F-35s austure basing and the Rand study.

[jessmo112]

I have noticed that the USAF has finally started looking to disperse assets and airfields.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... nocked-out

This threat of Chinese missiles has been know for well over a decade now with the Rand study.

Now keep in mind Im not talking about Rands F-35s dogfight predictions. Im talking about the Idea that the bombardment and suppression of guam by IRBMs could seriously impede the F-35s operations.
Here are my discussion points:

1. Can the U.S. actually operate airfields in thec2nd island chain, with out fear of them being mission killed.

2. Do the Chinese have enough strike assets to Hit, Guam, tinan, okinawa, Taiwan, the 7th fleet, and where ever else the U.S. decides to play wack a mole?

3. Do we have the 5th gen assets and the C4 to control that many ops over that many potentially dispersed places?

4. Does being dispersed create difficulties in logistics, and defense? The navy is already short on ships.

5. Why wont the USAF buy F-35B for austure basing and point defense? The F-35B is the point defense fighter from hell! Why not keep a squadren or 2 dispersed or in HAS.

The Chinese can kill the AFs but if you really want to defeat the usaf you must kill the assets.
You will need to over fly the base and use smart weapons to kill the fighters. Storage tankers, has ect.
A F-35B order would complicate this

Maybe we need divert fields with prepositioned stocks.
Maybe we need joint force packages of c-130s and Patriots flying in and setting up, so that when the F-35s,F-22s land they have instant missile defenses.
It's becoming obvious that the pacific is to vast to be sea controlled by the USN alone.

[jessmo112]

I have noticed that the USAF has finally started looking to disperse assets and airfields.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... nocked-out

This threat of Chinese missiles has been know for well over a decade now with the Rand study.

Now keep in mind Im not talking about Rands F-35s dogfight predictions. Im talking about the Idea that the bombardment and suppression of guam by IRBMs could seriously impede the F-35s operations.
Here are my discussion points:

1. Can the U.S. actually operate airfields in thec2nd island chain, with out fear of them being mission killed.

2. Do the Chinese have enough strike assets to Hit, Guam, tinan, okinawa, Taiwan, the 7th fleet, and where ever else the U.S. decides to play wack a mole?

3. Do we have the 5th gen assets and the C4 to control that many ops over that many potentially dispersed places?

4. Does being dispersed create difficulties in logistics, and defense? The navy is already short on ships.

5. Why wont the USAF buy F-35B for austure basing and point defense? The F-35B is the point defense fighter from hell! Why not keep a squadren or 2 dispersed or in HAS.

The Chinese can kill the AFs but if you really want to defeat the usaf you must kill the assets.
You will need to over fly the base and use smart weapons to kill the fighters. Storage tankers, has ect.
A F-35B order would complicate this

Maybe we need divert fields with prepositioned stocks.
Maybe we need joint force packages of c-130s and Patriots flying in and setting up, so that when the F-35s,F-22s land they have instant missile defenses.
It's becoming obvious that the pacific is to vast to be sea controlled by the USN alone.

Bump because of spam

[steve2267]

When operating from a land mass with really only one place to launch/recover fighters (e.g. Guam), why purchase F-35B's? They are more expensive than the -A model. Why not just buy more A's, and keep x % in reserve if you are concerned about defense? The A can carry more, has more go juice, and can stay aloft longer.

Perhaps you want to re-word point #4. Of course dispersion is going to create logistical problems.

[jessmo112]

When operating from a land mass with really only one place to launch/recover fighters (e.g. Guam), why purchase F-35B's? They are more expensive than the -A model. Why not just buy more A's, and keep x % in reserve if you are concerned about defense? The A can carry more, has more go juice, and can stay aloft longer.

Perhaps you want to re-word point #4. Of course dispersion is going to create logistical problems.

Because your runeays are cratered.
You csn launch and recover the F-35B from a austere location. You could even divert them to navy ships, When the A model is mission killed by runway issues.

[steve2267]

I suppose I did not express my thoughts clearly enough. Some of these islands are very small. It's not like they have miles and miles of road spread all over the place from which to launch Killer Bees. If your runways are cratered, all the aircraft that had been based there are mission killed. Great, you can still fly some Bees... but you're not going to put together some yuge alpha strike, with 450nm ranged Bees, across the vast Pacific. (Caveat, in some places I could see the argument for Bees: Taiwan, perhaps Okinawa.)

[jessmo112]

I suppose I did not express my thoughts clearly enough. Some of these islands are very small. It's not like they have miles and miles of road spread all over the place from which to launch Killer Bees. If your runways are cratered, all the aircraft that had been based there are mission killed. Great, you can still fly some Bees... but you're not going to put together some yuge alpha strike, with 450nm ranged Bees, across the vast Pacific. (Caveat, in some places I could see the argument for Bees: Taiwan, perhaps Okinawa.)

They wouldn't be used as Alpha strikers initially but point defenders. The knockout blow to the now mission killed bases would be tactical strikes from chinese fighters and bombers. With the F-35B you can still defend the airspace. Remember in the Rand study ghe F-22,s and F'35,s had no tamkers and divert basing. F'35B changes the game

[marauder2048]

I suppose I did not express my thoughts clearly enough. Some of these islands are very small. It's not like they have miles and miles of road spread all over the place from which to launch Killer Bees. If your runways are cratered, all the aircraft that had been based there are mission killed. Great, you can still fly some Bees... but you're not going to put together some yuge alpha strike, with 450nm ranged Bees, across the vast Pacific. (Caveat, in some places I could see the argument for Bees: Taiwan, perhaps Okinawa.)

They wouldn't be used as Alpha strikers initially but point defenders. The knockout blow to the now mission killed bases would be tactical strikes from chinese fighters and bombers. With the F-35B you can still defend the airspace. Remember in the Rand study ghe F-22,s and F'35,s had no tamkers and divert basing. F'35B changes the game

The big appeal of the F-35B* is that you could couple it to something like CMV-22B with VARS refueling kits.

It's really difficult to achieve a sufficient number of runway cuts to prevent these assets from taking off and
recovering.

Both of those could be based in hardened aircraft shelters; the issue with tankers and other support aircraft, including
bombers is that there are no hardened aircraft shelters for them and it's quite possibly impractical to build them.

You also need hardened, buried fuel hydrant systems since RAND's campaign modeling shows that Red shifts its attacks
to fuel supply.

* previous CSAFs have indicate their interest in acquiring them

[Conan]

I like studies where someone contemplates large numbers of incoming Chinese missiles, but forgets / wilfully ignores that large numbers of missiles will be headed China’s way as well and that their missile launching capabilities will be soon significantly degraded...

Seems like a worthwhile exercise...

[Gums]

Salute!

We went thru this dispersal and deployment discussion long ago. We also looked at "denial" tactics and counter-tactics. You know, crater the runways.

So not surprisingly, the U.S. and other countries, friend and foe alike, put $$$ and effort into rapid runway repair capability, good shelters to preserve as many airframes as possible, and the beat goes on. We searched for and even built alternate bases. Go to Thailand and see Nam Phong. During Linebacker II ( the 1972 Christmas blitz, we had 'vaarks fly down runways dropping a sh!!t load of bombs and the Vee had the bases up and running a day or two later. Unless you are landing and taking off with really large and heavy planes, the fighters and attack planes can use cratered runways that had "qwikcrete" stuff to fill the craters. Large craters, like 5 or 10 meters present large problems, but can be overcome for short taerm use. We also used taxiways versus the main rwy and did so at Myrtle Beach in 1971 so the main rwy could be repaired for something or other.

Here in the U.S. we scouted out many dispersal fields for the "lites", 'cause the buffs needed long, strong runways and parking areas.

The concept for WW3 in Europe was for both sides to hit the other's runways, limiting intital repsonse or attack capability. So dispersal was most important after the first strike ( think Pearl Harbor or the 1968 Tet or the 1973 Yom Kippur scenarios). With great intell, you could disperse early, but we mainly planned to deploy as many as we could after the initial strike. With just a few minutes warning, a lot of alert birds and some others could get up and then just had to find a place to land.

Use of highways is a viable tactic for survival, but operating meaningful units is not feasible without a lot of pre-positioned equipment and ammo and..... All which will sit there for years!!!

Oh well, I like the Bees, but I can only see a few places where they would be better than the A's, or even Cees.

Gums opines...

[weasel1962]

I like studies where someone contemplates large numbers of incoming Chinese missiles, but forgets / wilfully ignores that large numbers of missiles will be headed China’s way as well and that their missile launching capabilities will be soon significantly degraded...

Seems like a worthwhile exercise...

The US will have to do better than desert shield to have "large numbers of missile will be headed China's way". This is a nice chronology of how many planes/ships deployed to sector i.e. speed of deployment in desert shield.

https://media.defense.gov/2014/Apr/25/2 ... Chrono.pdf

The US does have PACAF in theater but to use it for offensive missions needs prior authorization from both ROK & Japan. This especially if China is not attacking ROK/Japan directly. Even if authorized, the F-15Cs are not A2G so it leaves just 5 squadron of F-16s, a single sqn of A-10s (and a couple of Bee sqns) as first responders. China could have most of its entire air force in theater. At sea, there are only a few subs forward deployed in Guam. Whilst Ohios are great shooters, it still takes time to deploy, assuming there is enough notice and no counter. The strategic bombers are great sortie rate will be slow considering the lengthy trips required. Knowing the importance of Guam, that will be numero uno on the Chinese target list. That's why US is quietly developing other bases in the Pacific.

Desert shield took months to complete. Not sure if Taiwan has that long. Not sure if China will make the same mistake by Iraq of leaving Saudi alone for the US build up. The challenges are well known to command so I'm pretty sure things are being resolved/contingency planned so its never smart to underestimate the US. China is doing exactly the same.

[element1loop]

That's why US is quietly developing other bases in the Pacific.

Plus palatalized bulk stand-off weapons release from long-range logistics aircraft.

[element1loop]

Lockheed Martin to support JASSM-ER launch demonstrations from cargo aircraft

By Garrett Reim

30 October 2020

The US Air Force (USAF) awarded Lockheed Martin a $25 million contract to help with the service’s Palletized Munitions Experimentation Campaign, an effort to test the feasibility of launching cruise missiles from the back of cargo aircraft.

In January, the Air Force Research Laboratory and Air Force Special Operations Command successfully tested releasing mock cruise missiles on 28 January 2020 from the rear cargo ramp of a Lockheed Martin MC-130J Commando II. In September, the Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation office announced that it had conducted a similar mock cruise missile launch demonstration with a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III airlifter.

As part of the next phase of the experiment the USAF wants to conduct a “system-level” demonstration in 2021, says Lockheed Martin on 28 October. Lockheed Martin will help develop a modular air-launch system that uses standard cargo airdrop procedures. That system should have the ability to roll on and off cargo aircraft, such as the C-17 and C-130.

Short on bombers and fighters, the USAF is trying to determine if it can launch large numbers of cruise missiles using its cargo aircraft. It began soliciting ideas for palletized munition launch systems in June.

“Initial studies show that airlifters have the potential to deploy large quantities of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER) missiles, providing a significant increase in long-range standoff scale and complementing traditional strike and bomber aircrafts,” says Lockheed Martin. “This innovative approach enables warfighters to launch offensive operations from a greater number of airfields and engage a larger number of near-peer adversarial targets.”

The JASSM-ER is a stealthy cruise missile with a range of 540nm (1,000km). It is integrated on the USAF’s Rockwell B-1B bomber, Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bomber, Boeing B-52 bomber, as well as Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F-15E fighters.

Ultimately, the service is trying to determine if it would be more cost effective to launch cruise missiles from cargo aircraft or via a clean-sheet “Arsenal Plane”, a sort of new bomber. Both stand-off aircraft would fly to the edge of enemy airspace and then lob missiles at targets deep into an adversary’s territory, before turning back toward safety.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 78.article

U.S. Air Force, Lockheed Martin Further Efforts to Transform Airlifters into Potent Strike Weapon Platforms

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Oct. 28, 2020)

ORLANDO, Fla. --- The U.S. Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE) Office awarded Lockheed Martin a $25 million contract to support the next phase of the service’s Palletized Munitions Experimentation Campaign.

The fourth phase includes a system-level demonstration in 2021 and continues to assess the potential to deliver large volumes of air-launched weapons via airlifters.

"Despite the Palletized Munitions program being relatively new, it’s moving very quickly,” said Scott Callaway, Lockheed Martin Advanced Strike Systems director. “The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) contracting and Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE) offices, and Lockheed Martin teams established this new contract in a record time of 30 days, supporting faster prototyping and a shorter timeline to bring this advanced capability to the warfighter in the field."

Initial studies show that airlifters have the potential to deploy large quantities of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER) missiles, providing a significant increase in long-range standoff scale and complementing traditional strike and bomber aircrafts. This innovative approach enables warfighters to launch offensive operations from a greater number of airfields and engage a larger number of near-peer adversarial targets.

The overall goal of the experimentation is to develop a modular system to deliver air-launched weapons, leveraging standard airdrop procedures and operations. The system will have the ability to be rolled on and off multiple types of aircraft, including the C-17 and C-130.

Phase I successfully accomplished five high-altitude airdrops from an MC-130J (manufactured by Lockheed Martin) and a C-17 earlier this year using simulated weapons. During this effort, the U.S. Air Force tested the suitability of launching JASSM-ERs from an airlifter. JASSM is a long-range, conventional, air-to-ground, precision standoff missile for the U.S. and allied forces designed to destroy high-value, well-defended, fixed and relocatable targets.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2020-10 ... -platforms

[jessmo112]

I dont think that in a neer peer conflict that the U.S. wil suffer from an availability of launch platforms.
I think the issue is having enough stand off weapons.
The sheer volume of weapons launched will deplete stocks.

[XanderCrews]

I dont think that in a neer peer conflict that the U.S. wil suffer from an availability of launch platforms.
I think the issue is having enough stand off weapons.
The sheer volume of weapons launched will deplete stocks.

This is why the F-35 exists, we learned in 1991 that there is simply more targets than missiles. youll have to get close with bombs. Thats the dirtly little secret. its unsustainable to go cruise missile crazy.

[XanderCrews]

That's why US is quietly developing other bases in the Pacific.

Plus palatalized bulk stand-off weapons release from long-range logistics aircraft.

Thats the future, and its a brilliant idea.