Jump to content

Recommended Posts

McSallly is the representative from the 2nd district in Arizona.

She is a former CO of the 354 FS located at Davis-Monthan, AFB

Davis-Monthan AFB is in the 2nd district.

Rep McSally is making the same play as McCain; the state stands to lose federal dollars if/when the A-10s leave. Maybe F-16s replace the A-10s at D-M, maybe F-35s, maybe nothing. Additionally - and most importantly - she stands to lose votes during the next election cycle if the A-10s go away, and re-election to the 2nd District isn't a lock for her.

And with this in mind, should the F-35... you know... win. the Test was biased. I am willing to concede the F-35 doesn't have the A-10 gun, but nothing else does either so thats neutral. Lets hope the contest doesn't include things like a BVR shot, or you know breaking 500 knots. Or SEAD or EW, The list of things F-35s can do is going to be more numerous than what A-10s can do, and so the only real shot is narrowing the contest to the point that its watered down and worthless. Possible results for example

A-10 gave superior CAS in non contested environment with certain scenarios.

A-10 gave no CAS in contested environment because it was killed repeatedly. F-35 delivered consistent CAS, though with limited loiter compared to a theoretical surviving A-10. Dead Vs imperfect.

So what happens when we once again learn that the A-10 will do great with CAS providing factors play heavily in its favor, but will suffer heavily when those combinations are changed.

Make sure to test only CAS, and even then very specific scenarios. We all know the bad guys aren't smart enough to send interceptors up or issue MANPADS or anything.

McSally said she does not want to “predetermine” the results of the flyoff, but she stressed the A-10’s lethality, survivability and unique capability to provide continuous close-air support: The A-10 can loiter above the battlefield for 90 minutes, while the F-35A can only stay for 20 to 30 minutes on station, she said; the A-10’s gun can fire over 1,170 shots before it runs out of ammunition, while the F-35A only has 180 bullets; the A-10 can stay in the air even after enemy fire has taken out its most crucial capabilities, while the F-35A cannot survive a direct hit.“There is no way that warfare’s basic nature is going to change so drastically, certainly anytime in the next certainly two years when they start putting the A-10 in the boneyard that we’re not going to need the type of unique capabilities that only the A-10 brings to the fight,” McSally said. “I’m not saying these other assets can’t do close-air support; I’m saying if we get rid of the capability that the A-10 brings there are going to be some unique circumstances on the ground where Americans are going to die unless we have a proven, tested replacement.

giphy.gif

LOL I don't want to make any predeterminations, but nothing is going to change and if you don't do what I want, Americans will die. I don't want to color anything, but allow me to give my two cents publicly before we enter into this test based on merit.

"The A-10, we were sort of considered the redheaded stepchild in the Air Force. ... This type of CAS mission is just something that the Air Force doesn’t generally value as much as those of us who are involved in it do," McSally said. "In this case they decided to get rid of an entire capability and I don’t agree with that."

Pile it high, hun. And remember “There is no way that warfare’s basic nature is going to change so drastically, certainly anytime in the next certainly two years"***

***Exception women in combat MOSs --

"Today's historic announcement finally recognizes that our military is strongest when it prioritizes merit and capability, not gender – and it's about damn time," McSally said.

"Women have been fighting and dying for our country since its earliest wars. They have shown they can compete with the best of the best, and succeed," she said. McSally was the first woman to fly in combat and first woman to command a fighter squadron in U.S. history.

'We select the best man for the job, even if it's a woman.' — McSally

Article from 2 years ago :

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-female-soldiers-fail-3-pullup-requirement/ :

More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.

The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016.

Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to "continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.

"prioritizes merit and capability, not gender – and it's about damn time" I guess warfare has changed drastically in 2 years!! no need to climb or carry or lift!!

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

She's playing out all the emotional buzzwords here because they make for great soundbites. A-10s aren't being used for the majority of missions already and in many cases, they're being pushed away by JTACs/CCTs/TCAPs.

Hers is a purely political game to garner support and votes for the upcoming election. She's been very successful with her fundraising this cycle, but the nomination of a certain Presidential candidate from her party (which is looking increasingly likely) could result in a backlash against her since he favors policies and has made numerous remarks that have offended Latinos and women and that could hurt both her and others from her party running for office (as it would drives independents, women and minority voters away) as they're forced to defend their party's nominee and because it could depress turnout amongst her party while simultaneously motivating the opposition party and critics.

Rep. McSally doesn't have a very long track record within the House to campaign on, the majority of bills the Representative has sponsored or co-sponsored haven't passed the Senate. That's to be expected from any Representative who is finishing their first term. The Representative is looking for an issue that she can support in the upcoming general election to garner local support to counter any potential backlash from the national election. I would expect her opponent to include similar language on his platform for the same reasons (and could potentially give him a boost come November); this is a topic that would be political suicide for either candidate to ignore.

As for the fly-off, that's going to be a joke for all the reasons Tomcat stated.

F-35s already participated at Green Flag 15-08 last summer. It was the very first time the F-35 had the primary exercise role of CAS providers, penetrating a “contested and degraded battlespace” waiting for calls for support from JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers) and liaison officers on the ground. The F-35s ddi the job effectively just like those that came before it and the F-35s achieved an important result during GF 15-08: not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.

Rep. McSally's only experience has been in the A-10, so while she has great insight into that platform's capabilities, she lacks any first hand experience in any other platform's. "If your only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail."

Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you sir. How could you possibly impugn the character of these two fine war heroes? Have you not read Starship Troopers? Are you not aware that in the future those who have served their country and know what personal sacrifice is will only have the most altruistic and common good motives? Yet you make it sound like some slimy, political skin saving, "jobs in my district" sham.

You should be mcshamed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you sir. How could you possibly impugn the character of these two fine war heroes? Have you not read Starship Troopers? Are you not aware that in the future those who have served their country and know what personal sacrifice is will only have the most altruistic and common good motives? Yet you make it sound like some slimy, political skin saving, "jobs in my district" sham.

You should be mcshamed.

Lol died

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what happens when we once again learn that the A-10 will do great with CAS providing factors play heavily in its favor, but will suffer heavily when those combinations are changed.

Like Danger Close?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Danger Close?

Strafing should have some interesting round impact patterns while dodging missiles. I'm sure that part will be massaged as well.

It's going to come down to the same stuff -- A-10 have gun. A-10 tarzan. If the F-35 has a faster response time, aquires targets faster, and has faster attack that will be hand waived as unimportant. Same with actually taking on defenses.

It's going to be very fun watching them water down the criteria so that even a Tucano and UAVs could do the job. They are going to have find a perfect middle so the OV-10 can't do it, nor the F-35 on the other end.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article that quotes a former A-10 pilot, where basically confirms the contested vs. uncontested airspace issue:

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-a-10close-air-support-air-force-test-pilot-2016-5

I think one good point he makes about uncontested airspace is loiter time is:

"If you are talking a non-contested environment, which would be the only place you could make that comparison with the A-10, you are going to have tankers, so it's kind of moot," Chari said of the A-10's supposed loitering advantage.

Edited by Ken Cartwright
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its not the A-10 Vs everything or Fortune magazine but here is an article on the F-35 written by a test pilot that honors the late Joe Bill Dryden's Semper Viper from years ago:

F-35 Flight Control System, Part One

When people think of the “miracle” of flight, they usually think of overcoming gravity. Turns out, that’s the easy part – some things overcome gravity even when we don’t want them to (think race cars, and roofs in tornadoes). The hard part is control. Indeed, control – not lift or propulsion – was the key to the Wright Brothers’ fame and the subject of the years-long patent war that followed. Flight control systems have evolved continuously since the Wrights’ first flight, and the F-35 represents a historic step in that evolution.

In his first article for Code One, Joe Bill did a great job introducing us to fly-by-wire (FBW) control. The F-16 was the first production fighter to use FBW, so Joe Bill had plenty to talk about. As he said, the F-16 was…different.

In this article, we’ll discuss FBW, generally, and focus on some features of the F-35’s control laws (CLAW) from the pilot’s perspective. In the next article, we’ll get into some engineering details and see what’s so innovative – and historically significant – about the F-35’s approach to FBW.

Why Fly-by-Wire?

Forty years ago, when Harry Hillaker and his design team decided to incorporate FBW control in the YF-16, the decision was hardly a slam-dunk. When asked what he considered the riskiest feature of their design, Mr. Hillaker didn’t hesitate: “The fly-by-wire system. If the fly by wire didn’t work, our relaxed static stability wasn’t going to work.” [1] To manage the risk, they had a backup plan to mount the wing further aft, reverting the airplane to a statically stable (albeit draggier and less maneuverable) design that could be flown with a conventional flight control system.

Today, FBW is so accepted, and so beneficial in terms of reduced weight, survivability, design flexibility, and performance, it’s hard to imagine a modern fighter controlled any other way.

The F-35, in most of its flight envelope, is unstable in pitch and neutrally stable in yaw. What that means is that if there were a nose-up or nose-down disturbance that the stabs didn’t immediately react to counter, the disturbance would grow. RAPIDLY. At normal cruise speeds, the time for an angle of attack (AOA) disturbance to double, if not corrected, would be about a quarter of a second. This instability makes the airplane agile and highly efficient aerodynamically, but it would also make it unflyable were it not for the flight control system – doggedly, eighty times per second – positioning the stabs to keep the nose pointing into the wind. So, as golden-armed as we F-35 pilots are, if we were responsible for positioning the control surfaces ourselves, the airplane would be out of control in seconds.

Static stability isn’t the only thing artificially created in a FBW airplane. The dynamic response – the way the airplane responds to our control inputs – is also created artificially. That response can, in fact, be just about anything we want, since it’s determined by software…not nature.

What? We Don’t Like Nature?

Have you ever known someone who did exactly what you asked? (Okay, me neither, but work with me here.) FBW airplanes are a lot like that guy. Their response is, in a way, too perfect: they do exactly what we tell them. As a result, we have to un-learn some of the compensation we thought was “just part of flying.”

For example, when we want a snappy roll in a mechanically controlled airplane, we have to overdrive the stick to get the roll going, then apply a check in the opposite direction to stop it. Not so in our computer-controlled machine. The F-35, as most FBW airplanes, sees our lateral input not as a command to move a surface but as a command to provide a roll rate: it overdrives the surfaces to get the roll going, then backs them off to maintain the rate we’ve commanded. When we remove the command, it drives the control surfaces against the roll to bring it to a crisp stop. If we check, as we did with basic airplanes, the airplane obediently performs a quick head-fake in the direction of the check. Most of us experienced that in our first flight in a FBW airplane, but the tendency went away quickly as we learned the new response.

Another example is turn coordination, which relates to the amount of sideslip we get during rolls and turns. Automatic coordination isn’t unique to FBW: we’ve had aileron-rudder interconnects (ARIs) for years, and even the Wright Flyer had one[2]. But turn coordination in FBW airplanes can be very sophisticated. Generally, the F-35 tries to keep sideslip near zero, but in some cases it intentionally creates adverse or proverse yaw as necessary to control roll and yaw rates. We’ll talk about the use of pedals at high AOA in a later article, but, for general flying around, the best coordination we’ll get is with our feet on the floor.

The point is: When we move the stick and pedals, FBW gives us what we actually want – or what the control engineers want us to have – while suppressing the extraneous things nature has always tossed in along with it, things we previously had to compensate for or just learn to live with.

But Wait, There’s More!

FBW does more than just stabilize the airplane and clean up its response. It determines the very nature of the response itself. That response can be programmed to be whatever we want, as a function of the airplane’s configuration, speed, or whether it’s in the air or on the ground. For example, if we make a lateral stick input in CTOL mode, we get a roll rate. But in jetborne mode, we get a bank angle. At high speed, a pitch stick input commands a normal acceleration (“g”); at low speed with the gear up it commands a pitch rate; at low speed with the gear down, it commands an AOA; and in the hover, it commands a rate of climb or descent.

The ability to tailor the airplane’s response as a function of its configuration and flight regime is the beauty – and potential curse – of FBW. If control engineers get it right – if they define the modes properly, put the transitions in the right places, and give the pilot the right feedback – then control is intuitive. But if they make the various modes too complicated, or the feedback (visual or tactile) isn’t compelling, then modal confusion can set in and bad things can happen.

Some mode changes occur without our knowing, which is fine as long as we don’t have to change our control strategy. An example is the blend from pitch rate command at low speed to g-command at high speed. This transition is seamless from the pilot’s perspective.

Other changes require us to change our technique, which is okay if we command the changes ourselves and they’re accompanied by a compelling change in symbology. Examples are the transitions from gear-up (UA) to gear-down (PA), and from CTOL to STOVL.

There are few areas, though, where a mode change is important but not obvious, which is where pilot discipline and training come in. For example, the CV airplane has three different approach modes, easily selected using buttons on the stick and throttle. Two of these modes – APC and DFP[3] – are autothrottle modes, indicated by a three-letter label on the left side of the HUD. The third mode – manual throttle – is indicated by the absence of a label…arguably not the most compelling indication that you’re responsible for the throttle. This interface will probably evolve; in the meantime, we need to be disciplined and to make doubly sure we’ve got APC engaged before we turn throttle control over to George.

Another area is STOVL landing. The difference between what the power lever (a.k.a. throttle) does on the ground and what it does in the air is profound. On the ground, it acts like a normal throttle: pulling it full aft commands idle thrust. In air, it commands accel/decel rate: pulling it full aft commands a maximum decel. There’s plenty of redundancy in the weight-on-wheels sensors, but if the airplane ever thought it was still airborne after a vertical landing, and you pulled the throttle full aft, the airplane would go charging backward. This would be “untidy” (as our British friends say), especially on the ship. So we take every STOVL landing to a firm touchdown, and let the airplane itself set the throttle to idle when it determines it’s on the ground.

Protecting Us From Ourselves

The control limiters in the F-35 – love them or hate them – are there to help. They not only make the airplane safer, but also more effective, by allowing us to fly aggressively without worrying about breaking something or losing control.

But flying the F-35 is not completely carefree. The control engineers had to give us some rope in a few places, since doing otherwise would have compromised capability and possibly even safety. So it’s important for us to understand what’s protected and what isn’t.

One of the things CLAW does not protect us from, for example, is overspeed. We can exceed Mach and KCAS limits in nearly every configuration (Mode 4 being the exception), though an OVERSPEED caution alerts us as we approach them.

What about g? We’re mostly protected, but not completely. Interestingly, the protection is least where the maneuvering limits are the lowest: in powered approach (PA) and aerial refueling (AR). The limits in those modes are 3g and 2g, respectively, and there’s nothing to keep us from exceeding them. Why not? Because, while those limits are more than adequate for normal ops, there might be times when we need to exceed them to avoid hitting something – such as the ground, or the tanker – and our CLAW engineers have wisely decided that running into things would probably be worse than busting the g limit. So they let us bust the limit.

What about high-g maneuvering, up-and-away? For symmetric maneuvers, CLAW’s got our back: As long as we’re not rolling or yawing, we can slam the stick full aft or (ugh) forward, at any speed, at any loading. CLAW will keep g within NzW limits[4].

Rolling and yawing – so-called “asymmetric maneuvering” (maneuvering using lateral stick or pedal inputs) – is another story. If we don’t pull more than 80 percent of the positive NzW limit or push to less than negative 1g, we can roll and yaw to our heart’s content. But if we push or pull more than that, we have to abide by a pilot-observed limit of 25 degree/second. (Stick your hand out in front of you and roll it through 90 degrees while counting to three potatoes. Yup, it’s slow.) I know what you’re thinking: “How do I know when I’m more than 0.8NzW?” You don’t – unless you’re good at mentally dividing the basic flight design gross weight (BFDGW) by your current gross weight and multiplying it by 0.8 times the basic g-limit for the airplane. (If you can do that, continuously, you’re probably in the wrong line of work.) And, “Why 25 deg/sec?” Because that’s the loads folks’ definition of “zero”: if you’re rolling less than 25 deg/sec, they consider that not rolling, so symmetric limits apply.

But, mostly, you’re thinking: “What’s with the pilot-observed limit? Why couldn’t the control engineers just protect us with CLAW?” The reason is that the analysis and the design work to handle every asymmetric input, under every flight condition and loading, would be prohibitive. And if they put the 25 deg/sec limit into CLAW, it would be tactically restrictive and possibly unsafe. So they picked the middle ground of telling us not to roll too much while we’re on the g-limiter.

So what happens if we make a big roll input at 0.9 NzW? First of all, the CLAW folks haven’t completely abandoned us: As g increases, the roll rate is reduced, and, if we’re commanding more than 50 deg/sec, the airplane unloads to get us back within the 0.8NzW limit. But there’s no guarantee that the unload will be quick enough to prevent an overload.

Does that mean we can break the airplane by pulling and rolling? Not really. The pilot-observed limits were decreed to make sure the airframe delivers its contractually specified life. If we exceed them, the wings won’t fall off, but we might reduce some of that life. The bottom line: If you’re on the g-limiter and want to roll, back off a little, then roll. This will not only keep you within the rules, it will give you a better roll rate in the bargain. If you can’t back off – because, say, you’re trying not to hit the ground, or trying not to get shot (and I don’t mean by your buddy during BFM) – then do what you need to do! The worst thing that will happen is that you’ll trip an OVER G advisory or an overload HRC,[5] and have to explain your heroic act to the maintenance officer when you return. Presumably, the maneuver will be worth the airframe life you expend.

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Limiters

While almost everyone appreciates limiters that prevent overstress, the consensus isn’t as strong when it comes to those that limit control, i.e. the limiters on AOA and body rates (pitch/roll/yaw) intended to keep us from departing controlled flight. We won’t settle that argument here. Like all design issues, limiter design is a tradeoff between competing requirements – in this case, between agility and departure resistance – and opinions will always differ regarding where that line should be drawn. Some pilots will argue (as some have) that we should get the limiters out of the way, or at least open them up, and leave it to the pilot to learn where the cliffs are. The counter-argument is that, assuming we’ve got the limiters in a reasonable place now, opening them up would result in more departures, some of which may cause overstress and some (if they happen at low altitude) loss of the aircraft altogether.

The F-35 is an inherently unstable airplane, required to handle a wide range of CG. Its control surfaces are sized to meet the requirements of both maneuverability and low observability. As a result, the combinations of body rates, AOAs, CGs, Machs, and weapon bay door positions that define the controllable envelope of the F-35 are extremely complex – and the boundaries of that envelope are reflected, with all that complexity, in CLAW. If the control engineers opened up the limiters and gave us, instead, “rules of thumb” to maintain control – ones that we had a fighting chance of remembering – the rules would most likely be so restrictive that we’d give up more than we gained. Could we evolve to that in the future? Sure, if we decide it’s a positive trade. As the control engineers hate to hear us say, “It’s only software.”

How Does It Do It?

In this article, we talked about what the FBW system does. But we didn’t talk about how it does it, i.e., how it figures out which effectors to move, how much to move them, and how to handle failures. It isn’t magic, but it’s close. To appreciate the historical significance and engineering brilliance of this machine – and, more importantly, to impress your friends – you’ll want to take a peek at what’s going on under the hood. The second article will address how FBW works in the F-35, and why it was designed that way.

Dan Canin is a Lockheed Martin test pilot based at the F-35 Integrated Test Force at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=187

Link to post
Share on other sites

The JSF program started in 1996, the prototype X-35 first flew in 2000, and the first F-35 flew in 2006. Teething problems should be expected, but for a 20 year old program it has a lot of problems. The F-15 first flew in 1972 and the F-16 in 1974, and within a few years were in operational service. The F-15 got its first air to air kill in 1979, just 7 years from the first flight, and the F-16 bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

Dassault Rafale :

1978 Dassault receives contracts for development of a Tactical Combat Airplane (ACT in French)

1982 France announces Dassault will build a technology demonstrator for an Experimental Combat Airplane (ACX in French)

1984 Construction of ACX demonstrator starts

1986 First flight of demonstrator (Rafale A)

1988 Contract for prototypes of the different versions, C = combat (standard), B = two-seater, M = navy

1991 First flight of Rafale C and Rafale M prototypes

1993 First flight of Rafale B prototype

1999 First flight of Rafale M production model

2000 First delivery of Rafale M

2002 IOC of Rafale M

2002 First combat deployment of Rafale M

2004 FOC of Rafale M

2004 First delivery of Rafale B

2006 FOC of Rafale B

Eurofighter Typhoon :

mid-1970s Number of studies and programs for new fighter

1981 Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA) program launched

1981 UK starts Experimental Aircraft Programme (EAP)

1984 UK, Germany, Italty establish new EFA programme following departure of France

1986 EAP first flight

1988 Contracts signed for production of demonstrator engines and airframes

1994 First flight of development aircraft

1998 Production contract for Tranche 1 signed

2002 First flight of production aircraft

2003 First delivery

2005 IOC (Italy)

Lockheed F-22:

1981 Air Force started developing requirements for Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program

1986 Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics and Northrop/McDonnell Douglas won contracts for demonstrators

1991 Lockheed team chosen as winner (start of work on production model)

1997 First flight of production model

2001 First combat-capable (Block 3.0) flight

2003 First delivery to military

2005 IOC

2007 FOC

Lockheed F-35:

early to mid-1990s Number of studies and proposals, eventually combined into JSF

1996 Contracts awarded to Lockheed and Boeing

2001 Lockheed wins contract (start of work on production model)

2006 First flight of F-35A (Air Force version, conventional take off and landing)

2008 First flight of F-35B (Marines version, STOVL)

2010 First flight of F-35C (Navy version, carrier variant)

2012 First F-35B delivery

2015 IOC F-35B

2016 IOC F-35A (planned)

2018 IOC F-35C (planned)

Super Hornet:

Ordered (without competition which saved years) 1992.

First flight in November 1995. I

Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in September 2001 with VFA-115.

First Block II delivery 2005

Block II FOC 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strafing should have some interesting round impact patterns while dodging missiles. I'm sure that part will be massaged as well.

It's going to come down to the same stuff -- A-10 have gun. A-10 tarzan. If the F-35 has a faster response time, aquires targets faster, and has faster attack that will be hand waived as unimportant. Same with actually taking on defenses.

It's going to be very fun watching them water down the criteria so that even a Tucano and UAVs could do the job. They are going to have find a perfect middle so the OV-10 can't do it, nor the F-35 on the other end.

Just my two cents, but unless you're going to conduct a contested environment scenario in the Southern California desert which focuses on both the first and fourth phase of the operation with a maneuver element then any test being done is already a foregone conclusion. You also need a red team that doesn't follow the script.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my two cents, but unless you're going to conduct a contested environment scenario in the Southern California desert which focuses on both the first and fourth phase of the operation with a maneuver element then any test being done is already a foregone conclusion. You also need a red team that doesn't follow the script.

Like Green Flag?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No

How about something like this, JFE-Vul. Airfield seizure in any environment is tough, you have to figure out where you are, where you need to go and where the bad guys are. Having trained in this scenario many times I know which aircraft I would want providing CAS, especially since it is very likely engagements in this scenario are going to be "Danger Close".

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about something like this, JFE-Vul. Airfield seizure in any environment is tough, you have to figure out where you are, where you need to go and where the bad guys are. Having trained in this scenario many times I know which aircraft I would want providing CAS, especially since it is very likely engagements in this scenario are going to be "Danger Close".

Airfield would have to be devoid of enemy aircraft, warning or basic anti aircraft defense apparently

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airfield would have to be devoid of enemy aircraft, warning or basic anti aircraft defense apparently

Not according to the Air Force

"Joint Forcible Entry Exercise is a U.S. Air Force Weapons School large-scale air mobility exercise in which participants plan and execute a complex air-land operation in a simulated contested battlefield. JFEX participants' ability to synchronize aircraft movements from geographically-separated bases, command large formations of dissimilar aircraft in high threat airspace, and tactically deliver and recover combat forces via air drops and combat landings on an unimproved landing strip."

http://www.nellis.af.mil/Home/FlyingOperations.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an American, I find it comforting to know that our forces can assault an air base with low-level daytime flying in near-parade formations with impunity, and can handle any threats with a few flares. And that our troops, when assaulting said air base, can just casually walk up to it and make it safe for C-17s to land in shortly thereafter.

Edited by Ken Cartwright
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about something like this, JFE-Vul. Airfield seizure in any environment is tough, you have to figure out where you are, where you need to go and where the bad guys are. Having trained in this scenario many times I know which aircraft I would want providing CAS, especially since it is very likely engagements in this scenario are going to be "Danger Close".

JFE would be a component. Does the operation have follow on forces establishing say an RSOI or would an extraction need to be conducted? Right there you can go either way changing the scenario. An excellent example of JFE training in real world terms would be what 2-501 just did. JFE-VUL is a test of systems and relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JFE would be a component. Does the operation have follow on forces establishing say an RSOI or would an extraction need to be conducted? Right there you can go either way changing the scenario. An excellent example of JFE training in real world terms would be what 2-501 just did. JFE-VUL is a test of systems and relationships.

That exercise doesn't have follow on forces, it is an Air Force exercise, the paratroopers are there for the Air Force training value of conducting an actual airborne operation. For the Army it is a mission command exercise. The C-17s landing are simulating arrival of follow on forces Typically a airborne JFE is to establish a foothold for additional forces.

JOAXs are the Army's big exercises for airfield seizure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Airfield would have to be devoid of enemy aircraft, warning or basic anti aircraft defense apparently

Nope!

If US forces are fighting in a high-threat environment, the A-10 isn’t really in the conversation. Commanders can send an A-10 into a high-threat battlefield, but they can only do it once

Link to post
Share on other sites

If US forces are fighting in a high-threat environment, the A-10 isn’t really in the conversation. Commanders can send an A-10 into a high-threat battlefield, but they can only do it once

Yet, C-17's, C-130's, helicopters, etc are? In forced entry operations the conversation has had just about every aircraft to include the A-10 providing armed overwatch in years past during training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That exercise doesn't have follow on forces, it is an Air Force exercise, the paratroopers are there for the Air Force training value of conducting an actual airborne operation. For the Army it is a mission command exercise. The C-17s landing are simulating arrival of follow on forces Typically a airborne JFE is to establish a foothold for additional forces.

JOAXs are the Army's big exercises for airfield seizure.

That's my point, JFE-VUL's payoff is validating systems (Mission Command Nodes) and relationships through the planning process. An airborne or air assault JFE can have two real purposes depending on the phase of the operation you're in. I mentioned the 2-501 in 1st BCT because they just conducted JFE training.

Come on brother, JOAXs are not exercises for airfield seizures!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...