F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 10:29

Panel Session #2 – TOPGUN Today [video] [1st F-35C course + USN/USMC pilots starts soon - BFM included]

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019 ... /195959204 [06/07 Sep 2019 TOPGUN PANEL with instructors - 39 minutes]

ALL VIDEOS of Panels start here: https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019

Panel Session #1 – History of TOPGUN [103 min] https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019 ... /195915485
Attachments
ship%20back.png
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 12:56

From the OPNAV panel:

Image

Also VMFA-314 (F-35C) are going to be changing home-port to MCAS Iwakuni in FY2021 (joining VFA-121).
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 293
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 17:21

spazsinbad wrote:

:notworthy: Thanks to Spaz! :notworthy:
Dragon029 wrote:

The road to AARGM-ER looks farther than I had imagined. (Wait about 9 years! :doh: )
On the other hand, The TR-3 / Sidekick I expect looks pretty close. (About 4 years!) Good news. 8)
Offline

reaper

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015, 06:56

Unread post09 Sep 2019, 02:36

I was kinda excited about the MQ-25x5 on each carrier. The ability to offload 14,000 Lbs of fuel at 500 mi range would go a long way toward extending the range of a strike package if you could tank them again at the same location on the return trip. Basically add 500 miles to the combat radius of the "C", which we already think is pretty good.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Sep 2019, 02:54

doge wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:

:notworthy: Thanks to Spaz! :notworthy:
Dragon029 wrote:

The road to AARGM-ER looks farther than I had imagined. (Wait about 9 years! :doh: )
On the other hand, The TR-3 / Sidekick I expect looks pretty close. (About 4 years!) Good news. 8)



Hard to believe they wouldn't integrate the AARGM-ER into the F-35C until 2028! As it would be a key weapon for the F-35C. Especially, against near peer threats like China.

:? :? :?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Sep 2019, 03:51

reaper wrote:I was kinda excited about the MQ-25x5 on each carrier. The ability to offload 14,000 Lbs of fuel at 500 mi range would go a long way toward extending the range of a strike package if you could tank them again at the same location on the return trip. Basically add 500 miles to the combat radius of the "C", which we already think is pretty good.


FROM OPNAV Panel Video: https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2019 ... /195986586
Attachments
MQ-25Atailhook19.gif
F-35C USN Status HOOK 2019.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post09 Sep 2019, 09:09

Corsair1963 wrote:Hard to believe they wouldn't integrate the AARGM-ER into the F-35C until 2028! As it would be a key weapon for the F-35C. Especially, against near peer threats like China.

AARGM-ER does have a range in the ballpark of 300km, so it's more important that Super Hornets or Growlers (which will be available in greater quantities and be fairly safe launching them near max range) be prioritised in having them integrated.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post10 Sep 2019, 00:57

Why is there a gap transition in 2021 and 2023? The navy is sure slow rolling the C.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Sep 2019, 02:26

Dragon029 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Hard to believe they wouldn't integrate the AARGM-ER into the F-35C until 2028! As it would be a key weapon for the F-35C. Especially, against near peer threats like China.

AARGM-ER does have a range in the ballpark of 300km, so it's more important that Super Hornets or Growlers (which will be available in greater quantities and be fairly safe launching them near max range) be prioritised in having them integrated.


Not so sure about that??? As the F-35C's Stealth would allow it to deeply penetrate enemy airspace. Something the Super Hornet and even Growler would have a hard time doing. That is against a serious near-peer threat. (i.e. China and/or Russia)

This would give the US and Allies a critical advantage.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Sep 2019, 03:30

Corsair1963 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:AARGM-ER does have a range in the ballpark of 300km, so it's more important that Super Hornets or Growlers (which will be available in greater quantities and be fairly safe launching them near max range) be prioritised in having them integrated.


Not so sure about that??? As the F-35C's Stealth would allow it to deeply penetrate enemy airspace. Something the Super Hornet and even Growler would have a hard time doing. That is against a serious near-peer threat. (i.e. China and/or Russia) This would give the US and Allies a critical advantage.


F-35C will be able to get in close and quietly launch and support JSOW-C1 (GPS/INS with terminal IR homing).

JSOW Block III (JSOW-C1)
Raytheon was as of 2005 under contract to develop the JSOW Block III, which adds a Link-16 weapon data link and moving maritime target capability to the AGM-154C. It was scheduled to be produced in 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_J ... ry_variant)

Allied F-35s will have JSM integrated, so it would make sense for USN to move earlier to add JSM (matching new USN NSM, now on LCS) to supplement LRASM and thus add an internal penetrating land-attack cruise missile to F-35C that can find and kill heavy-SAM emitters, before 2028.

... JSM has sophisticated target acquisition capability that uses autonomous target recognition, made possible by an imaging infrared seeker. ...

[JSM] FEATURES
* Advanced engagement planning system that exploits the geography in the area
* Accurate navigation system for flight close to terrain
* High maneuverability to allow flight planning in close vicinity to land masses
* Discriminating seeker with imaging infrared technology
* Two-way networking data link (compliant with standard military equipment) offering target-update, retargeting and mission-abort capabilities

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jsm

Plus the radar sensor that's also been added since, which may be ideal for finding and killing the primary detection emitter(s).

Would AARGM-ER have better sensor driven terminal guidance and lethality than an F-35C datalinked to JSOW-C1? Possibly. But would it be better than a JSM fed by a two-way datalink to the F-35C's ESM, SAR and EOTS via the fusion-engine supporting it all the way to a kill from ~40 nm radius direct observation of the target and supporting its very low-level approach with EA as well?

I think Dragon's more-or-less right here, F-35C will have the essential VLO tools to get the job done, until AARGM-ER is on it, and 2 x F-35C can cover and support SH to kill heavy SAMs in the interim (with a couple of VLO missile options already on the SH).

Don't forget these as well:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... berg_2.jpg

http://www.difesaonline.it/sites/defaul ... 016f35.jpg

In other words, that 2028 delay may actually be a case of waiting to see if AARGM-ER is even needed when F-35 would be able to carry 6 x JSM, and 6 x AAM simultaneously after 2025. If F-35 can get that close in to support such a missile with the F-35's own sensors and supports, why would you even need AARGM-ER?

Indeed, why not just put JSM on both SH and F-35C before that, and maybe not even bother with AARGM-ER?

And I think this may be happening, for example

AGM-88G AARGM-ER
The Navy's FY 2016 budget included funding for an extended range AARGM-ER that utilizes the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E with a solid integrated rocket-ramjet for double the range. Development funding will last to 2020. In September 2016, Orbital ATK unveiled its extended-range AARGM-ER, which incorporates a redesigned control section and 11.5 in (290 mm)-diameter rocket motor for twice the range and internal carriage on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The U.S. Navy awarded Orbital ATK an contract for AARGM-ER development in January 2018. The AARGM-ER would serve as the basis for the land-attack Stand In Attack Weapon (SiAW).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM#cite_note-19

Which would mean AARGM-ER loses its primary specialist roll of killing SAMs but re-packages itself as a fast extended-range land-attack missile which also fits inside an F-35A/C.

As per this article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ike-weapon
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post10 Sep 2019, 04:31

Corsair1963 wrote:Not so sure about that??? As the F-35C's Stealth would allow it to deeply penetrate enemy airspace. Something the Super Hornet and even Growler would have a hard time doing. That is against a serious near-peer threat. (i.e. China and/or Russia)

This would give the US and Allies a critical advantage.

You're using the AARGM-ER against enemy SAMs; if your anti-radiation missile has a greater range than almost all of their SAMs, why do you need to penetrate further? If you're up against an S-400 with 40N6 missiles in the tubes, you'd still be able to use a Growler to get a bit closer in, or you'd just use some LRASMs / JASSMs / TLAMs.

If you're talking about the Growler having to fight against enemy aircraft operating at the edges of their IADS network, then don't you want the F-35Cs armed with AMRAAMs taking care of them rather than Super Hornets? Ultimately the Navy's carrier wings are going to be mostly full of Rhinos and Growlers for the next 20 years and in a major war the Navy can't afford to have those jets just sitting around on the deck doing nothing.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3268
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Sep 2019, 05:38

4th generation jets are the priority for the integration of AARGM-ER and AIM-260, much in the same way they got AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block 2 before F-22/35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23298
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Sep 2019, 11:51

More about different training roles in TOPGUN for different personnel which was news to me - good info to read it all.

TOPGUN’s Impact September 2019 Proceedings Magazine Vol. 145/9/1,399
By Commander Christopher “Pops” Papaioanu, U.S. Navy, and Mr. Brad Elward

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... uns-impact

TOPGUN Patch: https://www.usni.org/sites/default/file ... _Patch.png
Attachments
TOPGUN%202_PatchTRANS.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post10 Sep 2019, 22:36

Even though the F-35 has a number of options for SEAD/DEAD I think the AARGM-ER gives them capabilities the other weapons don't, specifically speed.

Sometimes you can't wait until a glide bomb or a subsonic missile hits an emitter or launcher.

Along those lines I wonder what kind of accuracy can the geolocation capabilities of the AN/ASQ-239 provide with regard to weapons cuing for emitters. Can AARGM or AARGM-ER take out an emitter just with GPS coordinates?

If it can then how about the F-16s HTS? With either HARM or would it require something bigger? I believe the USAF only has the AGM-88Cs, which doesn't appear to have GPS targeting.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post11 Sep 2019, 00:13

A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants
is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile.

The Navy doesn't look like it really starts the AARGM-ER quantity ramp until 2026 so 2028
doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Yes, AARGM can target an emitter just with GPS coordinates.

SiAW is retaining the ARH capability of AARGM-ER though they might be able simplify
the passive RF stack since F-35 and B-21 have exquisite ESM and don't need
AARGM to operate on-rail as an emitter detector/tracker.
Next

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests