F-35 news roundup

[11bee]

You more or less nailed it. The F-35 GAU-22 is inherently less accurate than the GAU-8. The F-35 moving to a shallower strafe angle would blow the error ellipse up as you point out. Those are interesting ellipsis for an aircraft and cannon combo that have yet to be fired in flight.

As for the GAU-8 being a "spray and pray" gun, bullshine. I saw way too much gun camera footage of it taking out man sized targets directly to believe otherwise. And this was from a distance at which the mans sized targets did not have a clue the aircraft was approaching head on their soon to be much smaller and scattered man sized a$$es.

Interesting. What do you make of the F-35's 8,000 meter "optimal" engagement range vrs the A-10's 5,000m range? Having never sat in a cockpit, I have no idea if the extra 2KM makes a significant difference in the ability of the pilot to accurately place fire on his target (I have to believe it would) unless the F-35 has some enhancements to allow more precise aiming of the gun?

Was the extra 2KM written into the F-35's tactics to limit exposure to gunfire?

Just curious about the discrepancies between the two aircraft.

[-Neu-]

Another good reply Neu,

I realize F-35 in service would be used differently than the way it was with CF-18 just as the CF-18 was used differently than the combined CF-101, CF-104, CF-5 were back in the day. I just wonder about attrition. I doubt over 40 years with factoring human error crashes, technology/mechanical crashes, tiring of air frames and the possible loss of ferry to and from conflicts as well as possible/probable losses in any real conflict as we have no idea what such conflicts may be over 40 years that the RCAF will still have 65 F-35 on its order of service/battle sheets. I wonder what may be in terms of dealing with attrition?

I'd be really hesitant drawing comparisons between Canada's selection of the CF-18 to what a next generation fighter brings. We were the first major customer of the CF-18: In 1982 we had more of them on order than the USN/USMC. The aircraft was far more maneuverable and powerful than antecedent aircraft. We were unprepared for some aspects of flying it, and we lost aircraft as a result; 13 in the space of eleven years from 1984 to 1992. The F-35 is much different, and we're unlikely to make those mistakes for a number of reasons. First we won't be the first, second or even the tenth nation to fly the aircraft; so we'll be able to harness the amassed learning of other nations. We're also likely to rely very heavily on joint national training systems in a way we did not follow with previous aircraft. The F-35 is much safer to fly: it possesses an automatic ground avoidance system, which prevents a pilot from auguring himself into the ground. Maintenance outcomes will be better as well, with thousands of sensors on an aircraft measuring its health in real time. I think the AF has a very conservative CAT-A rate right now for the F-35, and attrition may not be as high as predicted.

What if in 20 years which will be half of F-35's life cycle the RCAF have lost 10-12-15-20 for all sorts of reasons? How few will it be before the RCAF as an air combat platform would essentially be out of the air combat arena? I ask because I don't know. I mean the CF-18's are 30+ years old now. I believe that when we MLU'd them in early 2000's that at the time we had 102 in original shape and upgraded 80 of our best ones. Since we bought 137 from 1983-1988 that means that we attritioned out 42% of our CF-18's and that is known that the F-18 has proven in US and international service to be an excellent airplane for durability and availability. Lets assume that we lose about 1/3rd at best of our F-35's over 25-30 years if we do not replace this attrition we may only have 40 or so left. How few may too few to matter?

Then we would buy more. the other alternatives don't really have that option available to them as most of those production lines are at the end of their life. In reality most crashes happen early on in an aircraft's lifecycle, so if he did incur those losses early, we'd have that option available to them.

[MarkW]

Not only that, but if you lose that many, you really have no business in the fast jet game.

USN F/A-18s have a historical 3.2/100,000 class A mishap per flight hours rate. The average squadron kicks out ~4,000 flight hours per calendar year. So, 3 Canuck squadron would run up 12,000fh/yr. It would take the entire fleet 8.3 years to burn up to 100,000 flight hours.

Now factor in the U.S. does carrier ops, and SHOULD have a significantly higher mishap rate. You would need ~25 Canadian fleet years to lose ten jets at the USN rate, and that is assuming you crash as much as guys landing on a carrier at night. In weather.

So, do the math. Even if Canadian pilots totally suck and crash like flies dropping out of the sky, it well still be at a low rate and during the bulk of the F-35 production run. You could buy more, but shouldn't because you'd be crashing too much.

[-Neu-]

Not only that, but if you lose that many, you really have no business in the fast jet game.

USN F/A-18s have a historical 3.2/100,000 class A mishap per flight hours rate. The average squadron kicks out ~4,000 flight hours per calendar year. So, 3 Canuck squadron would run up 12,000fh/yr. It would take the entire fleet 8.3 years to burn up to 100,000 flight hours.

Now factor in the U.S. does carrier ops, and SHOULD have a significantly higher mishap rate. You would need ~25 Canadian fleet years to lose ten jets at the USN rate, and that is assuming you crash as much as guys landing on a carrier at night. In weather.

So, do the math. Even if Canadian pilots totally suck and crash like flies dropping out of the sky, it well still be at a low rate and during the bulk of the F-35 production run. You could buy more, but shouldn't because you'd be crashing too much.

We suffered twice the crash rate as the USN in the first decade (7+ over 100,000 versus 3.5+), but there were a number of factors like different training emphasis, perceived technical issues with the HUD, and a focus on low-level operations over Europe and rugged areas of Canada. The last one is important: analysis showed that a lot USN hours are diluted by a large number of high altitude transit time, especially between bases and training areas. In Canada we've always had the luxury of having our training areas very close to bases, so we got more time training at low altitude (especially when that was our preferred delivery method before 1990.) GLOC and Sommatogyral causes accounted for the majority of CAT-A incidents.

We're now better than the USN, but we have different training regime and fly more high altitude missions. But those lessons were hard fought.

Edited September 9, 2015 by -Neu-

[TaiidanTomcat]

Blast from the past:

One of the first critics was Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.), who had gained fame for exposing waste and fraud in government. Proxmire accused the Pentagon of waste in the AWACS program in 1971 and later called it “a plane in search of a mission.”

Sen.Thomas F. Eagleton (D-Mo.)—described by The New York Times as “waging a one-man war against the AWACS program”— said AWACS was an “apparently irresistible gadget which has no real combat utility,” a “sham” and a “disastrous failure” that “contributes nothing and has a zero chance of surviving attack.”

The news media and the General Accounting Office chimed in, apparently unimpressed by test exercises where some 300 aggressor aircraft could not defeat AWACS. In 1976, Rep. Patricia S. Schroeder (D-Colo.) nominated AWACS as the “Turkey of the Year” and attempted to delete all funding for it.

Opposition surged when the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations proposed foreign military sales of AWACS to allies. In 1980, critics objected to offering AWACS to Saudi Arabia, arguing concurrently the E-3A was a flop operationally and that it would be a mortal threat to Israel.

Condemnation of the program in general continued. Pundit Alexander C. Cockburn, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 1981, said that AWACS was an “airborne disaster” and “an ocean of gravy” for the contractors. The real secret of AWACS, he said, was that “it does not work.”

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2015/September%202015/Opposing-AWACS.aspx

Everything's a Turkey

[Gordon Shumway]

Not only that, but if you lose that many, you really have no business in the fast jet game.

USN F/A-18s have a historical 3.2/100,000 class A mishap per flight hours rate. The average squadron kicks out ~4,000 flight hours per calendar year. So, 3 Canuck squadron would run up 12,000fh/yr. It would take the entire fleet 8.3 years to burn up to 100,000 flight hours.

Now factor in the U.S. does carrier ops, and SHOULD have a significantly higher mishap rate. You would need ~25 Canadian fleet years to lose ten jets at the USN rate, and that is assuming you crash as much as guys landing on a carrier at night. In weather.

So, do the math. Even if Canadian pilots totally suck and crash like flies dropping out of the sky, it well still be at a low rate and during the bulk of the F-35 production run. You could buy more, but shouldn't because you'd be crashing too much.

To be fair, the CF-18 attrition was mostly due to not upgrading 22 or so air frames during our MLU programme in the early 2000's. The normal ops attrition rate was probably not out of the norm in comparison to other legacy F-18 Hornet users.

I see and agree now with what has been told me here, that if the Federal government/DnD feel that Canada would at a later time need to add more to our potential 65 F-35 purchase, due to attrition, or via a need to for politics and/or possible conflict that I'm certain LockMart would be able to put out some extra CF-35 air frames. Compared to what the USAF/USN/USMC will be buying any added purchase a future Canadian government may add will be small potatoes. I just hope that Canada does not cheap out and if RCAF/DnD go with F-35, that it does not buy fewer than 65 that we were going to settle on in 2012.

The RCAF is a proud force with a proud history and I just don't want it as a air combat structure to be marginalized among its allies and in the world in general. A productive and well trained RCAF gives Canada some diplomatic say plus military say if need be, just as our Navy and Army do.

Canadian politics with our military can be pretty nutty at times though.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Gordon Shumway

[MarkW]

We suffered twice the crash rate as the USN in the first decade (7+ over 100,000 versus 3.5+), but there were a number of factors like different training emphasis, perceived technical issues with the HUD, and a focus on low-level operations over Europe and rugged areas of Canada. The last one is important: analysis showed that a lot USN hours are diluted by a large number of high altitude transit time, especially between bases and training areas. In Canada we've always had the luxury of having our training areas very close to bases, so we got more time training at low altitude (especially when that was our preferred delivery method before 1990.) GLOC and Sommatogyral causes accounted for the majority of CAT-A incidents.

We're now better than the USN, but we have different training regime and fly more high altitude missions. But those lessons were hard fought.

Do you know what the average fh/squadron/yr is up there for the CF-18? Another point that is at least intended to reduce training mishaps for the JSF is the extensive and pretty damn state of the art simulator capability. Either way, if the F-35 and CF-18 are now employed in a similar fashion, the F-35 should see the safer, lower mishap rate.

And you'll note I did not compete anything to USAF F-16 mishap rates.

[-Neu-]

Do you know what the average fh/squadron/yr is up there for the CF-18? Another point that is at least intended to reduce training mishaps for the JSF is the extensive and pretty damn state of the art simulator capability. Either way, if the F-35 and CF-18 are now employed in a similar fashion, the F-35 should see the safer, lower mishap rate.

We're above most NATO states for yearly flight hours, (above 170), but I haven't seen the latest figures. I know there was a significant bump last year due to two ongoing operations abroad that increased pilots flight time. Its debatable about the actual effect on pilot training. As I noted earlier, Canada's ranges are very close to our bases so our base flight hours give pilots a lot of experience: they tend to eat up airframe flight hours more than most other missions. Operational missions (including sovereignty ops and foreign deployments to combat zones) is a lot of time spent flying fairly benign flight profiles. I'm not discounting the fact that obtaining combat experience is irreplaceable, but its generally one out of twenty sorties that actually see a weapons drop. So I'd argue that the recently added hours may not really improve flight safety.

The first ten years was where most of our crashes occurred, our crash rate was abnormally high. Our primary cause was human factors for almost all of them, though there were sometimes technical glitches that should have been recoverable with the correct procedure. After 1993 the Cat-A rate has diminished dramatically. We've had comparatively more mechanical failures, and far fewer human factors related incidents.

I completely agree with the fact that high fidelity training simulators will help, as will AutoGCAS. However I think we will greatly benefit from the joint training approach, which will ensure that our personnel employ the best practices for operating the aircraft.

And you'll note I did not compete anything to USAF F-16 mishap rates.

I did compare it to F-16 mishap rates, especially at the start. Even with engine failures, our early CAT-A rate was much higher.

[Spongebob]

Libya and Syria are not examples of close air support. There is little the A-10 can do in those environments that a B-1 can't do. The game changes when there is a ground fight and you have to support friendly troops. The F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s, B-1s, etc can all do CAS with PGMs if you have a perfect picture of where everyone is, but when it gets really nasty you want that A-10 gun. After watching Mirages drop bombs on fixed targets I wouldn't trust it for CAS at all.

No mention of AH-64's?? Doesn't the Army OWN them? AC-130's?

An A-10 pilot looking through their HUD still needs a good picture; the aircrew get that from working with a TGP, BDRVT, BFT and other tools. There is a reason that they added TGP's to the A-10. An A-10 with poor SA is just as bad as anything else.

Agree on the CDE for the 30mm, but Hellfire and Maverick are both close and I believe APKWS is even better than the 30mm. New toys.

You also know that all the A-10's that were in AFG left for Iraq back in Oct 2014? F-16's stayed.

[nspreitler]

No mention of AH-64's?? Doesn't the Army OWN them? AC-130's?

An A-10 pilot looking through their HUD still needs a good picture; the aircrew get that from working with a TGP, BDRVT, BFT and other tools. There is a reason that they added TGP's to the A-10. An A-10 with poor SA is just as bad as anything else.

Agree on the CDE for the 30mm, but Hellfire and Maverick are both close and I believe APKWS is even better than the 30mm. New toys.

You also know that all the A-10's that were in AFG left for Iraq back in Oct 2014? F-16's stayed.

My experience with CAS has been in Inherent Resolve, so yes I am aware where the A-10s are.

Edited September 11, 2015 by nspreitler

[11bee]

Back in 2011(?) the FL ANG mounted some Sniper pods on the centerline of some of their F-15s to test it out as a "poor man's IRST." It didn't go fleet wide and now LM is pushing a larger, self contained IRST pod for F-15s and F-16s.

FWIW - Just read an article on the F-15 in Combat Aircraft, they quoted the vice-commander of the 104th FW (MA ANG F-15 unit) who stated that this mod is supposed to go fleet-wide (only ANG I would assume) in the near future. It's interesting how the ANG tends to go their own way with certain aircraft mods.

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/09/11/f-35s-hone-dog-fighting-skills-top-gun-1st-time/72048704/

[11bee]

Interesting proposal by Boeing to double the number of AMRAAMs carried by the F-15. Not sure about the concept of the up-armed Eagle being an "arsenal ship" for 5th Gen Fighters. Seems like Boeing is pitching all sorts of ideas to try to keep it's Hornet / Eagle production lines running a bit longer.

My question is - why did they show this mod on an F-15E, could they not retrofit existing C models?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333

Yes, I know this is the loathed F/A site but I found this info post-worthy nonetheless.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Interesting proposal by Boeing to double the number of AMRAAMs carried by the F-15. Not sure about the concept of the up-armed Eagle being an "arsenal ship" for 5th Gen Fighters. Seems like Boeing is pitching all sorts of ideas to try to keep it's Hornet / Eagle production lines running a bit longer.

My question is - why did they show this mod on an F-15E, could they not retrofit existing C models?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333

Yes, I know this is the loathed F/A site but I found this info post-worthy nonetheless.

It's on the E because mods were made for the F-15SA,now they are trying to pitch it elsewhere

[MarkW]

Plus you'd need the CFTs for a viable loiter/range solution.

[fulcrum1]

IOC is now just a PR move?

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/pentagon-testing-office-calls-foul.html?referrer=http://t.co/q47smXsCvI

[nspreitler]

IOC is now just a PR move?

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/pentagon-testing-office-calls-foul.html?referrer=http://t.co/q47smXsCvI

Is that really a surprise?

On another the note the Air Force sends more A-10s to Europe,

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/14/us-air-force-deploy-more-a10s-europe-this-month-general-says.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=2

[MarkW]

IOC is now just a PR move?

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/pentagon-testing-office-calls-foul.html?referrer=http://t.co/q47smXsCvI

No. IOC is ALWAYS a PR move. Look at the B-1 IOC in 1984 and every other IOC.

I'm not surprised at all the ALIS chickens have come home to roost. There was no way they could be operationally viable given the immature turd that system is.

I'm normally not a Gilmore fan, but this time he is 110% dead on right. Anyone who tries to pass this off as normal growing pains or "Gilmore just being Gilmore" is grossly and savagely ignorant of how bad the ALGS really is.

[11bee]

IOC is now just a PR move?

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/pentagon-testing-office-calls-foul.html?referrer=http://t.co/q47smXsCvI

Now just a PR move? Always was.

What a tough way for the thousands of F-35 fanboyz to start their morning. After reading this, they probably threw up into their Fruity Munch cereal.

As Mark alluded to, this really isn't any different than other aircraft, it was just that the Corp inspired hype took things to another level. It's funny that in all those USMC press releases, they seem to have neglected to mention any of the details flagged in this report. Certainly seemed to have neglected to remind folks that it took a force of ~ 80 civilian contractors to deploy with those few jets, dedicated MV-22's to run parts out to the boat and even then, reliability rates were poor.

Mark - You've mentioned the ALGS system before. To be honest, I didn't fully understand how critical this system is to the F-35. Are there any fixes close to implementation or is this issue going to continue to impact operations? Having to drive off base to access commercial Wi-Fi and burn the data to CD's? It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

Hopefully the next USMC squadron that deploys will be to a location with a nearby Starbucks so the maintainers can access Wi-Fi (and stay properly caffinated).

[fulcrum1]

No. IOC is ALWAYS a PR move. Look at the B-1 IOC in 1984 and every other IOC.

I'm not surprised at all the ALIS chickens have come home to roost. There was no way they could be operationally viable given the immature turd that system is.

I'm normally not a Gilmore fan, but this time he is 110% dead on right. Anyone who tries to pass this off as normal growing pains or "Gilmore just being Gilmore" is grossly and savagely ignorant of how bad the ALGS really is.

Yeah, it was tongue in cheek comment. I read some background on the B-1 and found it fascinating how industry changed afterwards.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Pogo gonna pogo

[TaiidanTomcat]

Now just a PR move? Always was.

What a tough way for the thousands of F-35 fanboyz to start their morning. After reading this, they probably threw up into their Fruity Munch cereal.

As Mark alluded to, this really isn't any different than other aircraft, it was just that the Corp inspired hype took things to another level. It's funny that in all those USMC press releases, they seem to have neglected to mention any of the details flagged in this report. Certainly seemed to have neglected to remind folks that it took a force of ~ 80 civilian contractors to deploy with those few jets, dedicated MV-22's to run parts out to the boat and even then, reliability rates were poor.

Mark - You've mentioned the ALGS system before. To be honest, I didn't fully understand how critical this system is to the F-35. Are there any fixes close to implementation or is this issue going to continue to impact operations? Having to drive off base to access commercial Wi-Fi and burn the data to CD's? It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

Hopefully the next USMC squadron that deploys will be to a location with a nearby Starbucks so the maintainers can access Wi-Fi (and stay properly caffinated).

Speaking of Caffeinated, Take it down a notch.

[11bee]

Plus you'd need the CFTs for a viable loiter/range solution.

Looks like BA agrees. F-15C with "2040C" upgrade package. AESA radar, 16 AMRAAMs, CFT's, IRST, Talon Hate and upgraded EW system. Proposed to be a partner to the F-22. Pretty neat upgrade, although I can't see where the AF will get the money from if they want their new trainer, new bomber and wings of F-35, all in the same time frame. Maybe the ANG might be interested since it looks like they will be the primary F-15C operator shortly (if not already).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doubles-f-15c-missile-load-in-2040c-eagle-u-416766/

[11bee]

Speaking of Caffeinated, Take it down a notch.

Sorry boss, I know that report must have been upsetting, with both the Corp and the F-35 coming in for a bit of criticism.

I'm sure we'll be returning to happy news shortly (and to be completely fair - there is actually quite a bit of positive stuff coming from the program).

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sorry boss, I know that report must have been upsetting, with both the Corp and the F-35 coming in for a bit of criticism.

I'm sure we'll be returning to happy news shortly (and to be completely fair - there is actually quite a bit of positive stuff coming from the program).

I think you are acting like a douche, basically and attempting to troll.

I really don't mind the critism, the problem with all these reports and the often the people who then report on them, is that there is usually no comparison with other platforms, and for the Marines those are some pretty old aircraft. How does this compare with the hornets and harriers in current use? They're probably fine other than crashing.

There was also a helluva lot of hard work for over 3 years with vmfa-121 to get things where they were at all. 6 days a week 12 hour shifts for months leading up to OT-1 for example.

So I'm feeling fine, there's still work to do we knew there would be, and its still far better off than the V-22 was, and when it first deployed; and we knew people were going to whine, they will still be whining in 5 years too

So yeah the world keeps turning and luckily we still have two more IOCs to do, with luck these stories can be recycled with minimal changes

Edited September 15, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat