Spokesman reaffirms CNO’s faith in F-35

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post15 Jul 2012, 16:19

From The Navy Times http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/07/n ... 35-071512/
Despite what’s circulating in the blogosphere, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert is firmly committed to the F-35C Lightning II, a Navy spokesman said.

Greenert recently raised eyebrows with an article in the July issue of Proceedings, the magazine for the U.S. Naval Institute, in which he touched on the limits of stealth technology. Some interpreted these comments as a slam on the stealthy F-35, even though that aircraft was not specifically mentioned.


People are getting so touchy about this jet that any discussion of its potential limitations are like gasoline on a smoldering fire!
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post15 Jul 2012, 19:01

Someone must have got in his face and explained the implications of gators running more advanced TACAIR than the CVNs.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Jul 2012, 22:10

WOW. The 'NavyBehindTheTimes' sure is 'uptotheminute' with all the news dat fits. Same Same posted on 4th O'July this year. I guess that helps - being 'up to the month/year' and all. :twisted:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html STROLL DOWN


The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list By Philip Ewing Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/the-n ... ping-list/

"There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should.

The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez...."
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post16 Jul 2012, 01:44

spazsinbad wrote:WOW. The 'NavyBehindTheTimes' sure is 'uptotheminute' with all the news dat fits. Same Same posted on 4th O'July this year. I guess that helps - being 'up to the month/year' and all. :twisted:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-45.html STROLL DOWN


The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list By Philip Ewing Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/the-n ... ping-list/


"There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should.

The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez...."


Slow news day :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2012, 02:02

Lexington Not Kentucky gets in on the act from last 13 July (a Friday): [and let us hear the frog chorus YadaYadaYada]
CNO Reiterates Support For F-35, Ending Latest Tempest Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.July 13, 2012

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/cno-r ... a=1&c=1171

"Lightning may seldom strike twice in the same place, but Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II manages to be struck on a regular basis in the media -- often for fanciful or downright foolish reasons....

...Admiral Greenert's representatives have now reiterated his support for the naval version of F-35 and said that the Proceedings article was not intended as a criticism of the program. However, there has always been a faction within the naval-aviation community that thought the Air Force was relying too heavily on stealth to protect its next-generation fighters and bombers. The aviators voicing that view argued that tactics and jamming were just as important as stealth. Ironically, when a first-generation stealth fighter was shot down by Serbian defenders during the Balkan air war in 1999, it was mainly because the pilot used poor tactics and a Navy jamming aircraft was not where it was supposed to be. If an F-35 had flown that same mission, it would have escaped unscathed despite the pilot's mistake in exiting the target area and despite the absence of effective off-board jamming...."

Something different but best read it at source. And yes a supposedly paid consultant of LM - so what. Think for yourselves.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 170
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post17 Jul 2012, 02:18

Geeze......placing a F-35 in air over Serbia 13 years ago and saying it would have survived is a ridiculous point to make.

Unfortunately, the F-35 isn't going to be facing radars and systems as antiquated as that F-117 did back in 1999. A lot changes in 13 years. In fact, this is like a consultant in 1954 saying "by God, those A6M Zeros wouldn't have whipped our current F-86s the way they did those old Brewster Buffaloes!" ;-)
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post17 Jul 2012, 02:36

Ya just gotta love LBT.

"...there has always been a faction within the naval-aviation community that thought the Air Force was relying too heavily on stealth to protect its next-generation fighters and bombers. The aviators voicing that view argued that tactics and jamming were just as important as stealth [True]. "

"Ironically, when a first-generation stealth fighter was shot down by Serbian defenders during the Balkan air war in 1999, it was mainly because the pilot used poor tactics and a Navy jamming aircraft was not where it was supposed to be. [Apparently true based on open source material.]"

"If an F-35 had flown that same mission, it would have escaped unscathed despite the pilot's mistake in exiting the target area and despite the absence of effective off-board jamming [Speculation not verifiable, but certainly espoused by contractor spokespeople] ."

What Thompson ignores is that electronic warfare systems are programmatically and inherently flexible, whereas the F-35 air vehicle is physically limited by its shape and the materials used in its construction. The very nature of EW/NGJ systems makes its platform far more enduring than discrete, inflexible stealth designs conceived more than a decade ago.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post17 Jul 2012, 03:30

maus92 wrote:What Thompson ignores is that electronic warfare systems are programmatically and inherently flexible, whereas the F-35 air vehicle is physically limited by its shape and the materials used in its construction. The very nature of EW/NGJ systems makes its platform far more enduring than discrete, inflexible stealth designs conceived more than a decade ago.


No I don't think he's suggesting that at all. Actually I think this is the problem with the alleged thrust of the CNO's comments and yours in this case.

You're basically suggesting that the F-35's survivability is completely based on its low observable capabilities. Yet its not. In reality that was one of easier aspects of its survivability to be incorporated; its basic shape and materials have been tested, and while there might be some issues, it will be manageable (as far as we can tell.)

Rather I think the critical point is that the F-35's avionics EW and sensor systems are to work together with its low observable technology to enhance its survivability. Its Radar can undertake DFRM, Jamming and detect radars and missile launches (as well as DAS and EOTS) passively, while it has the ability to retaliate if need be. Its avionics suite will be able to assist offboard jammers by helping to pinpoint sources, their frequency and tactics... if they can handle that sort of data sharing. In reality the F-117 could do none of those things, nor can any other fighter currently in service. Suggesting that the F-35's only or main means to survive is through stealth is flat out wrong IMO. If anything the avionics related capabilities will likely be the most critical part of the equation. It will be the key determinant of how best to use stealth and how to defeat other systems.

Its those capabilities which are dragging the project down in terms of a development timeline and are the hardest to get right. Yet that is specifically what you want from the fighter.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1374
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post17 Jul 2012, 03:33

spazsinbad wrote:....'Ironically, when a first-generation stealth fighter was shot down by Serbian defenders during the Balkan air war in 1999, it was mainly because the pilot used poor tactics and a Navy jamming aircraft was not where it was supposed to be. If an F-35 had flown that same mission, it would have ......."....


L.T., being intelligent doesn't mean you are smart, PHDs included. :shock: :lol:

This guy can't resist jumping on his sword. :oops:

STFU and let CNO's words speak for themselves;... or learn to read the English language and understand what you read. :evil:

Thanks Spaz, I needed to get that off my chest, I feel much better now. :wink: :lol: :cheers:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2012, 03:48

Neppie, a dummy spit is good for you every now and then. But don't make a habit of it. :D And be careful out there.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post18 Jul 2012, 04:52

hb_pencil wrote:You're basically suggesting that the F-35's survivability is completely based on its low observable capabilities. Yet its not. In reality that was one of easier aspects of its survivability to be incorporated; its basic shape and materials have been tested, and while there might be some issues, it will be manageable (as far as we can tell.)


Broadly speaking, what I am suggesting is that like earlier generation tactical and stealth aircraft, the F-35 series will require off board EW/EA and proper tactical procedures to successfully complete their mission. As the good admiral pointed out, continued evolution in sensor technology will degrade the advantages of physical stealth shaping and materials. This is not to say that the limited on-board EA capability, and self protection systems do not contribute to the aircraft's survivability. But the question is integrating all the advanced technology in one package worth the expense in terms of unit cost and the extended development time - particularly when new payloads can be developed for less money in a much shorter time? And then after those first few days of war, you have all these AMGs and Porsches when really all you need are upgraded VWs.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Jul 2012, 05:08

maus92 wrote:I am suggesting is that like earlier generation tactical and stealth aircraft, the F-35 series will require off board EW/EA and proper tactical procedures to successfully complete their mission.
Only in the harshest of denied environments.

maus92 wrote: the question is integrating all the advanced technology in one package worth the expense in terms of unit cost and the extended development time - particularly when new payloads can be developed for less money in a much shorter time? And then after those first few days of war, you have all these AMGs and Porsches when really all you need are upgraded VWs.
If all you need is VWs, then why did we ever develop the F-16 past Blk30? Or why is Europe going for the EF ad Rafale?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post18 Jul 2012, 07:41

maus92 wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:You're basically suggesting that the F-35's survivability is completely based on its low observable capabilities. Yet its not. In reality that was one of easier aspects of its survivability to be incorporated; its basic shape and materials have been tested, and while there might be some issues, it will be manageable (as far as we can tell.)


Broadly speaking, what I am suggesting is that like earlier generation tactical and stealth aircraft, the F-35 series will require off board EW/EA and proper tactical procedures to successfully complete their mission. As the good admiral pointed out, continued evolution in sensor technology will degrade the advantages of physical stealth shaping and materials.


Low observables isn't some unique category of capability that require "special sensors": I often explain it more as a coefficient. As sensors improve to detect low observable craft, it also improves their ability to detect legacy craft. Refined sensors allow them to detect aircraft further away based on smaller returns. It also means EW craft need to be even more powerful, and closer to the radar in order to have a meaningful effect.

I fully expect that the F-35 will require jamming in the future; DoD certainly does. But it doesn't mean that these are wasted capabilities. Rather the avionics enable its survivability in a way that really doesn't have much parallel in current aircraft, save for maybe the B-52's defensive suite.

Finally, for the last time, Stealth ISN'T the main cost driver. Its the very avionics that offer it the Jamming and sensor capabilities that you want.





maus92 wrote:This is not to say that the limited on-board EA capability, and self protection systems do not contribute to the aircraft's survivability. But the question is integrating all the advanced technology in one package worth the expense in terms of unit cost and the extended development time - particularly when new payloads can be developed for less money in a much shorter time? And then after those first few days of war, you have all these AMGs and Porsches when really all you need are upgraded VWs.


It is worth the cost when the survivability of those "cheaper platforms" is basically zero. As one pilot made very clear to me recently, we haven't really faced an advanced double digit SAM yet. Those with some knowledge of the Russian systems suggest that our legacy craft will be very challenged against these systems, no matter the jamming support needed.

Furthermore the whole "first day of war" idea is really a lark. The Serbians were able to take down the Nighthawk on like the 100th night? Unless you're up against an inept leadership or one with very large and complex IADS, most opponents will hide their AD and use them sparingly. The idea that we would clean out the opponent in the first few nights might have worked in Iraq, but I doubt it will happen again against a large opponent.
Offline

quicksilver

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Jul 2012, 14:47

As already demonstrated and publicly reported, F-35 has a robust EW and EA capability. Characterization of the EW system as 'limited' buys into 'it has to be Growler or it's nothing' nonsense that pops up every now and then for obvious reasons.

Growler is good for many things, but stealth and on-board EW/EA confer upon F-35 a proximity advantage that other assets will never enjoy, making it an enabler in the battlespace.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1980
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post18 Jul 2012, 21:19

quicksilver wrote:As already demonstrated and publicly reported, F-35 has a robust EW and EA capability. Characterization of the EW system as 'limited' buys into 'it has to be Growler or it's nothing' nonsense that pops up every now and then for obvious reasons.

Growler is good for many things, but stealth and on-board EW/EA confer upon F-35 a proximity advantage that other assets will never enjoy, making it an enabler in the battlespace.

From what I understand, The F-35 doesn't have robust low-band jamming capability built in. The F-22 & F-35 are supposedly detectable on low-band radar, and the F-117 shoot-down involved a fleeting lock using low-band radar (and excellent tactical planning!). I wouldn't be surprised if a combat coded F-35 could detect the thermal signature using EODAS of a non-emitting radar site and blow it up. An EA-6B can't detect a non-emitting radar target, although a EA-18 could detect a related & co-located non-radar emitter such as military coms transceiver.

The F-35 has the capability to jam mid-band and high-band radar, and that is somewhat well known.
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron