F-35 Lightning info

[pawnman]

On 5/5/2019 at 9:45 AM, Clark Griswold said:

Could be the beginning of the end of Turkey in NATO but I think that is a small possibility...  

The thing pushing this to even get close to happening is Russia's need for a partner to help cover development costs and lower per tail acquisition.  

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-su-57-fighter-might-be-media-rockstar-it-has-big-problem-52602

 

We won't let Turkey leave NATO as long as we have nuclear assets there.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

We won't let Turkey leave NATO as long as we have nuclear assets there.

Probably so then remove those assets and get tough with Erdogan 

 

[SurelySerious]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

We won't let Turkey leave NATO as long as we have nuclear assets there.

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Probably so then remove those assets

 

Seemed like the logical condition that precedes Turkey leaving NATO. 

[waveshaper]

7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Probably so then remove those assets and get tough with Erdogan 

 

Or replace/swap-out those "fictitious:<)" assets?

IMHO, when it comes to B-XX mod 3/4 (12?) assets, that are covered under the US (NATO) Nuke Sharing Arrangements - Turkey currently rates no higher then a stash of BDU-38's (A.K.A B-61 Reusable - Practice Bomb's).

Edited May 12, 2019 by waveshaper

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Probably so then remove those assets and get tough with Erdogan 

 

Seems like removing nukes from the area is counter to our current goal of challenging Russia in the region.

[Clark Griswold]

9 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Seems like removing nukes from the area is counter to our current goal of challenging Russia in the region.

Potentially but we have to push back against the slow moving Islamo-fascism of Erdogan and the "Freedom & Justice Party" in Turkey slowing erasing Ataturk's Turkey - secular, mostly tolerant and a reasonable actor in the region, situation with Kurds considered separately.

Demonstrating to Turkey by withdrawal of support and inclusion in the institutions of the international West (NATO, EU, etc...) is the only tactic IMHO that will change / dissuade non-democratic, rule of law, minority rights respecting, threatening behavior.  

I think we should press-to-test and see if Erdogan really wants to change the strategic alignment of Turkey to Russian & Iran, my two cents is that he would blink first.

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Seems like removing nukes from the area is counter to our current goal of challenging Russia in the region.

Seems like you’re having a lot of trouble thinking of other ways you could continue to challenge Russia without allowing Turkey to continue on this path. Surely ACSC has developed your critical/creative thinking skills beyond, “but this is how it is.”

[pawnman]

48 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Seems like you’re having a lot of trouble thinking of other ways you could continue to challenge Russia without allowing Turkey to continue on this path. Surely ACSC has developed your critical/creative thinking skills beyond, “but this is how it is.”

I'm sure there are, but I don't exactly see either countries in the region clamoring to have nuclear weapons they don't own trucked inside their borders.

[jice]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Potentially but we have to push back against the slow moving Islamo-fascism of Erdogan and the "Freedom & Justice Party" in Turkey slowing erasing Ataturk's Turkey - secular, mostly tolerant and a reasonable actor in the region, situation with Kurds considered separately.

Demonstrating to Turkey by withdrawal of support and inclusion in the institutions of the international West (NATO, EU, etc...) is the only tactic IMHO that will change / dissuade non-democratic, rule of law, minority rights respecting, threatening behavior.  

I think we should press-to-test and see if Erdogan really wants to change the strategic alignment of Turkey to Russian & Iran, my two cents is that he would blink first.

Seems like Erdogan’s prudent play in a withdrawal of support scenario would be exactly the alignment with Russia (& Iran?) and/or a “Turkey First” approach that includes genocide in the south and a domestic nuclear program. 

To quote Willy Wonka: “what happened to the man who got everything he ever wanted?” Dead Kurds and a war on Cyprus with a side of nuclear proliferation.

[MooseAg03]

If we sell them the F-35, they’re going to give as many secrets away to Russia as they can. Then we just invalidated a $1 trillion defense program. Am I the only one that sees this happening? The 30 pound brains running our foreign policy and military sales have to see that coming. Turkey is not our friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, jice said:

Seems like Erdogan’s prudent play in a withdrawal of support scenario would be exactly the alignment with Russia (& Iran?) and/or a “Turkey First” approach that includes genocide in the south and a domestic nuclear program. 

To quote Willy Wonka: “what happened to the man who got everything he ever wanted?” Dead Kurds and a war on Cyprus with a side of nuclear proliferation.

Maybe but if you don't stand up to Biff you'll do his homework for the rest of your life.  

An alliance with the Turkey he is making is not worth it, Turkey of today is not the Turkey of yesteryear.  As Turkey is expelled from the institutions and looses access to Western markets/finance, it will decline economically and hopefully that would greatly lessen or change the course of Turkey back to secular stable republican democracy.  

[jice]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Maybe but if you don't stand up to Biff you'll do his homework for the rest of your life.  

An alliance with the Turkey he is making is not worth it, Turkey of today is not the Turkey of yesteryear.  As Turkey is expelled from the institutions and looses access to Western markets/finance, it will decline economically and hopefully that would greatly lessen or change the course of Turkey back to secular stable republican democracy.  

Managing a relationship with a difficult ally isn’t doing their homework; it’s doing the hard work of diplomacy. 

An approach that includes exclusion to punish would have to be gradual and the intent explicit. Applying pressure using the F-35 program is a great place to start, but a path to improved relations and should be spelled out and actively broadcast to the Turkish people (with or without the participation of their government). Don’t forget that Erdogan’s rise is the result of a not unpopular movement looking to course correct from the reforms of Ataturk.  IMO: Drastic action that results in a sudden loss of economic and physical security cedes to Erdogan control of the internal messaging and is likely to look more like a rise in anti-American sentiment, autocracy, and wheelbarrows of money than a trend towards stability.

[Lawman]

Managing a relationship with a difficult ally isn’t doing their homework; it’s doing the hard work of diplomacy. 
An approach that includes exclusion to punish would have to be gradual and the intent explicit. Applying pressure using the F-35 program is a great place to start, but a path to improved relations and should be spelled out and actively broadcast to the Turkish people (with or without the participation of their government). Don’t forget that Erdogan’s rise is the result of a not unpopular movement looking to course correct from the reforms of Ataturk.  IMO: Drastic action that results in a sudden loss of economic and physical security cedes to Erdogan control of the internal messaging and is likely to look more like a rise in anti-American sentiment, autocracy, and wheelbarrows of money than a trend towards stability.

Agreed.

Erdogen doesn’t get to explain “why we broke up” to anybody but his people, but those people will buy his reasoning with far more trust than they will the reasons as broadcast by outside western media. They will simply see the “oppressive sanctions” and other negative motivations as reinforcement that Erdogens message is correct. The US is trying to bully them into acting the way we see fit.

To the Nationalist/religiously conservative crowds that support him, that will be red meat to rally against us and push further power and influence toward the crazies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

On 5/13/2019 at 8:45 AM, jice said:

Managing a relationship with a difficult ally isn’t doing their homework; it’s doing the hard work of diplomacy. 

An approach that includes exclusion to punish would have to be gradual and the intent explicit. Applying pressure using the F-35 program is a great place to start, but a path to improved relations and should be spelled out and actively broadcast to the Turkish people (with or without the participation of their government). Don’t forget that Erdogan’s rise is the result of a not unpopular movement looking to course correct from the reforms of Ataturk.  IMO: Drastic action that results in a sudden loss of economic and physical security cedes to Erdogan control of the internal messaging and is likely to look more like a rise in anti-American sentiment, autocracy, and wheelbarrows of money than a trend towards stability.

Agree that if exclusion is a possibility it would be a gradual tactic and not applied immediately & unexpectedly; I hear your point on managing a relationship with a difficult, changing ally and that is a good point on ceding the ground to him (Erdogan) with his domestic political efforts that we (the USA) object to.

[Clark Griswold]

Could be a very interesting summer for the F-35 program:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28421/heres-the-pentagons-roadmap-for-booting-turkey-out-of-the-f-35-program

Also two other good F-35 related articles:

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15ex-and-f-35a-the-future-of-american-air-superiority/

https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15ex-the-strategic-blind-spot-in-the-air-forces-fighter-debate/

Article by Orgeron (F15EX and F35A Future) was interesting in the COAs he provided, particularly exchanging F15Cs for F35As (Option 3).

He doesn't seem to really think it is a great option but offers as COA, got me thinking could you optimize an F35A for air to air? 

Not thinking something that would break the bank (further) but anything that could reasonably done without basically building a totally new variant of the F35?

Updated/modified weapons bays to get 2 more internally carried AAMs, conformal LO weapons pod that doen't interfere with existing bay doors, slightly modified airframe for more fuel or drag reduction, etc...

With enough money, almost anything is possible but as there has been reservation expressed on buying a new 4th gen build and re-starting the 22 is a no-go, can you modify the 5th in production now for an optimized air to air mission?

Edited June 8, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[isuguy1234]

U talkin more than the 6?  

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/lockheed-says-it-can-fit-2-more-missiles-in-f-35-bay/

[SurelySerious]

48 minutes ago, isuguy1234 said:

U talkin more than the 6?  

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/lockheed-says-it-can-fit-2-more-missiles-in-f-35-bay/

If you’re trying to replace F-15s with F-35, then I would think so. 

[VMFA187]

I hope we're able to significantly ramp up 120 production at a moment's notice. 

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, isuguy1234 said:

U talkin more than the 6?  

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/lockheed-says-it-can-fit-2-more-missiles-in-f-35-bay/

Yup.  At least 8 if possible. 

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

He doesn't seem to really think it is a great option but offers as COA, got me thinking could you optimize an F35A for air to air? 

I think his point is more geared towards putting F-15 squadrons in a 3 year conversion status (e.g. not deployable/useful to COCOMs) rather than a capability gap. The F-35 is very capable at AA - the comparative weapon state limfac is one that is being worked.  With 9x and the new racks, you get 6x2...so same state as the eagle currently and could be done very soon. Also remember, the 120/9x combo isn’t going to be the only option forever.

Edited June 9, 2019 by brabus

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

I think his point is more geared towards putting F-15 squadrons in a 3 year conversion status (e.g. not deployable/useful to COCOMs) rather than a capability gap. The F-35 is very capable at AA - the comparative weapon state limfac is one that is being worked.  With 9x and the new racks, you get 6x2...so same state as the eagle currently and could be done very soon. Also remember, the 120/9x combo isn’t going to be the only option forever.

Gotcha - legitimate concern.

Option 4 (Mixed replacement with 15C divestment) seems the best overall COA. 

More operational iron available for a contingency immediately and over the course of replacement/divestment while getting a mission relevant platform with a unique capability to enhance the fight the 5th gens bring.

[Majestik Møøse]

Serious question: What office is responsible for figuring out what the future looks like and what to buy? SAF/AQ?

[gimmeaplane]

21 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Serious question: What office is responsible for figuring out what the future looks like and what to buy? SAF/AQ?

It’s complicated.  AQ and RCO manage program elements (pots of money), executed by a center (or RCO), to requirements from the MAJCOMs, all backed by studies from whoever supports your PFA (RAND, Red Team, etc).  J8 is a significant gatekeeper and BS filter.

Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan is recommended reading.  People who worked that were top notch.  The ECCT concept seems to have legs.

[NUKE]

Spatial D

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48578178

[TreeA10]

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2019/06/12/when-us-navy-and-marine-f-35-pilots-most-need-performance-the-aircraft-becomes-erratic/

defensenews.com

 

When US Navy and Marine F-35 pilots most need performance, the aircraft becomes erratic

David Larter

6-7 minutes

---

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s and Marine Corps’ F-35s become unpredictable to handle when executing the kind of extreme maneuvers a pilot would use in a dogfight or while avoiding a missile, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.

Specifically, the Marine short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant and the Navy’s carrier-launched version become difficult to control when the aircraft is operating above a 20-degree angle of attack, which is the angle created by the oncoming air and the leading edge of the wing.

Pilots reported the aircraft experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch, as well as erratic yaw and rolling motions. The documents identify the issue as a category 1 deficiency and define it as something that limits the aircraft’s performance in such a way that it can’t accomplish its “primary or alternate mission(s).” In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency.

A Lockheed Martin executive told Defense News in a statement that he expects the issue to be resolved or downgraded soon as a result of software fixes.

“We’ve implemented an update to the flight control system that is planned for integration in the third quarter of this year — and we expect this item to be resolved or downgraded,” said Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin vice president and general manager of the company’s F-35 program.

The Pentagon’s F-35 program office did not respond to written questions from Defense News by press time, despite repeated follow-ups over a period of months.

In a deficiency report from the fleet, aviators said the issue "will cause modal confusion, prevent precise lift vector control, and prevent repeatable air-to-air combat techniques, resulting in mid-air collisions during training, controlled flight into terrain, and aircraft loss during combat engagements with adversary aircraft and missiles," according to the documents.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Enter a valid email address

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

“Fleet pilots agreed it is very difficult to max perform the aircraft” in those circumstances, the document notes.

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps as well as the United Kingdom have noted the deficiency as a leading priority.

The fleet will, in the near term, mitigate the issue by enforcing minimum separation rules between aircraft in flight, the documents said.

‘That ain’t working’

A retired Navy fighter pilot who reviewed the documents for Defense News said the ability to maneuver the aircraft above a 20-degree angle of attack is important if the aircraft needs to quickly maneuver to avoid a missile or during aerial combat with another aircraft.

“You’re telling me that the latest, greatest, $100 million aircraft can’t perform?” the aviator said.

The issue, if left unresolved, would dovetail in the worst way when combined with another issue reported by Defense News: At extremely high altitudes, the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time without risking structural damage and loss of its stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.

“It has random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above [its] 20-[degree angle of attack]," the aviator said. "[So] if I had to perform the aircraft — if I had to maneuver to defeat a missile, maneuver to fight another aircraft, the plane could have issues moving. And if I turn around aggressively and get away from these guys and use the afterburner, [the horizontal tail and tail boom] start to melt or have issues.”

The issue with control above 20-degrees AOA gets to one of the main debates about the aircraft: What if it needed to get into a dogfight? The F-35 is supposed to detect and kill its prey at range with missiles — either its own or from another platform in the network. But history has taught naval aviation that ignoring the possibility of close combat with another aircraft can prove deadly.

“This was not designed as a [traditional] fighter,” said Jerry Hendrix, a retired naval flight officer and analyst with Telemus Group. “This was meant to fight at distance with missiles. If you got in close, if you had to go to guns, that ain’t working.”

In a statement addressing a broad range of issues reported exclusively by Defense News, Ulmer, the Lockheed executive, defended the performance of the jet.

“The F-35s today are meeting or exceeding performance specifications and delivering unprecedented capability and safety compared to legacy fighter aircraft. These issues are important to address, and each is well understood, resolved or on a path to resolution," Ulmer said. “We’ve worked collaboratively with our customers and we are fully confident in the F-35’s performance and the solutions in place to address each of the items identified.”

An active-duty naval aviator who reviewed the documents for Defense News said the issues are reflective of an aircraft that packed in a lot of new technology, adding that, historically, all new jets have had problems.

“That document looks like growing pains for an aircraft that we tried to do a whole lot to all at once,” the aviator said. “You’re going to see that if you dig back at what Super Hornets looked like for the first few years. Go back in the archives and look at Tomcat — think about that with the variable sweep-wing geometry, the AWG-9 Radar.

"There was a lot of new technology incorporated into the aircraft, and there are always going to be growing pains.”

Valerie Insinna in Washington contributed to this report.