The proposed F-15EX’s would also just add to the planned total of USAF Fighters. So, really don’t get your point???

The case that the air force needs closer to 80 F-35A’s is independent of the need to replace retiring ANG aircraft. It is something that the USAF needs to optimally meets its current program of record. The ideal FRP F-35A AF acquisition rate is 80. Anything short is assuming risk and going too slow. So what I advocate is that they move as close to that as possible. If the ANG needs new aircraft or modernization that needs to be handled separately and if the F-35A is that platform then it needs to be over and above the current program of record.

The current request (funded + unfunded) of 60 F-35A’s for FY20 is more appropriate and this should climb to 70 and more at full rate of production. Any aircraft bound to the Guard, whether F-35’s or F-15X’s should be over and above than that. It doesn’t address the ANG modernization/recapitalization need if you buy more F-35A’s without increasing the program of record. You are just accelerating modernization, not buying additional aircraft for the Guard.

I thought the NGJ pods were supposed to have lower drag than the old ALQ-99 pods. Hard to imagine. Unlikely the low-band pod is going to be any smaller.
Those SH CFTs will come in handy, however range will still be quite poor compared to regular SHs flying with center tank and CFTs or F-35Cs. CFTs plus wing tanks is probably not an option.

I don’t think that was ever mentioned in any official RFI made public though I would have to go back and read the couple of solicitations that I did manage to save years ago. The focus was very much on having enough usable power and space, weight, power and cooling to make sure that these pods, through periodic upgrades, are going to be able to deal with the threats for decades to come. I think this was a good idea because the EA-18G, while the initial platform for the NGJ won’t be the sole. The Joint Forces AEA AOA is currently ongoing so it is quite likely that there will be transition opportunities for the NGJ outside the EA–18G (Perhaps CCJ like capability returns?) and even if it doesn’t the pods are supposed to be used by the FA-XX so its good for that program to begin its range/payload requirements with a mission optimized pod in mind rather than one that would need to be replaced soon after the platform enters service.

The NGJ-LB/Increment II, down-select revealed that the Navy expects to the Growler to take a radius hit with the three pods, and apparently one of the reasons Raytheon did not get a nod to go into the next stage was because it kept the pod design unchanged while the other competitors apparently used a more optimized pod for the LB solution (form a weight/drag perspective).

That said, between lower drag CFT’s, and perhaps engine enhancements to the -414 down the road (I believe GE has presented a path to obtain lower fuel burn and the US Navy funded some recent work in FY18) they will recover some of that combat radius.

Also, if the Navy gets up to its desired level of 7 Growlers per carrier then all may not need to carry 3 pods all the time.

I make it about 1m in diameter, an AGM-88 has a wingspan of 1.1m.

That would make its aperture > than that of the F-15 radar dome…

[OT] Raytheon has released the first photo of its EMD Next Generation Jammer – Mid Band pod. The plan is still to start delivering the first five EMD pods to the US Navy starting mid May and have all 5 delivered by the end of the year. They’ll start chamber testing with the first few pods later this summer followed by captive carry and integration flights on the EA-18G by the year end. Plan is to begin radiating flights by early next year. They currently plan on getting Milestone C approval in the 2nd half of 2020 as well to get the production rate up to get to Early Operational Capability by 2022

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t100ryMn.jpg Views:t0 Size:t199.3 KB ID:t3857719″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3857719″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”100ryMn.jpg”}[/ATTACH]

Meanwhile, some solid investment into both the NGJ-MB and NGJ-LB pods (R&D only, procurement is separate) in the Navy’s FY20 budget including $630+ Million for Research and Development to support the two NGJ programs, up 17% from FY19 levels.[/OT]

The extra systems you cite won’t make much of a difference over what the F-15X can do. But evaluating the SA under such conditions would show both whether we can protect such assets and whether the SA’s (and also X’s) extra load capacity is worth it.

So systems that give it the best shot at executing its mission against a determined and capable opponent have nothing to do with the evaluation. So what exactly will the USAF evaluate? The Basic F-15E airframe? There are F-15E’s, and hundreds of them in service that it can use to do that..

I’m not going to argue that an Electronic Warfare and advanced radar don’t contribute to both lethality and survivability (the whole premise behind an EW suite is survivability) but I’ll play along.

Please articulate, what will the USAF evaluate and gain from what you suggest that it A) Doesn’t already know and B ) That it can’t find out using its own aircraft.

It however shows that most F-35 users do not want to solely rely on the F-35 which has been touted by the US as a multi-role 5th Gen fighter.

The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft focusing broadly on the F-16 and F/A-18 replacement need with the unique STOVL configuration replacing the Harrier. No one has ever said that is a one size fits all solution to all airpower needs for all possible end users. Heck, the US itself has it as a part of a F-22/F-35 mix and will have it as part of a PCA/F-22/F-35 mix in the future. Your argument is akin to saying that the F-16 was touted as a multi-role aircraft which it ain’t because users operate the F-15E multi-role aircraft alongside it. Let’s try to keep the discussion above middle school level logic please.

Please take the Turkish T-X posts somewhere else. The schedule is important, but not on the F-35 thread.

The first 2 ROKAF F-35A’s have touched down –

https://twitter.com/KimJYeop/status/1111597627148103680

[USER=”4698″]bring_it_on[/USER]

a bit off topic, but looking at LTAMS competition, would it be accurate to say that they are esstenially going with an incremental approach to Patriot replacement rather than something like MEADS in regards to AIAMD?

Is there anything about a future interceptor past the GaN seeker upgraded GEM-T/C, or a short range system beyond M-SHORAD (fill the gap betwen a stinger, AIM-9x, and GEM-T)

They’ve tested Aim-9x from the MML as part of IFPC, and possible fielding of 100Kw laser. Thoughts?

They are not going with an incremental approach. The prior RFP’s and requirements seemed to suggest that that approach could have worked for Raytheon but since the requirements have evolved and Raytheon is on record of stating that simply upgrading the current Patriot radar with a GaN AESA antenna (as they had once planned) is not going to be able to meet the US Army’s requirements. They’ll probably keep the other program alive as well to offer a more affordable upgrade option for export Patriot customers but the US Army and Poland’s LTAMD will be a new clean sheet sensor based on what the incumbent has freely talked about.

I also don’t think this is much of a competition given Raytheon’s investment into their technology and sensor. Lockheed has tried well but they just don’t have the maturity required to win this one compared to Raytheon which has run its prior full scale LTAMDS (Patriot AESA upgrade) for over 3000 hours while Lockheed had barely started testing its scaled prototype a couple of years ago. Since the new LTAMDS award, I bet Raytheon had been working on the new sensor and was the only OEM that didn’t approach the US Army to see if they could get more time for the sense-off. There is also the Economies of Scale which exist with 3DELRR synergies that would be tough to overcome. Together you are probably looking at over 100 radars so it makes sense for Raytheon to invest even more internally than Lockheed or Northrop.

The exact quote from Raytheon is –

“The requirements we are working off today are far more challenging than what we had in 2014” Back then,”we looked at a Patriot upgrade for LTAMDS,”. But given the current requirements a”Patriot upgrade cannot be the solution.”

https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1055413661290979328

MEADS was Corps SAM so was never really envisioned as a Patriot replacement but a complement that slotted in between the HAWK and the Patriot. Patriot evolution will be much more advanced with a mode modern sensor, a larger flexibility of deploying interceptors (PAC-2 GEM legacy, PAC-3 CRI, PAC-3 MSE and Future Lower Tier Interceptor which is an FY20 new start) and sensors to tailor to any deployment footprint needs. The only advantage of MEADS that I see was its C-130 deployment which will probably never be possible with the Patriot but I think its an OK price to pay for better performance. AIAMD strategy alligns with IBCS which is now the “brains” of all US Army AMD so it is now possible to dial up or down any system and mix and match systems without developing, supporting or buying another C2 system. The short range stuff is handled by IFPC Increment 2 with a interim buy of Iron Dome (2 batteries) for urgent needs and a new Emerging IFPC which will feature a Sentinel A4 (GaN AESA / X-Band), IBCS, and two Interceptors (Tamir, and one yet to be selected interceptor to take on the higher end cruise missile threats that Tamir won’t be able to handle).

Scaling up, THAAD and Patriot will now have fire-control level integration so PAC-3 MSE comes into the THAAD system allowing intercepts right down to the shortest ranged ballistic missiles and providing a second lower altitude shot against MRBMs (MSE’s max altitude is below THAAD’s minimum altitude) as well. It also gives the Army the capability of defending against UAS and cruise missile threats to THAAD.

Is there anything about a future interceptor past the GaN seeker upgraded GEM-T/C, or a short range system beyond M-SHORAD (fill the gap betwen a stinger, AIM-9x, and GEM-T)

PAC-2 GEM/T with GaN is an internal Raytheon project aimed at the export market with a small chance that the US Army will life extend its rounds. We are definitely not looking at buying new rounds since the MSE is just leaps and bounds better against the highest end threat though GEM-T is much cheaper. Romania is the first customer for the PAC-2 GEM/T upgraded with GaN.

There is a new Lower-Tier interceptor program that was launched this year which is aimed at fielding a missile that can fly farther, higher, and faster compared to the PAC-3 MSE. This was what Lockheed has often referred to as the “new upper tier interceptor”(internal IR&D) so it will likely fit in between the MSE and THAAD and allow for longer ranged intercepts of both Air breathing and ballistic/hypersonic threats. The Army has revealed little about it since its an FY20 start but it has requested 100+ Million over the FYDP and plans on selecting a prototype by 2022.

https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1107704480861167616

There is yet another short range interceptor that has been in the R&D pipeline for a couple of years. It (LowERAD) is likely something that fits in between the Stinger and the Tamir interceptor.

And since the USAF sensors are coming into Army IAMD (IAMD is aiming at Fire Control level connectivity so not just SA driven integration which has existed for decades) starting with the 3DELRR this very much part of this thread 🙂

There are 5 near term and 2 medium term radars currently coming into the IAMD-IBCS fold – Current Patriot, Sentinel A3 and A4, LTAMDS, USAF-3DELRR, USMC-G/ATOR, and eventually Extended-Range Q-53 (GaN upgrade to the Q-53) and AN/TPY-2. Beyond this they’ll probably look to bring foreign systems in as I believe SAAB and Polish radar OEMs are interested as both will eventually be IBCS and/or Patriot customers.

The “Spikes” of the 62nd Fighter Squadron returned from a successful trip to Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., March 22, 2019.

Their success could be measured by the fact that they have a training mission at Luke Air Force Base that had to continue while they were gone. They took five F-35A Lighting IIs with no student sorties lost at Luke. Or it could be measured with the 110 surface-to-air missiles they eliminated. Or perhaps the 87 total sorties supporting 18 large force missions with a perfect turn pattern.

“This was the first time the F-35 was the dedicated SEAD [Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses] asset,” said Lt. Col. Pete Lee, 62nd FS commander. “We had a job and it was to protect other people and the F-35 is very good at that. We have the legs to protect the entire strike train and we covered the whole time.”

While the stats read well, Lee also said the real story is that of the team’s integration and cohesion, which means much more to the 62nd FS and the F-35 program as a whole.

This was the first time the Italian and Norwegian F-35 instructor pilots from the 62nd FS were included in the exercise.

“We are all excited to have had this opportunity,” said Maj. Alessandro P., 62nd FS Italian instructor pilot. “It was an honor to be the project officer. It’s been a rewarding experience flying with my international partners in the complex scenarios with a fifth generation aircraft.”

The integration of partner nations in flying operations at Luke is a daily occurrence, however, operating at Red Flag brought a few hurdles that the 62nd FS addressed and pressed on.

“At first, no one quite knew what to do with us, but after the second week, our coalition partners saw that we could protect them and we earned their trust,” said Lee. “Which was the purpose of Red Flag 19-2. Trust is the cornerstone and we were there building it.”

The team’s cohesion went beyond that of the Spikes when Maj. Gen. Peter Gersten, U.S. Air Force Warfare Center commander, flew a mission in one of their F-35s with a Norwegian lead and two Italian instructor pilots.

“It was an honor to fly with the F-35 Italian and Norwegian instructor team here at Red Flag,” said Gersten. “Our network of alliances and partnerships are the backbone of global security, and exercises like Red Flag help strengthen these relationships. Likewise, the F-35 program was designed to integrate strategic partners and allies so we can train like we fight. While it’s imperative our technology can integrate to accomplish the mission, it ultimately comes down to the Airmen of our nations working together who truly make the difference. I was proud to be a part of the mission and observe firsthand the professionalism of this outstanding team.”

The other takeaways from the exercise came in many forms and Lee added that while they taught the participating units about the integration of the F-35 in a strike package, his team learned a lot from the others as well.

“We are a learning organization and Red Flag was the classroom,” said Lee. “The instructor pilots that we brought back are fired up about teaching what they learned and what matters is how we spread that knowledge.”