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

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

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 02:33

Funny Maus mentions TLAMs.. wasn't there a report recently about a F-22 updating a Navy cruise missile in flight, presumably simulating a vignette from within hostile airspace where legacy jets would be compromised? Something the F-35 will excel at as well.
Last edited by popcorn on 05 Jan 2014, 03:03, edited 1 time in total.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 02:56

Does the F-35A/B/C really need the Growler in the support role???
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3296
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 03:10

kamenriderblade wrote: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.

Makes me think of "Why didn't the AF just acquire a bunch of Tomcats instead of developing the Eagle?"
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 20:51

popcorn wrote:Funny Maus mentions TLAMs.. wasn't there a report recently about a F-22 updating a Navy cruise missile in flight, presumably simulating a vignette from within hostile airspace where legacy jets would be compromised? Something the F-35 will excel at as well.


Just about any Navy platform (or ground unit) can conceivably repurpose a TLAM if properly equipped.

Insert "RQ-180" for "F-35" and "F-22." That's the platform that will be doing the initial, first few days of war ISR work. Much stealthier than F-35, and probably even F-22. The RQ-180 / LRS-B team will be busting doors, along with TLAMs and long range payloads from the UCLASS platform, with Growlers in support. Once the primary IADS nodes, comm centers and datalinks are disrupted, the tactical fighters can move in to deal with isolated AD nodes and conventional target sets.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 23:31

maus92 wrote:
popcorn wrote:
Just about any Navy platform (or ground unit) can conceivably repurpose a TLAM if properly equipped.
.


Care to list which Navy platforms can venture into denied airspace to get said job done? Also, last I heard RQ-180 is Air Force so I guess Navy will be calling on the Former for help,rather than the other way around.
"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: 1082
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post14 Jan 2014, 16:54

cantaz wrote:
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.


It looks like the Navy wants UCLASS to be something like the old proposed Common Support Aircraft that was supposed to replace the S-3. Once someone realized that submarines weren't the primary threat, the S-3 was employed as a long-range bomber. As I see it, UCLASS is CSA, just a bit late. Expect talk of EW/ISR payloads. Hell, I half-suspect that someone will pitch it as a supplement to the E-2.

Your accusation of 'less capability' is incorrect. The Navy doesn't want an A-12, it wants some kind of support and ISR platform. UCLASS will, bluntly, offer potentially massive range and/or endurance, allowing strikes from beyond the range of the anti-access/area-denial weapons the Navy has been so concerned about.

I could see F-35C+/FA-XX/UCLASS/MH-60 making up the carrier air wing in thirty years.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Jan 2014, 22:57

Your accusation of 'less capability' is incorrect. The Navy doesn't want an A-12, it wants some kind of support and ISR platform. UCLASS will, bluntly, offer potentially massive range and/or endurance, allowing strikes from beyond the range of the anti-access/area-denial weapons the Navy has been so concerned about.


It remains to be seen what the USN will get out of the UCLASS. One of the recent reports described a concept that's larger than the F-35, less stealth and with a smaller payload. There seems to be a battle going on over the exact capability mix of the UCLASS. I for one sees its strike capability as tertiary and an insufficient reason for cost or size growth. Otherwise, I very much appreciate the UCLASS as a persistent ISR.

Then you have maus, who's looking for any possible reason to have fewer Cs on the carrier, up to and including having the UCLASS as some sort of A-12 replacement. Hence my comment about less capability: an enlarged UCLASS is not there to replace the Cs. Attempts to alter the ratio to less Cs for more UCLASS seems like a bad idea. The UCLASS is better as an enabler for strikers, not replacements for them. And I'm not sure the advantages of using a bigger UCLASS for long range strikes is enough justification for the additional cost, vis-à-vis a ship or sub-launched cruise missile cued by a smaller UCLASS.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post14 Jan 2014, 23:37

IMO it makes little sense for UCLASS to duplicate the strike mission that the C is already optimized for. An inefficient use of resources. Better value is achieved by complementing and enabling the C jet via offboard data links to help build a comprehensive picture of the battlespace. The ability to pass on fuel at distance is intriguing and a game winner IMO,specially in the context of ASB/Pacific Pivot.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 713
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post15 Jan 2014, 06:12

southernphantom wrote:
It looks like the Navy wants UCLASS to be something like the old proposed Common Support Aircraft that was supposed to replace the S-3. Once someone realized that submarines weren't the primary threat, the S-3 was employed as a long-range bomber. As I see it, UCLASS is CSA, just a bit late. Expect talk of EW/ISR payloads. Hell, I half-suspect that someone will pitch it as a supplement to the E-2.

Your accusation of 'less capability' is incorrect. The Navy doesn't want an A-12, it wants some kind of support and ISR platform. UCLASS will, bluntly, offer potentially massive range and/or endurance, allowing strikes from beyond the range of the anti-access/area-denial weapons the Navy has been so concerned about.

I could see F-35C+/FA-XX/UCLASS/MH-60 making up the carrier air wing in thirty years.


If true that is a very smart play for UCLASS. Let others work out how to make Remotes firball-combat ready and keep your fleet doing combat support tasks that these aircraft types are sure to succeed at.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post15 Jan 2014, 18:37

archeman wrote:
southernphantom wrote:....I could see F-35C+/FA-XX/UCLASS/MH-60 making up the carrier air wing in thirty years...



As the fleet of Hornets departs and the F-35C arrives the SBug is up for replacement by the FA/XX. Many on this website will attest, that the final design(s) of the F-35C have yet to be defined but the basic design is flying. The FA/XX is yet to achieve basic design and is more prone to impact/ inclusion from the UCLASS as it's role is also yet to be designed. The yearners for the SBUG(soupped-up) is a pipe dream, the SBug is old and getting long in the tooth, thus the FA/XX. The FA/XX must minimally implement the updated sensors and mission system of the F-35A/B/C and the latest weapons, more efficient(/ powerful) engines and most controversial (F-35C stealth/ or not). Will it be a fighter/ interceptor (A) or a long-range attack/ bomber (B), one version or two?, too soon to tell. Like it or not the F-35C is here and will be on the flight deck beside the SBug. UCLASS, on the other hand; may be a blimp sized refueler, missle mule, high altitude comm.node/ radar platform or a sprite fighter, or all of the above in several versions; who knows?? :2c:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post15 Jan 2014, 19:26

I'm waiting for a twin jet engine 'UCLASS' COD (designed for pressurization perhaps later but otherwise) a 'simple' large container for large bits & pieces to be flown long range to the carrier. Of course it doubles as a large air refueller as required. Self Loading Freight (perhaps in seats) will come later, along with pressurization, once the concept proven. Long range will mean a lot for UCLASS generally because then it can come and go in any numbers to the carrier as required and then go home / come back with no FCLP/CarQual or the like. :D
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post15 Jan 2014, 23:12

spazsinbad wrote:I'm waiting for a twin jet engine 'UCLASS' COD (designed for pressurization perhaps later but otherwise) a 'simple' large container for large bits & pieces to be flown long range to the carrier. Of course it doubles as a large air refueller as required. Self Loading Freight (perhaps in seats) will come later, along with pressurization, once the concept proven. Long range will mean a lot for UCLASS generally because then it can come and go in any numbers to the carrier as required and then go home / come back with no FCLP/CarQual or the like. :D

I realize for the COD pilots it might not be the most glamorous ride in the Navy, but I think it'll be a while before UCLASS or even JPALS assisted carrier landings would be trusted with passengers not sitting in Martin-Baker ejection seats. With ACLS and JPALS (F/A-18 for shipboard testing) then if things go really wrong, ejecting out is an option. COD doesn't have ejection seats.

The recent X-47B tests looked good on video but behind the scenes the CO, CAG, CAG LSO, PEO etc. were really nervous during the tests. If the X-47B had an unsafe lineup deviation and/or cut pass then people could be killed. The risks were minimized through the various test phases but not eliminated. What wasn't shown on the tape was the F/A-18s did many practice approaches with JPALS (& datalinks) so the LSOs could be sure they could safely send the JPALS equipped jets around within an acceptable waveoff window.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post16 Jan 2014, 00:23

'neurotech' I think it has been made clear over time through various stories posted here on the X-47B thread that the system was tested thoroughly. Some will be aware that generally the ship captain is responsible ultimately for what happens to his ship; so if anyone was interested in the safety of X-47B that person has been identified. :D

Just to show how safe everyone thought the X-47B really was we had the SecNav/CNO and sundry hangers on goofing off on the LSO platform. That must have been helpful. So where was the worry again; or were the Hornet mafia trying to feed the bigwigs to the fishes? :doh:

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews ... .hires.jpg

"130710-N-YZ751-426 ATLANTIC OCEAN (July 10, 2013) Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert, observe an X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator preparing to make an arrested landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), July 10. George H.W. Bush is the first aircraft carrier to recover an unmanned aircraft at sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tony D. Curtis/Released)"


So I think you make mountains where nothing needs to exist. Sure every system will be checked thoroughly and the X-47B was, and is still being tested thoroughly, as one would expect.

My comments on a robot COD deliberately excluded passengers (SLFs) because of the worries you expressed. I wonder what happens when a COD manned by pilots goes down? Do they flap outrageously? Sure passenger carrying robot aircraft are a long way off; but who knows the future. One thing that apparently irks the anti-V22fers is that the aircraft is not pressurised but now we can add those passengers cannot eject can we? Who knew.

Added Video Link to show accuracy of X-47B each and every time:

Attachments
SecNavCNO X-47B arrest 51e6f88be1700_hires.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3296
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post16 Jan 2014, 02:04

Autonomous aircraft will carry passengers when the risk of having a human pilot becomes unacceptable.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post16 Jan 2014, 02:26

Sorry if I overreacted. I misread the part about excluding SLF from the robot COD.

I knew the SecNav was on the LSO platform. I didn't say it was unsafe, just suggesting that the senior officers involved were nervous because unforeseen circumstances can't be programmed into the flight systems. The unforeseen factors is why remotely piloted passenger aircraft will be a while off.

@count_to_10: More like expense of a "human" pilot. In the Navy, it still costs a lot of money to train and keep pilots carrier qualified. For non-human cargo, and patrol aircraft, going autonomous will save money.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest