Three different potential customers here: USN/MC, RN, all others.

The USN/MC could certainly do without jets and go with rotorcraft only, provided that NavAir has enough CVN and is willing to take over fast-mover CAS.

And there is one of the largest problems with getting rid of the F-35B. All three services are constantly at odds over division of shared assets. This is one of the main reasons the US Army wants their own C-27s and why both the Marines and Army were thinking of taking the A-10s when the USAF was going to dump them.

The typical AV-8/F-35B load-out of a LHD is/will be low in any case, and not suitable for sustained CAS. So they might as well drop it, as the job of the shore-based fast-jet Marines could be taken over by Air Force or NavAir, as STOVL ops ashore hit too many logistic problems to be realistic. F-35B needed? No.

The LHD F-35Bs only need to run sorties until a shore base is ready, and unless there is a full sized airport handy, that will be F-35Bs, not USAF or USN. In Iraq the Marines had a very successful forward deployed Harrier base that was with close proximity to the troops. It worked very well.

The Royal Navy fared well with their Harriers in 1982, and would most likely continue to do so against all realistically assumed enemies (which tend to be rather low-tech). Plus the CVF thingy is still open for CTOL and SHornet or Rafale. F-35B needed? No.

I agree, the RAF should have built their new carriers for the F-35C.

Rest of the world. Now, these people would be well served with a modernized Harrier, as generally speaking the same goes for them as for the Englishers – they will in all likelyhood not engage a really capable enemy with their rather challenged Navies. F-35B needed? No.

How much would a modded Harrier cost? Develop? Maintain?

Does anyone really think a F-35B is somehow better suited for a policing action off Africa than a (modded) Harrier??

Yes I do. The F-35B has better sensors (and more), costs less to operate, is more survivable, has better range, etc, etc.

Spudman

If i am not mistaken, quite recently someone at ARES (?) (Bill Sweetman?!) asked directly to LM what was the status of that particular development (six internal AIM-120), the official answer was that, right now, they were happy with the four BVRAAM arrangement and the “six pack” wasnt being pursued.
(I´ve might got it all wrong though, if someone out there can direct me to the original article i would be grateful)

Cheers

The key words being

right now, they were happy with the four BVRAAM arrangement and the “six pack” wasnt being pursued.

The USAF is one thing, partner nations are another. Partner nations will have a much smaller force and each plane may be tasked to do much more.

A updated list of Block upgrades would be nice, unfortunately, the only official public list of block upgrades (beyond Blk 3) is covered in the Norway docs.

From the Startelegram with relevant parts highlighted.

Australian government comments on F-35 decision

When the government of Australia announced last week it had committed to buying an initial lot of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters, we sent the Australian Ministry of Defence some questions. The answers came back too late for inclusion in the Star-Telegram story that ran Thanksgiving Day.

So we’ll post the entire exchange to this blog. And we’ll also post some followup information from the primary opponents in Australia of buying the F-35.

Here’s the response of the Australian government to our questions:

Australia has been a partner in developing the F-35 from the inception of the program and has invested its own money. Were other aircraft types considered to meet Australia’s future combat needs? Which ones?

The Australian decision to acquire the JSF was made after an extensive analysis of all potential future air combat aircraft. That decision was originally made in 2002 when we entered the System Development & Development phase of the JSF Program and formally re-confirmed in the Air Combat Capability Review that was conducted in 2008.

Throughout that time, however, we have continued to monitor developments in other air combat programs to ensure our decision remained valid.

This is a decision of policy, correct? Not a formal order for aircraft?

This is an acquisition decision – which includes funding approval – for the first 14 aircraft. Placing orders for the 14 aircraft will be done via the US-led JSF Project Office in conjunction with the US and other partners.

Have the U.S. and Australian governments agreed on price and terms of the F-35 purchase?

Australia will pay the same price as the US Government. The US and all partners will buy aircraft under the same contracts placed by the US-led JSF Project Office. For the next several years, the prices of aircraft under these contracts are being determined annually. Eventually acquisition will be via multi-year orders, again in collaboration with all other partners.

When do you anticipate placing a formal order?

Orders are placed progressively. Australia’s first aircraft will be part of the Low Rate Initial Production lot 6 contract to be delivered in 2014. We will identify our requirements for this contract in 2010 to allow ordering of necessary long-lead items. Subsequent aircraft will be ordered on an annual basis until it is agreed that the JSF Program is sufficiently mature to support a “multi-year” contact. In the early years sustainment is also contracted on an annual basis.

Has funding for the acquisition been approved by Parliament?

In the Australian system Parliament does not need to approve the acquisition, that is up to the Government. Government has approved funding for the first 14 aircraft and associated infrastructure and support.

Are there potential political/policy steps to be taken that could result in a change of policy regarding F-35 acquisition?

The Australian Government has stated that it will acquire around 100 JSFs in the context of the 2009 Defence White Paper. The recent acquisition decision – i.e. authorisation for funding – is for the first 14 aircraft. Additional authorisation decisions will be required for the remaining aircraft.

Some Australian groups (Air Power Australia) have been vocal in their criticisms of the F-35. Have those criticisms been considered in reaching this decision?

Defence and Government take into account all informed commentary in making such major decisions

Are there any concerns about the U.S. DoD decision not to release F-35 software codes to buyers?

Australiahas never sought access to source code of JSF software. For commonality and affordability reasons we want to stay common with the core JSF Program. What we do need, however, is the ability to re-program mission data libraries with our data to meet specific sovereign requirements. Ability to do that has been agreed by the US Government.

Are there any concerns about the delays in development and flight testing progress of F-35?

All delays are of concern but there is also very good progress in many areas. Australia has considerable schedule buffer to deal with all realistic schedule risk.

– Bob Cox

Just in case you missed it:

Australia will pay the same price as the US Government. The US and all partners will buy aircraft under the same contracts placed by the US-led JSF Project Office. For the next several years, the prices of aircraft under these contracts are being determined annually. Eventually acquisition will be via multi-year orders, again in collaboration with all other partners.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-06/lockheed-f-35-purchases-delayed-in-pentagon-s-fiscal-2011-plan.html

I suggest you get your rose-tinted glasses with wrap-around straps, because you are still in a for a ride.

I wonder if the reduction is from the accelerated productions goal set last year by Gates, or from the original schedule? The original schedule calls for 43 in 2011 (all services).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html

In September 2004, Raytheon received a development contract for a 7-year SDD (System Development & Demonstration) phase of the SM-6. As of mid-2005, the first ERAM flight test was planned for late 2007, with LRIP (Low-Rate Initial Production) beginning in 2009 and IOC (Initial Operational Capability) achieved by 2010. In June 2008, the first successful intercept of a drone by an RIM-174A missile occurred. No specific data on the SM-6’s performance envelope has been published, but since the airframe and propulsion system are identical to the RIM-156A, the specifications are presumably very similar. Raytheon also claims that SM-6 can act as a sea-based terminal ballistic missile defense system.

That seems soon to me.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheons-standard-missile-naval-defense-family-updated-02919/

Aug 28/09: Raytheon completes the SM-6’s final System Design & Development (SDD) phase flight test. ….

Sept 04/09: A $93.9 million fixed price incentive fee, firm fixed price contract to begin low-rate initial production of the FY 09 Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) Block I All Up Rounds (AURs).

Ok, the bell has wrung and it’s time for school. Apparently, many of you are confused about how IR and IIR missile guidance systems seem to work. I will try to make this as simple as possible.

Here is a quote from HowStuffWorks

In the current Sidewinder models {Aim-9L/M}, the infrared sensor array is coupled with a conical scanning system. The basic idea of a conical scanning system is to continually move the feed horn — the assembly of lenses and mirrors that directs light to the sensor — around in a small circle (to visualize this, imagine holding the eraser end of a pencil steady in one hand while moving the pointed end around in a circle). As a whole, the moving feedhorn scans a large section of the sky. The guidance control system figures out where the target is based on fluctuations in the detected infrared light as the feed horn moves around the circle. If the target is to the left of the missile, for example, the sensor will detect greater infrared light when the feed horn is aimed to the left than when it is aimed to the right.

To summarize, the IR detector is spinning in a circle measuring amounts of IR energy and using calculations to determine which way to head. Flares work against this type of seeker because they provide another source of heat to the seeker and can confuse it and cause the missile to miss.

Modern IIR seekers are another thing entirely. They are called FPA or Focal Plane Arrays. They, unlike the IR seekers above, generate an actual picture of the target. Here is a sample from the Aim-9X.

Here is a target from one of the QF-4 drones in the original Youtube clip.

Notice the large amount of flares and how they were ineffective against the Aim-9X. If you watch the video below, you will notice (in the upper corner) the actual image being generated by the 9X seeker (first seen at 28 seconds).

Notice that the flares can be seen in the seeker view, but they are highly ineffective.

With all that being said, my entire point is that no matter what the freq of light given off by the flare, they will remain ineffective due to the nature of the seeker head.

Cola, If you needed for me to explain it to you instead of posting links, then you should have said so. Basically, modern IIR seekers display a picture of the target while older seekers provide heading vectors to heat sources.

Again, this thread was started asking about modern flares against modern IIR seekers. Arguing about semantics and [i]possible[/] advancements of flares (or fuel dumping) working against IIR seekers, when there is no evedence supporting them, is pointless.

—-edit

When you said “Mag flares are ineffective against IIR”, are you finally agreeing with me, or are you saying aircraft flares do not contain magnesium?

How are IIR seekers fundamentally different from IR seekers?

Are you serious?

Kopp has a decent writeup here
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-IR-Guidance.html

with a followup that covers the Aim-9X history
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html

Second, IIR seekers are programed to home on jet pipe and AB if possible (stronger contrast), so how will the seeker be able to tell if the ignited jet stream is AB or decoy? The difference in fusing may well be enough for a small warhead like 9’s to loose lethality altogether.

IIR seekers are programed for pattern recognition (as shown in the previously linked video and the NCADE demo. A hot plume will not distract them, but it might get in the way if coming directly from the rear, but, that would mean the target fighter is not maneuvering at all and the missile is not flying a parabolic arc… both unlikely..

In the above video, the 9X aimed for a mid body shot when it could recognize the target (from above) and an engine shot when coming from the side. In all cases flares did not help and a fuel burn would not have helped as it is not as hot as the engine.