Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 F-35 News and Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Source: Japan's Largest Warship Was Designed as an Aircraft Carrier

    By Franz-Stefan Gady
    February 27, 2018

    Blueprints reveal that Japans latest class of helicopter destroyers has been designed to operate the F-35B.

    The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces (JMSDF) largest warship, the so-called helicopter destroyer JS Izumo, the lead ship of the Izumo-class, along with its sister ship, JS Kaga, have already been designed to operate short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) fighters such as Lockheed Martins F-35B, retired JMSDF sources told Japans Asahi Shimbun newspaper last week.

    While Japans Ministry of Defense (MoD) has repeatedly denied plans to retrofit the Izumo-class into full-fledged aircraft carrierseuphemistically classified as helicopter destroyers by the JMSDF to downplay the ships offensive warfighting capabilities a JMSDF executive said that a consensus was privately reached at the inception of the Izumo project that the warships should be designed allowing for a future conversion into a F-35B-carrying naval platform.

    It is only reasonable to design (the Izumo) with the prospect of possible changes of the circumstances in the decades ahead, the JMSDF executive said. We viewed that whether the Izumo should be actually refitted could be decided by the government. Indeed, it is unsurprising that consideration was given to operate the F-35Bthe U.S. Marine Corps variant of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter capable of vertical or short takeoffs and vertical landings without requiring a catapult launcherfrom the Izumos flight deck, as the ministry has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring the aircraft over the years.

    MoD sources have only recently reiterated the MoDs interest in procuring F-35Bs for service aboard the Izumo-class and from airfields on Japanese-held islands skirting the East China Sea. Modifications on the Izumo-class, among other things, would require the installation of a ski-jump. Contrary to earlier reports, the JMSDF executive claims that the flight deck has already been coated with paint that can withstand the exhaust heat generated during F-35B landings and takeoffs. Additionally, the aircraft elevators connecting the flight deck with the hangar was reportedly specifically designed to accommodate the F-35B.

    The Izumo-class is the biggest class of surface warship to be operated by the JMSDF since the end of World War II. While it is a multi-purpose warship, the Izumo-class biggest comparative advantage to other vessels in the JMSDFs surface fleet is its sophisticated anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability. For example, Izumo-class ships can operate a large number of Japans most advanced sub-hunting helicopter. The ship is designed to accommodate up to 14 helicopters (seven Mitsubishi-built SH-60k ASW helicopters and seven Agusta Westland MCM-101 mine countermeasure helicopters), five of which can simultaneously take off and land, given the Izumos large flight deck and five landing spots, I explained previously.

    Should the Izumo-class undergo a retrofit to accommodate the F-35B, the ships ASW capabilities would be somewhat curtailed, as numerous defense analysts have pointed out. The Izumo-class conversion debate in Japan occurs in the context of an increasing vulnerability of Japanese airbases to Chinese and North Korean cruise and ballistic missile strikes. F-35Bs operating from Izumo-class carriers would at least theoretically increase the chances of Japanese airpower surviving a possible Chinese or North Korean first strike in the event of a military conflict.
    https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/sour...craft-carrier/
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

    Comment


      #42
      LRIP10 fly away F-35B cost assessed by Uk mindef : 123 millions $ each .
      http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...ten/74078.html
      Last edited by halloweene; 26th February 2018, 21:51.

      Comment


        #43
        And 105M$ in 2022... Tomorrow. A formidable stealth fighter able to land anywhere as easily as parking a Cadillac in downtown Paris.

        Comment


          #44
          landing anywhere? (aka where there is a many tons specific mat?) and 105 projected (hoped). True, only issue is that if it can land anyqhere it cant go anywhere if it takes off =from anywhere neither due to low endurance (B model)

          Comment


            #45
            As long as it can take off, mid-air refueling will allow it to fly anywhere.
            "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

            Comment


              #46
              As long as you're not worried about the long-term prospects of the concrete you're landing on I fail to see why an F-35B couldn't operate without those heat-resistant mats for some time.

              Comment


                #47
                LRIP10 fly away F-35B cost assessed by Uk mindef : 123 millions $ each .
                http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...ten/74078.html
                The number has been know for a while.

                https://www.f35.com/news/detail/agre...rogram-history

                and 105 projected (hoped)
                True. People seem to forget that even at LRIP-10, which saw 90 aircraft ordered, the program is still in Low-Rate production relative to its full-rate ramp up. The next order bump is significant and there will likely be one more bump before "true" (with US involvement) Multi-Year contracts and Full rate production kicks in. So while that $105 Million is still a desired/hoped/aspirational goal there is quite a bit of EOS still to be realized in the program. There is a reason why they are aiming for a particular price target by 2020 - it is because they expect to see multi year orders, assured timely contract formalization by then. JPO is aiming for same year contract completion (order year vs signed year) by LRIP-12. Right now, negotiations for lots primarily funded in FY17 are stretching into FY18.

                LRIP-11 is more than 50% larger in terms of total aircraft (140 vs 90), and it should be signed in the next few months.
                Last edited by bring_it_on; 27th February 2018, 13:09.
                Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                Comment


                  #48
                  F-35B rocks.. a truly unique bird..

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Budget request includes funding profile for new F-35 Block 4 strategy


                    The Defense Department's fiscal year 2019 budget request includes funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program's new Follow-On Modernization plan, dubbed Continuous Capability Development and Delivery, but it is unclear whether the projection incorporates a new cost estimate for the effort.

                    The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps each reference the new strategy, which Inside Defense first reported last September. C2D2 is meant to change the way the program develops and delivers new software capabilities and to create a bridge between the final version of Block 3F software that will be delivered during the system development and demonstration phase and the first iteration of Block 4 software. That bridge phase will allow the program to fix any known Block 3F deficiencies -- as well as any discovered during operational test -- and insert new capabilities prior to the release of the next software block.

                    The JPO has been working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to nail down the details of the program's C2D2 strategy, including cost and schedule. Although the recent budget request highlights the new strategy, it's unclear whether the request includes an approved cost estimate. However, there is some variation between what the services projected they would need for FOM in their FY-18 budget requests and what they are asking for in the FY-19 request for C2D2.

                    In FY-18, the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps projected they would need a combined $3.1 billion for FOM between fiscal years 2019 and 2022. In the services' FY-19 request, the projection for those years grows to by about $56 million.

                    That $56 million change reflects some shifts in funding over that four-year period, with the biggest change in projection appearing in FY-19. The three services projected in their FY-18 requests they would need a combined $915 million in FY-19. In their FY-19 requests, the services ask for $68 million more.

                    The request does not justify the difference in detail, but notes that FY-19 funding would support C2D2 contract development, a preliminary design review for the first iteration of Block 4 software and a system requirements review for the second iteration of Block 4 software.

                    FY-19 funds will also support the execution of a third technology refresh, TR-3, which will update the system so that it can support Block 4 capabilities. In FY-19, the program plans to move closer to a critical design review of some subsystems and will prototype TR-3 software. The program also plans to stand up an initial TR-3 lab in FY-19.


                    Other FY-19 C2D2 activities include continued development and flight testing of future F-35 capabilities. Budget documents note the program will transfer its integrated test requirements to C2D2 as the system development and demonstration phase closes out.
                    The difference in the 2 estimates is 1.8% which could very well be due to a change in schedule (added time to address all C2D2 tasks) or simply pursuing more capability upfront. It is also quite likely that they simply have better estimates on what it will take (time and money) to execute on the strategy given that it was an open secret that the FY18 simply used placeholder $$ amounts for FY spending until the administration got a full year to work out details on its budgeting and security strategy over the FYDP.
                    Last edited by bring_it_on; 27th February 2018, 12:57.
                    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                    Comment


                      #50
                      From earlier this month :

                      Expanded training enables combat success


                      The 33rd Fighter Wing is hosting a large force exercise here January 29 through February 9, 2018.

                      The exercise is an opportunistic expansion of the wing's Lightning Top-Off Course, a program for new F-35A pilots to hone their skills ahead of reporting to their operational unit. This expanded course shortens the timeline to get pilots mission qualified (MQ) without sacrificing quality training during a time when pilot shortages are being felt across the Air Force.

                      "There are inherent challenges when our fighter pilot manning is stretched thin and we attempt to strike a perfect equilibrium between pilot production and pilot absorption. Because the operational F-35 community is still relatively small, yet growing rapidly, when we forecast this getting out of balance we need to move rapidly and take steps to minimize the impacts on the warfighters," said Colonel Paul Moga, 33 FW commander.

                      "Expanding LiTOC from its typical academic and simulator training to actual live-fly missions enables us to better meet the needs of our customer-the CAF. This exercise utilizes extra sorties that were carved out months ago and gives pilots more realistic, high-end combat training before they arrive to their squadrons," Moga said. And, because this was planned so far in advance, there is no impact to the wing's more routine program flying training production timelines.

                      The exercise was developed specifically for pilots reporting to Hill AFB, the nation's only operational F-35A unit.

                      "Historically, after pilots finished their formal training unit syllabus they still needed mission qualification training after reporting to their operational squadron, which could take up to three months and 12 flights," said Major Brian Burgoon, 33nd Wing weapons officer. "Through this expanded LiTOC, the pilots are getting six of those 12 flights, easing the burden of MQ training and taking some of the pressure off of our only operational F-35 wing."

                      This two-week exercise will include aircraft from 10 units throughout the southeast from U.S. Navy and Air Force active and reserve components.
                      ------


                      JASDF - Misawa F-35A -

                      Last edited by bring_it_on; 27th February 2018, 12:59.
                      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                      Comment


                        #51
                        F-35B rocks.. a truly unique bird..
                        agree.

                        Comment


                          #52
                          Originally posted by F/A-XX View Post
                          As long as you're not worried about the long-term prospects of the concrete you're landing on I fail to see why an F-35B couldn't operate without those heat-resistant mats for some time.
                          Because there's a chance the hot main engine could rip up the concrete? Loose pieces of concrete are a problem STOVL or not.
                          How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
                          Yngwie Malmsteen

                          Comment


                            #53
                            There is little or no chance of that as the USMC has already used the F-35B in "austere" environments on non-prepped surfaces (ie no matting). Besides, the F-35's STOVL fan prevents anything dislodged from the engine excuse from reaching the inlet.

                            "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                            Comment


                              #54
                              For decades, the Marines have used rolling vertical landings to keep the harrier's engine inlet ahead of the debris kicked up by the exhaust plume.
                              That landing technique should work for F-35B too.

                              Comment


                                #55
                                Type 4 Close Air Support - Marine Corps Gazette; Maj Stephen T. Davis; Vol. 2 March,2018

                                With the integration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the Marine Corps is taking its first steps toward an ability to make decisions on the battlefield at a rate faster than a human can think. In an effort to outpace the enemy, the Marine Corps' maneuver warfare philosophy focuses on decentralized execution.1 The Marine Corps, along with our sister Services, is making technological advancements that will soon yield the opportunity to extend decentralized execution to an automatic weapons system (AWS) using artificial intelligence (AI). Current CAS (close air support) doctrine and definitions do not account for this. In order to prepare for the capabilities of the JSF and the future coupling of AWS using AI, the Joint Staff must modify current CAS doctrine and definitions.

                                The JSF has capabilities that far exceed that of the legacy aircraft the Marine Corps has previously worked with. It possesses the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS), a system capable of providing the pilot 360 degrees of situational awareness through six electro-optical sensors.2 During testing, the DAS demonstrated the ability to locate hostile fire when İt geo-located tanks firing during an exercise at a significant operational distance.3 The DAS enhances the JSF s ability to process this information and hand it off to other ground forces or aircraft autonomously without requiring an additional workload from the pilot.4

                                The JSF demonstrated the capability to hand target information off to a fires platform located beyond the horizon in the summer of 2016, when a simulated naval vessel shot an SM-6 missile and destroyed a target using information passed from theJSF7 The SM-6 İs not an AWS, but the JSF s ability to autonomously hand targeting information off foreshadows the potential to conduct CAS using airborne semi-automatic or AWS with AI technology. Decentralizing execution by using the JSF in concert with AWS and AI would provide an even larger temporal advantage over the enemy.

                                The DOD spent over $72 billion on research and development İn 2016, more than double what Apple, Intel, and Google spent combined İn 2015.6 That kind of research and development has led to the creation of Pertix, an autonomous drone utilizing AI to carry out missions programmed prior to flight.7 Missions programmed in drones like these could enable AI to patrol the battlefield and seek out certain types of targets, such as a T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank. AI possesses the ability to recognize images faster and. better than a human.8 Using tools like these could supplement the JSF's ability to detect targets at range. Drones utilizing AI would be able to patrol the battlefield and positively identify threats using image recognition. The JSF, acting as an airborne server, would then be able to push targeting data to airborne AWS in the area. A modified MQ-9 Reaper could loiter autonomously until tasked by JSF targeting data. This would drastically reduce the time it takes to pass aircrew a game plan, nine-line, correlate aircrew, integrate, clear, and employ fires. With this type of technology, İt may be possible to conduct CAS at a rate much faster than today.

                                Ground forces and aircrew conduct an overwhelming majority of CAS missions under positive control, always placing a human in the decision-making process. This İs for good measure, but İt İs unlikely that İt will forever be the most efficient way to conduct CAS. It could be possible to conduct CAS without positive control. Looking at previous Marine Corps doctrine, reasonable assurance could be an option if the supported ground commander, terminal controller, and the aircrew could ensure that each mission would not adversely affect ground crew. Reasonable assurance does not appear to be emergency CAS and may be Marine Corps specific, as there is no mention of this İn Joint Publication 3-09-3, Close Air Support. Switching to the use of reasonable assurance would be a mental hurdle for the combat arms community, but this İs the doctrine that AWS and AI would operate under when İn the CAS arena.

                                There are three types of controls during the conduct of CAS. Tactical risk assessment determines which type of control should be used; this does not mean one type of control İs riskier than the other.10 Type 1 requires the joint terminal air controller (JTAC) or forward air controller (FAC) to control each individual attack as well as visually acquire both the target and employing aircraft.11 Type 2 requires the JTAC/ FAC to acquire the target either visually or by using some type of realtime targeting information from another platform and control each attack, but this relieves them of the requirement to visually acquire the employing aircraft.12 After visually correlating the target to both the JTAC/FAC and the aircrew, Type 3 İs a control method that allows multiple engagements of targets during a certain window of time without the requirement of the JTAC/ FAC to visually acquire the attacking aircraft.13 These are the only ways to control attacking aircraft during the conduct of CAS, and every one of them requires a human to correlate, integrate, clear, and employ fires on a target. While each type of control may have a different level of tactical risk associated with it, each attempts to maximize fires and minimize friendly fratricide or collateral damage. Type 4 control does not currently exist, but the coupling of AWS and AI during the conduct of CAS will require a new control method.

                                When discussing the use of the reasonable assurance method of CAS, you 11 find that most ground commanders, terminal air controllers, and aircrew are reluctant to operate in that realm because of the perception that it may involve a higher level of risk. Today, there are multiple ways to mitigate risk with fires. One common method to mitigate risk İs to release highly precise weapons on extremely accurate target coordinates. Today, when placing coordinates into a GPS/INS weapon, there is a category of target location error (TLE) tied to them. The lowest level of TLE İs the most accurate and the most desired. This provides commanders, terminal air controllers, and aircrew the added sense of comfort that they are mitigating risk by ensuring that precision and accuracy are coupled. AI may become the new type of accuracy that different categories of TLE have previously been during risk mitigation. This is going to be grounds for Type 4 CAS; that is correlation, integration, clearance, and fires conducted by AWS and AI. Technology is advancing in a direction and at a pace that the idea of decentralizing execution to the level that allows AWS to engage targets in close proximity to friendly forces while using AI to integrate and clear fires will someday be possible, requiring a change in doctrine. It requires a change in doctrine because, tactical risk permitting, the human will no longer be in the decision-making process.

                                One counterargument is that DOD policy does not currently allow the use of AWS on the battlefield. In an effort to reduce failures that lead to unintended engagements, DOD policy assigns responsibilities for the use of semi-autonomous systems and AWS. ^ The directive currently requires commanders or operators to be involved at the appropriate levels to exercise human judgment during the use of force. ^ This directive isn't İn place to prevent Services from exploring and creating new doctrine. AWS employing on targets will happen sometime İn the future. This same directive opens up the potential to expand on AWS capabilities. It states that as systems continue to be developed,

                                they will go through extensive hardware and software verification and validation while requiring new training, doctrine, and tactics, techniques, and procedures to be implemented.

                                The Army is also looking at funding long-term plans that support remote autonomous systems as a means of fire and. maneuver.1-7 This counterargument is built on a policy that is in place because the ethical question of whether we should allow an AWS to kill a human hasn't been answered. Just because policy doesn't allow something to be applied today, doesn't mean the exploration and development of doctrine should wait. As the Marine Corps Operating Concept states, "A military that is slow to exploit technological advances and adapt new ways of fighting opens itself up to catastrophic defeat."18

                                A second counterargument, and one that would be on the minds of most within the combat arms community, is that AI will never exceed the human capability to safely track all friendly forces during the conduct of CAS or prevent AWS from engaging unintended targets. This is a valid counterargument, but the idea of a human being able to maintain full situational awareness at all times and prevent unintended engagements İs difficult İn reality. Even with advancements İn technology, this reality has unfortunately presented itself in blue-on-blue engagements on the modern-day battlefield. ^ The Army has recently replaced Blue Force Tracker and fielded a new system called the Joint Battle Command-Platform Family of Systems (JBC-P FoS).20 This system will not only be used by the Army but also down to the squad level in the Marine Corps.21 Building on the capabilities of systems like these and coupling them with AI could provide a level of situational awareness never seen before. When considering the ability of friendly forces equipped with JBC maneuvering about the battlefield, AI platforms like Pertix providing positive identification, and JSF sharing organic information to airborne AWS, the idea of Type 4 CAS becomes more realistic. Danger close Type 4 CAS may not be a possibility İn urban locations like Ramadı or Fallujah, but İt most certainly can be an option in rural and open areas like the Chosin Reservoir or Khe Sanh.

                                The concept of employing AWS and AI on the enemy could begin with deep air support and work its way closer to ground forces. In the beginning, it may even be limited to tactical equipment only. When this capability reaches the ground forces, the current doctrine will not support İt. As it İs now, CAS doctrine may become the limiting factor with future technology. Current CAS doctrine requires humans to correlate, integrate, clear, and employ fires on the enemy. One way to control CAS, such as the proposed Type 4, would not be the only way to conduct CAS. Type 4 will simply be an additional type of control, tactical risk permitting, that allows the correlation, integration, clearance, and employment of fires by AWS and AI during the conduct of CAS. In an effort to outpace the enemy with decentralized execution, a change to CAS doctrine and definitions İs in order if the Services want to capitalize on the capabilities of AWS and AI on the modern-day battlefield.
                                Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                Comment


                                  #56
                                  USAF F-35As are still at Kadena.
                                  Last edited by djcross; 28th February 2018, 19:24.

                                  Comment


                                    #57
                                    Originally posted by djcross View Post
                                    For decades, the Marines have used rolling vertical landings to keep the harrier's engine inlet ahead of the debris kicked up by the exhaust plume.
                                    That landing technique should work for F-35B too.
                                    Debris here mainly referring to dust and dirt I suppose. Compared to the Harrier, F-35s exhaust is:
                                    - more powerful
                                    - hotter
                                    - closer to the ground
                                    Hence the possibility of ripping up concrete and not just blowing up some dust. While the first F-35 will do fine with a rolling landing, you'd have to clean the pad afterwards and check for concrete FOD. I'm just speculating of course but I wouldn't be surprised if there won't be STOVL ops from unprepared areas.
                                    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
                                    Yngwie Malmsteen

                                    Comment


                                      #58
                                      The front fan is cold and in an RVL, the rear is pointing back slightly.

                                      This was explained in a vid a while back. I'll try to find it.

                                      Last edited by SpudmanWP; 28th February 2018, 23:08.
                                      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                      Comment


                                        #59
                                        Land- and Aircraft Carrier-Based F-35C Jet Blast Deflector Noise Testing - Anthony R. Pilon, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

                                        Measurements of the noise generated by supersonic, impinging jets from full scale,
                                        high performance tactical aircraft engines are discussed. The supersonic jet studied is the
                                        exhaust from an F-35C, the Naval variant of the Joint Strike Fighter currently undergoing
                                        System Design and Development in the United States. The jet impinges on a Jet Blast
                                        Deflector – a surface angled behind the aircraft to deflect the exhaust up and away from
                                        personnel and other aircraft on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Data from land-based
                                        measurements with a large microphone array are compared with measurements from a
                                        limited array on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
                                        Last edited by bring_it_on; 1st March 2018, 11:33.
                                        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                        Comment


                                          #60
                                          ^ Updated the link..should work now..
                                          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X