing presentation last week at the Navy League’s Sea, Air and Space exposition where Mike Gibbons, the company’s vice president for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G programs, had stated that stealth aircraft must be supported by airborne electronic attack capabilities.

“The point is anybody that goes in can’t be good against any one frequency band because you will be seen by others, that’s the key,” Gibbons said. “The Growler is the only aircraft that has that full spectrum sensor and jamming capability to take care of that for strikers.”..." :devil:

Stealth Vs. Electronic Attack 21 Apr 2014 Dave Majumdar

"The U.S. Navy will need to use a combination of stealth and electronic warfare capabilities to defeat advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats in the future, chief of naval operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said on April 16 at the U.S. Naval Institute annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

“[Stealth] is needed for what we have in the future for at least ten years out there and there is nothing magic about that decade,” Greenert said. “But I think we need to look beyond that. So to me, I think it’s a combination of having aircraft that have stealth but also aircraft that can suppress other forms of radio frequency electromagnetic emissions so that we can get in.”

Electronic attack by itself will probably not be enough to enable U.S. forces to penetrate enemy air defenses, according to Greenert and multiple U.S. military and industry sources.

“I doubt in the future we can just suppress everything, go rolling in until we do what we need to do and get out,” Greenert said. “But we have the means for—way out in the future—with the Next Generation Jammer and what it’ll bring, to be able to get in when we need to and get out.”...

...“Boeing is in full-court press against the [Lockheed Martin] F-35 in this briefing. As such, when they describe the advantages of the Growler–which are accurate–they ignore the tradeoff for that advantage,” said one U.S. Air Force official. “The truth is that the Growler and LO [low observable] platforms complement each other extremely well.”

Lockheed Martin officials, however, maintain that the F-35 is able to operate inside highly contested airspace without any support assets.

“By government contract specification, the airplane is required to be able to go into high threat anti-access environments, autonomously perform its mission and survive,” said Eric Van Camp, Lockheed’s domestic F-35 business development director. “The results of flight test indicate conclusively that the airplane will meet that contract specification.
”...

...Further, officials from the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps agreed that while aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 are not solely relying on low observables for survivability—stealth is an absolute requirement to survive in an A2/AD environment even with airborne electronic attack support.

As one Air Force official explained, stealth and electronic attack always have a synergistic relationship because detection is about the signal to noise ratio. Low observables reduce the signal, while electronic attack increases the noise. “Any big picture plan, looking forward, to deal with emerging A2/AD threats will address both sides of that equation,” he said.

Air Force and Marine Corps officials took exception to Boeing pointing out that the F-35 only has X-band electronic attack coverage from the front. “Aft coverage may or may not be provided onboard any given fighter, but is provided by the package overall — which will likely include EA-18s,” one Air Force official pointed out.

However, Air Force and Marine Corps officials said that the Growler may not be particularly useful against emerging threats and noted that there are electronic warfare upgrades planned for the F-35 in addition to its baseline capability.

“The Growler itself, while a very credible aircraft, has limited suitability in an advanced A2/AD area,” one Air Force official said. “While it is the state of the art for now, I don’t know if it will be the appropriate jamming platform for the pictured environment.”

Nonetheless, a number of Air Force officials expressed support for the Pentagon potentially increasing the size of its Growler buy. “The Growler is a great asset, we probably need more, and it is an important part of a strike package into an advanced IADS [integrated air defense system],” one official said. “It is not as stand-alone as Boeing will claim.”...

....An industry source agreed that the Growler still faces interoperability problems when operating with Air Force assets, but that is true of many platform across the board. “There are interoperability issues across a lot of the platforms,” the industry source said. For example, Lockheed F-22s are only able to connect with other Raptors using the Intra-Flight Data-Link (IFDL), while the F-35 uses a Joint Strike Fighter-only Multifunction Advanced Data-Link (MADL). “This is one of the bigger issues the Air Sea Battle Office is attempting to resolve,” the industry source said....

...Though there is broad support for purchasing additional Growlers, it is not a stand-alone solution for dealing with advanced A2/AD threats.

“Stealth has its flaws, as the brief points out; however, if a new pod on a fourth gen platform was a workable answer against the modern and future IADS, I’m about 100 percent certain that USAF [U.S. Air Force] would be trying to buy a pile of them as well,” an Air Force official said.

“But the juice ain’t worth the squeeze, as they say.”"

SOURCE: http://news.usni.org/2014/04/21/stealth ... nic-attack


This is a LONG article with pictures and as always BEST READ AT SOURCE. Tah. :drool:
Last edited by spazsinbad on 22 Apr 2014, 02:07, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7718
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 Apr 2014, 01:15

You definitely want both capabilities, to leverage every advantage you have. AF and Marines may have additional EW versatility having other options in addition to Growler whereas Navy, understandably, is heavily invested in the program. It will extend the usefulness of it's legacy jet fleet in a stand-off role At least they agree on one thing —stealth is an absolute requirement to survive in an A2/AD environment even with airborne electronic attack support.
"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 post22 Apr 2014, 04:42

OMG.... up until now, many F-35ers here insisted dedicated EA/EW aircraft were unnecessary. Now, even some in the USAF are coming around.

"“Stealth has its flaws, as the brief points out; however, if a new pod on a fourth gen platform was a workable answer against the modern and future IADS, I’m about 100 percent certain that USAF [U.S. Air Force] would be trying to buy a pile of them as well,” an Air Force official said."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Apr 2014, 05:41

USAF are coming around to 'a fourth gen aircraft with a 'new' pod' is not the answer for the future? :doh:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7718
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 Apr 2014, 05:59

maus92 wrote:OMG.... up until now, many F-35ers here insisted dedicated EA/EW aircraft were unnecessary. Now, even some in the USAF are coming around.

"“Stealth has its flaws, as the brief points out; however, if a new pod on a fourth gen platform was a workable answer against the modern and future IADS, I’m about 100 percent certain that USAF [U.S. Air Force] would be trying to buy a pile of them as well,” an Air Force official said."



I guess you must have missed the sentence immediately following the one you quoted.. “But the juice ain’t worth the squeeze, as they say.” lemon juice? AF isn't on the Growler sales reps' itinerary for a reason.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1084
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post22 Apr 2014, 22:28

maus92 wrote:OMG.... up until now, many F-35ers here insisted dedicated EA/EW aircraft were unnecessary. Now, even some in the USAF are coming around.

"“Stealth has its flaws, as the brief points out; however, if a new pod on a fourth gen platform was a workable answer against the modern and future IADS, I’m about 100 percent certain that USAF [U.S. Air Force] would be trying to buy a pile of them as well,” an Air Force official said."


And yet, the USAF is providing backseaters for Navy EA-18Gs, so it looks like somebody sees the value in the capability.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6247
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Apr 2014, 06:13

maus92 wrote:OMG.... up until now, many F-35ers here insisted dedicated EA/EW aircraft were unnecessary. Now, even some in the USAF are coming around.


Fine cut off there, make sure not to include what else he said.

The Marines have been planning to put next gen jamming pods on their F-35s since 2007 ( I still have the USMC programs and systems book) I think that got put on the back burner, but with the NGJ in the future and prowlers on the outs, I'm willing to bet it comes back soon.

So I think you might be confusing "EA/EW aircraft unnecessary" with Growler being unnecessary. its a subtle difference, but an important one. Because it looks like soon Growler won't be the only game in town (well it almost done in production anyway but you get my meaning), and hell maybe even the USAF and other F-35 operators will buy the NGJ pods and have the same EA/EW aircraft without needing to buy a whole separate type of aircraft complete with a GIB.

like having your cake and eating it too.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1084
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post11 May 2014, 01:19

XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:OMG.... up until now, many F-35ers here insisted dedicated EA/EW aircraft were unnecessary. Now, even some in the USAF are coming around.


Fine cut off there, make sure not to include what else he said.

The Marines have been planning to put next gen jamming pods on their F-35s since 2007 ( I still have the USMC programs and systems book) I think that got put on the back burner, but with the NGJ in the future and prowlers on the outs, I'm willing to bet it comes back soon.

So I think you might be confusing "EA/EW aircraft unnecessary" with Growler being unnecessary. its a subtle difference, but an important one. Because it looks like soon Growler won't be the only game in town (well it almost done in production anyway but you get my meaning), and hell maybe even the USAF and other F-35 operators will buy the NGJ pods and have the same EA/EW aircraft without needing to buy a whole separate type of aircraft complete with a GIB.

like having your cake and eating it too.


A while back, Israel was on about wanting a two-seat F-35. Honestly, unless the NGJ is sufficiently automated to facilitate operation by a single pilot, it would have to be on a two-seat aircraft. The alternative is to dump NGJ control to an offboard operator, which would require a continuous datalink back to whatever platform. This could be a carrier, some notional or extant C2 bird such as AWACS, JSTARS, or Hawkeye, or God-knows-what-else. My concern here is that the datalink would require both aircraft to be radiating, which could be a point of vulnerability depending on what datalink is being used, and could be interrupted by emergent events. Loss of intelligent control of your EW is, to put it bluntly, not what you want.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24120
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 May 2014, 06:07

USAF join USN as 'eyes & ears' of da fleet....
Navy, Air Force Team Up in Asia-Pacific Region 22 May 2014 Amaani Lyle, American Forces Press Service

"WASHINGTON, May 22, 2014 – The Navy and the Air Force are collaborating as part of the Defense Department’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert said here yesterday.

The Naval Integrated Fire Control–Counter Air Capability-Based System, which employs the teaming of services’ situational awareness and strike capabilities to detect and attack targets at long range, is prominent in organizing concepts that the Navy and Air Force are using to conduct counter-air operations now and into the future, Greenert said in remarks at the Defense Working Group breakfast.

“We are taking elements of Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air and integrating them into exercises we run with the Air Force [such as] Northern Edge … in Alaska and Valiant Shield [in Guam],” Greenert said. “The whole idea is getting the tactical data links and those networks compatible -- the air-sea battle brought this together.”

The admiral explained that the challenge at hand is how to integrate submarines, other vessels and aircraft to bring a common effect.

NIFC-CA, Greenert said, involves assessing the inventory and area denial systems such as platforms, payloads and sensors, as well as analyzing what elements of NIFC-CA to which the Air Force could contribute.

“You lay [the elements] out there and say, ‘That’s nice. Now how do they operate together?’” Greenert said. “You’re using Aegis cruisers and destroyer ships, everybody sees the same thing and therefore they can shoot the weapon based on what you see.”

The key, Greenert explained, is to sort through the tactical nets -- such as the Air Force’s F-35A aircraft, the Navy’s F-35C and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, and the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System -- so the two services can share information."

SOURCE: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122303
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests