Posted on 05/20/2013 11:05:25 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Exclusive: U.S. Air Force to move forward target date for F-35 use
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built (LMT.N: Quote) F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.
The Air Force's decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said a final decision had not been made and declined to comment further. A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office declined to comment.
The decision reflects the military's desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed's sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane.
"This decision gets that (U.S.) fifth-generation capability out on the front lines that much sooner," said one of the sources familiar with the Air Force's plans. "It also sends a message about confidence in the program to Congress and the international partners."
Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said accelerating operational use of the new warplane would allow the Air Force to learn more about the F-35's integrated battle management system.
"This is not just about replacing aging F-15's or F-16's; it is about changing the order of battle and truly embracing a integrated form of warfare where the F-35 manages the targeting and directs supporting fire at the same time as providing more precise aim points," Wynne told Reuters in an email.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.reuters.com ...
Interesting.
I would have guessed that the Marine Corps VTOL would have been the last F-35 to deploy.
Seems like the engineering would be much more tricky and require much longer testing.
STOVL
FIRST OPERATIONAL F-35 SQUADRON HONORED IN HISTORIC CEREMONY
A lot of the tricky bits of that were started a LONG time ago. I actually did some tiny part of it as an intern thirteen years ago. The stuff they are finishing up now is the software for all versions and let me tell you (and anyone who cares) that that is some complicated stuff. That plane has MILLIONS of lines of code. And they all have to be checked, reviewed and thoroughly tested then tested again in more and more integrated fashion. I have been doing avionics my whole career and that thing is orders of magnitude more complicated than anything I have worked on. I have heard it has 4 or more times as much software code in it than the F-22... and the F-22’s software was late.
The F22 is a much better aircraft. I have my doubts about the combat abilities of the various F35s.
Lockheed-Martin has an outstanding “F-35 STOVL” video on You Tube.
It's narrated by their chief test pilot:
It's produced by Lockheed-Martin and narrated by their chief test pilot.
It compares many of the early deficiencies of the Harrier to the vast improvements in the F-35.
For instance, the F-35 can hover indefinitely with absolutely no pilot in-put.
Link:
‘Better’ is relative since they are intended for different missions.
Thanks for the link! That is impressive. My sister use to fly Harriers and said they are a handful.
For the Marine Corps it is not a comparison between the F-35 and the F-22. They don’t have F-22s and an F-22 would not fit on one of their ships. It is a comparison between the F-35 and the AV-8B. In that comparison the F-35 comes out looking like a very deadly little upgrade.
The F-22 is a better aircraft when it comes to air-dominance as well as some missions that require deep penetration of an enemy IADS to take out key radar installations for example (a F-22 with SDBs for instance, although that is a task that can be handled with cruise missiles). No arguments there. However, the F-35 is not the dog some make it to be. It has had a lot of real issues, and those issues do not seem to be going away anytime soon. I've always said that somewhere PukinDog, an old-time FReeper who was quite outspoken against the F-35 (and unlike many FReepers who rely on drive-by posts, he did so with a lot of logic and facts to back his assertion), is smiling since almost everything he said would happen has come to pass.
The F-35 has real issues, but I personally don't have any doubts about its combat abilities.
The F-35 has the most sophisticated avionics/combat suite of any aircraft, and once the bugs are ironed will be something to marvel at. Even in close-quarters combat in the WVR regime the F-35 will still be extremely formidable due to its distributed aperture system, where the pilot can basically look through the aircraft using his helmet and the distributed cameras/sensors and launch an off-bore missile from any angle.
Are there certain aspects of the aircraft that are less than those found in other aircraft? Well, yes. There are. Some of them, such as agility, speed, combat persistence, altitude etc are less than those of other aircraft, including a couple of 4.5 gen aircraft. However this is not the issue it is made out to be ...at least when it comes to the United States of America. The US always operates using a doctrine that is multi-layered. You will never see a case of, say, F-35s vs PakFas, or a single F-35 vs a single J-20, or 5 F-35s vs 5 SU-35s. Never. It will always be force versus force, with various multipliers and assets working together. One has to account for multiple cruise missile attacks at the beginning of the conflict, loss of situational awareness, and other assets ranging from cyber attack to F-22s. The F-35 in the hands of the US will be a superlative weapon, and will perform well. Additionally, looking at the types of countries that US has engaged in the last several decades (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Panama, Grenada, Libya) even an upgraded F-4 Phantom would more than suffice.
Where the F-35 becomes more of an issue is for some of our allies, who will not possess the level of depth of force the US has, and who are closer to countries with REAL combat capability. A good example here is Australia, which, if everything goes according to plan, will have the F-35 as its only aerial combat jet platform (depending on whether they keep the Super Hornets they had to get as a stopgap measure due to delays in the F-35). Australia is also within 'interest-range' of China, which has real capabilities, is developing evolved situational awareness, has a proper integrated defense network that encompasses aerial, cyber, naval and space assets, and, to put it simply, is not an Iraq or a Somalia.
However, even in such a case one would not expect Australia (or a Japan) to be operating by itself. It would be under the aegis of the United States, and thus, again, the F-35 will be quite okay.
Thus, looking at it as a systems-wide approach rather than aerial jousting between two jets, the F-35's combat ability is quite okay. It is near-perfect considering a US based scenario, it is quite alright when used by a foreign country that is being supported by the US, and only becomes a problem in a situation where a foreign country is facing off against a country like China (or Russia) without having US support.
Thanks for your interesting and insightful post, I will research this topic a little more. thanks again.
Great post.
It is interesting to look at generational differences and realize you don’t get linear improvement in every category. Some many third generation fights were faster than most 4th generation.
There is something else the F-35 has that nothing else does. A clear path to being a platform for directed energy weapons.
As a systems engineer (involved in developing the upfront ‘what is it suppose to DO requirements of aerospace systems) I have an academic interest in the concept of ‘can build a plane that is everything for everyone’. It has been done before but often (almost always) it was by accident. It happened when features intended for one thing turned out to work well for several other things. Does that mean you CAN’T build a plane INTENTIONALLY to be everything for everyone. I am not sure. It is an interesting question of engineering philosophy. We will have to see how the F-35 really pans out. Then we will have one more data-point for that debate.
It’s a good idea to get some planes out into the field early, where real-world usage will hopefully uncover deficiencies early enough that fixes can be incorporated before too many planes have to be re-worked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.