F-35 Lightning info

[tac airlifter]

Non-starter, what you mentioned is what single seat fighter pilots do every day (and more when we're not talking about low threat CAS, which apparently is the only mission that exists in the AF according to BOPS.net). Mistakes are made, but significantly less than successes. Strikes do it well too, they also fuck it away (just like single seat guys). The point is, at least in the fighter world, there is not a need for a second dude, with the exception of the Strike which was specifically designed for a WSO. We've been single seat weaseling since the 90s and FAC'ing single seat since Vietnam, extremely effectively as well. It's a non-issue in the fighter world - this is not chest beating, it's simply reality. To give the F-35 a 2nd seat would be a huge mistake, waste of money; essentially no gain for a whole shitload of pain.

Managing 4+ radios, monitoring ITC, vectoring GFC, tasking multiple sensors and de conflicting multiple stacked aircraft in the ROZ is what single seat fighters do every day? I don't ask that sacarstically, I'm honestly curious. Because when I work with fighters they are holding CAS high at E10 until needed, then they come inbound hooked to a SPI or LST. Maybe they're on SAT, but mostly one LOS along with interplane. Again, I'm not throwing spears; I work in a very specific niche and there's lots we don't ever see. So if you guys have been "extremely effectively" acting as TAC-A, FAC-A, sensor warden, etc. I just haven't seen it. Except a handful of times with an A10.... No other fighter.

[xcraftllc]

Good stuff, I

Enough with that. Not much of a demo but here's the B making noise and defying gravity at Miramar.

Good stuff, it's been a decade and a half but it's good to finally see some of these things actually strutting their stuff at airshows showing the taxpayers that their money is actually buying a real thing. You can make whatever criticisms you want about the program as a whole, but at the end of the day, it's pretty impressive to see what those B models can do. Tactics and practicality aside, that is a real-deal stealthy 5th gen fighter that can go from a hover to supersonic speeds and back.

[Clark Griswold]

Good stuff, it's been a decade and a half but it's good to finally see some of these things actually strutting their stuff at airshows showing the taxpayers that their money is actually buying a real thing. You can make whatever criticisms you want about the program as a whole, but at the end of the day, it's pretty impressive to see what those B models can do. Tactics and practicality aside, that is a real-deal stealthy 5th gen fighter that can go from a hover to supersonic speeds and back.

It is impressive, I respect the USMC but I wish they could have as a service admitted that VSTOL / STOVL is just not a practical or operationally necessary capability when they could have argued for small deck carriers for fixed wing fighters. The history of this program would have been quite different. Water under the bridge though.

Edit: minor changes

Edited May 18, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[BFM this]

It is impressive, I respect the USMC but I wish they could have as a service admitted that VSTOL / STOVL is just not a practical or operationally necessary capability

And in doing so, they would have negotiated away Marine Air. It's the only reason that there are any Marine fixed wing--they demand a niche that no one else will touch.

[Lawman]

It is impressive, I respect the USMC but I wish they could have as a service admitted that VSTOL / STOVL is just not a practical or operationally necessary capability when they could have argued for small deck carriers for fixed wing fighters. The history of this program would have been quite different. Water under the bridge though.

Edit: minor changes

Many of the same arguments on expeditionary and austere airfields are what is being made for the A-10. The fact if the matter is doctrinally the Marines must have a fixed wing CAS plane dedicated to them due to their lack of Armor/Arty much the same as the Army brigade needs it's own organic rotary wing because it cannot rely on favorable apportionment to accomplish it's day to day mission.

What should have happened is the 4.5 Gen Harrier replacement program shouldn't have been shoehorned into the ATX/JAST programs to replace Viper and Hornet. Then you wouldn't have near the headaches from either services needs.

[sqwatch]

Don't doubt it is easy to fly but when there's 6 aircraft in the wheel, 4+ radios to manage, sensor re-tasking, a GFC, and an ITC to listen to and updates to be passed, sometimes load shedding occurs. Having a second aviator when it gets really busy works.

Maybe I haven't been let into the super secret CAS club but when I fly CAS, I talk on two radios. I guess I've been blessed with the uncanny ability to manage a two position rocker switch- up for wingman, down for jtac. I don't always load shed but when I do, it's on top of bqzip's mom.

[icohftb]

Maybe I haven't been let into the super secret CAS club but when I fly CAS, I talk on two radios. I guess I've been blessed with the uncanny ability to manage a two position rocker switch- up for wingman, down for jtac. I don't always load shed but when I do, it's on top of bqzip's mom.

He's confusing CAS with manned ISR.

[xcraftllc]

Any good CAS pilot performs ISR while he's at it...

[icohftb]

I am specifically referring to Clark Griswald's post about "CAS." Staring at a building for 4 hours straight or scanning a road while reading a book doesn't exactly call for a $100-200M aircraft and calling it CAS dilutes the meaning of CAS to something that is so vague as to be meaningless. As for the aforementioned tasks there are specifically designed manned and unmanned aircraft that are much more cost efficient/effective at that role and can operate in that implied uncontested environment. So no, no need for 2-seat F-35s.

Getting more off topic... as I recall ITCs have nothing to do with terminal control. Heck they typically had no idea what the GFC was doing in the first place. Have things changed?

[Clark Griswold]

And in doing so, they would have negotiated away Marine Air. It's the only reason that there are any Marine fixed wing--they demand a niche that no one else will touch.

Many of the same arguments on expeditionary and austere airfields are what is being made for the A-10. The fact if the matter is doctrinally the Marines must have a fixed wing CAS plane dedicated to them due to their lack of Armor/Arty much the same as the Army brigade needs it's own organic rotary wing because it cannot rely on favorable apportionment to accomplish it's day to day mission.

What should have happened is the 4.5 Gen Harrier replacement program shouldn't have been shoehorned into the ATX/JAST programs to replace Viper and Hornet. Then you wouldn't have near the headaches from either services needs.

I don't doubt it, same point was made in acquisition of the Osprey and if I were a Marine I would do the same thing to keep my own organic air assets.

Maybe I haven't been let into the super secret CAS club but when I fly CAS, I talk on two radios. I guess I've been blessed with the uncanny ability to manage a two position rocker switch- up for wingman, down for jtac. I don't always load shed but when I do, it's on top of bqzip's mom.

Copy - don't doubt you or other fighter guys can walk and chew gum at the same time. I've seen y'all manage the admin and the mission very well but I have also seen it get FUBAR. My point is a few two seat models might be a good idea but the community doesn't want it so therefore, it ain't gonna happen.

He's confusing CAS with manned ISR.

I am specifically referring to Clark Griswald's post about "CAS." Staring at a building for 4 hours straight or scanning a road while reading a book doesn't exactly call for a $100-200M aircraft and calling it CAS dilutes the meaning of CAS to something that is so vague as to be meaningless. As for the aforementioned tasks there are specifically designed manned and unmanned aircraft that are much more cost efficient/effective at that role and can operate in that implied uncontested environment. So no, no need for 2-seat F-35s.

Getting more off topic... as I recall ITCs have nothing to do with terminal control. Heck they typically had no idea what the GFC was doing in the first place. Have things changed?

Not confusing manned ISR and CAS and I agree with you about $100 million + LO two seat jet being overkill to thump a few jihadis

My idea is that in the battlespaces (awesome buzzword) we fight in today, the targets are not necessarily easy to find even with CoT data, the CDE and Frat concerns are very high, the mission is very dynamic and targets fleeting, a second aviator can keep the chaos at bay to make the right call. Just my two cents with 0.0 fighter hours but more than a few hours over the AORs in several platforms.

[brabus]

Managing 4+ radios, monitoring ITC, vectoring GFC, tasking multiple sensors and de conflicting multiple stacked aircraft in the ROZ is what single seat fighters do every day? I don't ask that sacarstically, I'm honestly curious. Because when I work with fighters they are holding CAS high at E10 until needed, then they come inbound hooked to a SPI or LST. Maybe they're on SAT, but mostly one LOS along with interplane. Again, I'm not throwing spears; I work in a very specific niche and there's lots we don't ever see. So if you guys have been "extremely effectively" acting as TAC-A, FAC-A, sensor warden, etc. I just haven't seen it. Except a handful of times with an A10.... No other fighter.

Let me start by saying this, in no way is my statement saying we can do everyone's job or are a valid replacement for certain aircraft with a crew doing X, Y, and Z; hope it was not taken that way. I also have zero doubt you have not seen such a thing happen. But that reason is not for a lack of capability, but a byproduct of how COIN CAS is conducted currently. Other than the 4 radio part, what you describe is a relatively benign scenario for a single seat FAC(A). When we end up fighting MCO CAS in the future on Day 15 of the war, there won't be fighters at E10, "sensor warden" won't exist, and the show will be far more advanced, complicated and difficult than the current fight - single seat FAC(A)s will do just fine running that AO because that's what has already been happening since the 60s and what we still do today in training...without a dude in the back. Remember, not a pissing contest between different assets, just making a point that more people is not always required or desired.

[Majestik Møøse]

Two-seater CAS has been tried before and failed miserably. Even a Jedi Knight couldn't make it work.

[tac airlifter]

Let me start by saying this, in no way is my statement saying we can do everyone's job or are a valid replacement for certain aircraft with a crew doing X, Y, and Z; hope it was not taken that way. I also have zero doubt you have not seen such a thing happen. But that reason is not for a lack of capability, but a byproduct of how COIN CAS is conducted currently. Other than the 4 radio part, what you describe is a relatively benign scenario for a single seat FAC(A)..........Remember, not a pissing contest between different assets, just making a point that more people is not always required or desired.

All good man, admittedly I only know my niche and am wholly ignorant of the CAF outside where our lanes touch.

Not sure we're thinking of the same thing though; there's more happening in the joint world than COIN CAS or LTA strikes; and those other missions would be straight up impossible with single seat. We'll leave it alone; suffice to say I concur that more isn't better WRT crew but I think you're glossing over complexities.

[Alpharatz]

The F-35 is going to need a backseater to be Mission Commander and manage those multiple drones you all are going to be launching "quite aways" from the battlespace.

.........Enemy Seriously Counseled in Action.........

[Clark Griswold]

The F-35 is going to need a backseater to be Mission Commander and manage those multiple drones you all are going to be launching "quite aways" from the battlespace.

Not resurrecting the two seat discussion but F-35 and drones are in the news...

Air Force’s New Unmanned Strategy Has F-35 Pilots Flying Drones

[FUEL]

The F-35 is going to need a backseater to be Mission Commander and manage those multiple drones you all are going to be launching "quite aways" from the battlespace.

I'm all for F-22 and F-35 having a fleet of bomb and missile trucking drones. It makes their LO price tag driving small payloads actually worth it. I think that is the dream, though i haven't read this "Autonomous Horizons" yet, but I don't think it will be or has been the first reality. A less than A2/AD but more than uncontested environment forming a more SCAR type mission set is the most likely reality. One where RPAs have been operating, know AO, know the targets, have the loiter time, and most importantly have the intel reach back for real time target coordination to be the best SCAR or OSC in some PR/CSAR situations. However, in my niche humble opinion, the slow integration of taking the RPA world seriously at Red Flag/ME etc results in a huge lack of trust. This is not without warrant; due to the incredible ops tempo, the ability to train the RPA world to proficient levels in these mission sets is nearly impossible. Instead, it relies on the little experience that has been properly trained in FAC(A)/SCAR or has prior experience as an Air Warden/Sensor Warden in complicated stack(s) with lots of radios, sensor feeds, intel gathering, and rapid weapons employment deconfliction coupled with tight CDE tolerances. As you can imagine, this population is small and growing smaller with the 11F shortage.

He's confusing CAS with manned ISR.

"COIN CAS" or SCAR with HVIs and kill chains needed in minutes not hours is all predicated on the ISR leading up to it. Can we really expect them to stay separated? And even if an F-35 pilot could control a fleet of drones and sensors, by him/herself, the vul time doesn't exist for developing targets that aren't preplanned. There isn't enough manned ISR to accomplish this task, so it will and has fallen on unmanned ISR.

edit: speling is hard

Edited May 21, 2015 by FUEL

[xcraftllc]

Not resurrecting the two seat discussion but F-35 and drones are in the news...

Air Force’s New Unmanned Strategy Has F-35 Pilots Flying Drones

Interesting. They've been doing this experimentally with Apaches for a while. I've only flown models with the ability to pick up video feed and location data of unmanned and manned assets, but there are tests featuring the ability to actually operate the UAVs. The feedback I've heard is that it's nice to be able to tell the UAV what to do, but not really "fly" it per se. "Flying" it doesn't really add any advantage, but being able to punch in a grid and order the uav to go orbit over that area and transmit a video feed etc., is nice.

[Clark Griswold]

Interesting. They've been doing this experimentally with Apaches for a while. I've only flown models with the ability to pick up video feed and location data of unmanned and manned asIets, but there are tests featuring the ability to actually operate the UAVs. The feedback I've heard is that it's nice to be able to tell the UAV what to do, but not really "fly" it per se. "Flying" it doesn't really add any advantage, but being able to punch in a grid and order the uav to go orbit over that area and transmit a video feed etc., is nice.

Yeah - automating more of the flight and boiling it down to mostly mission oriented commands has got to be how this is envisioned. I think I've seen some promotional videos for the new P-8 that have this concept also.

If it is not an OPSEC or classified, do the UAVs keep link with a ground element also or are totally under the C2 of the Apache?

Edit: grammar fix

Edited May 22, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[Lawman]

Yeah - automating more of the flight and boiling it down to mostly mission oriented commands has got to be how this is envisioned. I think I've seen some promotional videos for the new P-8 that have this concept also.

If it is not an OPSEC or classified, do the UAVs keep link with a ground element also or are totally under the C2 of the Apache?

Edit: grammar fix

It's a niche of usefulness that's slowly growing out of control.

Here is the problem. To be a useful gunner my front seater needs to be using the sensor on the aircraft and communicating the picture he sees to the Lead aircraft. If I'm lead and AMC I need my tads, plus my wing on TADS and I'm talking to the ground force as well (who is pulling our feeds). If I want to use a UAV I can only see one or the other, I can't do both UAV and TADS. So I'm basically trying to figure out which eye I want to look through I'm not so much building more SA as changing perspective. Boeing wen through the trouble of showing this one particularly perfect usage where you can mass fires in this 1/100000 scenario but that's all it was, something for somebody cashing checks to metaphorically jerk off too.

As far as flying it, yeah low threat no problem just send it somewhere and I can look back there when needed but it's a sensor on call for me. It has preprogrammed waypoints and patterns so I can make it do certain stuff. But the ground station stays in the loop so really they can do the same thing and just tell me and I can grab there picture when I want it. High threat... We aren't sending UAVs (and hopefully not helos either) as we will get them shot down with the training level and systems we have at hand.

[Alpharatz]

Actually, the whole idea sort of frumps me out. But that's progress I guess. What this brave new world is going to do to morale I can only speculate. Meanwhile

..................................Don't bother me. I'm wandering across an approach corridor comm out.................

..................You know, that reminds me of nearly hitting a glider on approach to March field one fine smoggy evening........

....The second funniest, goofiest story I was ever involved in. Probably still be in lock-up if a full col ......

......hadn't been in the left seat......sorry, back to the F-35....................

[xcraftllc]

If it is not an OPSEC or classified, do the UAVs keep link with a ground element also or are totally under the C2 of the Apache?

Frankly I'm not sure cuz no one mentioned it, but I'd imagine that there was and will always be some ground station that can still take control of it at any point.

It might be a bit of a stretch but I wonder if the AF is big on this semi-autonomous thing cuz they're worried about finding enough willing operators to control a ton of drones in the future, given the difficulty they're already having with the current workload.

....training level and systems we have at hand.

That's the end issue, we can envision all this great stuff but still need to find the time and money for training, and with the budget now adays, it's hard to imagine something like this happening any time soon.

[Tulsa]

So its something like the drones from the old Gradius video game. That's cool, I was pretty good at the game if I don't say so myself.

[Clark Griswold]

It's a niche of usefulness that's slowly growing out of control.

Here is the problem. To be a useful gunner my front seater needs to be using the sensor on the aircraft and communicating the picture he sees to the Lead aircraft. If I'm lead and AMC I need my tads, plus my wing on TADS and I'm talking to the ground force as well (who is pulling our feeds). If I want to use a UAV I can only see one or the other, I can't do both UAV and TADS. So I'm basically trying to figure out which eye I want to look through I'm not so much building more SA as changing perspective. Boeing wen through the trouble of showing this one particularly perfect usage where you can mass fires in this 1/100000 scenario but that's all it was, something for somebody cashing checks to metaphorically jerk off too.

As far as flying it, yeah low threat no problem just send it somewhere and I can look back there when needed but it's a sensor on call for me. It has preprogrammed waypoints and patterns so I can make it do certain stuff. But the ground station stays in the loop so really they can do the same thing and just tell me and I can grab there picture when I want it. High threat... We aren't sending UAVs (and hopefully not helos either) as we will get them shot down with the training level and systems we have at hand.

Copy dat - seems like overkill except for air assets like P-8 or a JSTARS that may need an additional asset but can't break station and spare the attention to it and its sensor feed.

Frankly I'm not sure cuz no one mentioned it, but I'd imagine that there was and will always be some ground station that can still take control of it at any point.

It might be a bit of a stretch but I wonder if the AF is big on this semi-autonomous thing cuz they're worried about finding enough willing operators to control a ton of drones in the future, given the difficulty they're already having with the current workload.

That's the end issue, we can envision all this great stuff but still need to find the time and money for training, and with the budget now adays, it's hard to imagine something like this happening any time soon.

No worries, just curious about it. Not sure about the current opinion of the AF on the UAV and semi-autonomous concept but I would imagine beyond self-protection of the asset itself probably not.

[Clark Griswold]

Long article in two parts, worth the read...

Part 1

https://warontherocks.com/2015/05/the-a-10-the-f-35-and-the-future-of-close-air-support-part-i/?singlepage=1

Part 2

https://warontherocks.com/2015/05/the-a-10-the-f-35-and-the-future-of-close-air-support-part-ii/?singlepage=1

[xcraftllc]

Can't stand the robotic narrative but some guy made these "myth busting" videos that have some good points: