F35 - Money well spent.

An RAF OF-5 of my acquaintance said that the focus was solely on new kit without a sustainable plan for the people to crew it, maintain it, task it, sustain it, control it and protect it. Combined with really dreadful infrastructure in some cases, that was why people were leaving.
The infra is deteriorating not because of our obsession with kit, but because infra is now the responsibility of DIO, which is tri-service. That has had bad repercussions for the RAF as, having historically looked after ours very well, the money is going elsewhere in an attempt to level the playing field. Stn Cdr's have virtually no levers to pull with regard to the fabric of their units.
 
Which they noted and learnt from, particularly, I suspect, Project AZORIAN.

They’re also very aware of the West’s reliance on undersea cables and the importance of our Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS; link provided to show official open source reference).



Perhaps not China but Russia do; even after the Kursk, I suspect they have higher priorities than submarine rescue. You may wish to google the folllowing submarine classes and sub-variants, paying particular note where it’s available of the materials used in their construction and operating depths:

Losharik.
Kashalot.
Podmoskovye.
Belgorod.
Paltus.

Regards,
MM
Worrying. When I was still at school I read the book Spetsnaz which I found in the library, and it mentioned naval Spetsnaz and their liking for mini submarines and robotic vehicles.

I thought American seabed recovery capabilities had been demonstrated by recovering enough of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986 for a proper post accident analysis. Things must have advanced since then! @seaweed once mentioned an incident at Portland when an early Minehunter (Ton class fitted with sonar) was asked to look for a ditched helicopter and not only did they find it, they were able to tell which way up it was and so on.

More recently Hunt and Sandown class vessels have looked for aircraft that have sadly been lost around the UK.

The initial USMC F-35C sqn, VMFA-314 is starting conversion from the FA-18C/D.

In addition to over 350 STOVL F-35Bs, the USMC will also receive 67 of the F-35C variant more normally associated with USN ‘cat and trap’ ops. The USMC F-35Cs will augment USN sqns on USN CVNs.


Regards,
MM
Not aboard the Ford class just yet though! Is F-35C heavier than FA-18E/F - that might explain it?
 
Last edited:
Not aboard the Ford class just yet though! Is F-35C heavier than FA-18 F/F - that might explain it?
No, they’re almost identical weights.

I suspect it’s the J6 aspects which have not yet been enabled.

Regards,
MM
 
No, they’re almost identical weights.

I suspect it’s the J6 aspects which have not yet been enabled.

Regards,
MM
So when POTUS rants about 'Goddamned Steam' and EMALS being so complicated you need to be Einstein to understand it (Faraday would be more to the point) he is not showing great understanding.

Some of the criticism in the media of both the F-35 and the QE class carriers (such a limited communications bandwidth - as if this is dictated by ship design) shows that the media do not understand either.
 
So when POTUS rants about 'Goddamned Steam' and EMALS being so complicated you need to be Einstein to understand it (Faraday would be more to the point) he is not showing great understanding...
For all I know, it could be EMALS; I’m just making an educated guess.

...Some of the criticism in the media of both the F-35 and the QE class carriers (such a limited communications bandwidth - as if this is dictated by ship design) shows that the media do not understand either.
No, but it’s one of the I’s in ‘TEPIDOILS’* which needs to be managed properly. I understand that some of the concerns are being addressed.

Regards,
MM

* For those that don’t have the pleasure of being involved in MoD programme management on a regular basis, this relates to:

Training
Equipment
Personnel
Infrastructure
Doctrine and Concepts
Organisation
Information
Logistics
Security
 
For all I know, it could be EMALS; I’m just making an educated guess.



No, but it’s one of the I’s in ‘TEPIDOILS’* which needs to be managed properly. I understand that some of the concerns are being addressed.

Regards,
MM

* For those that don’t have the pleasure of being involved in MoD programme management on a regular basis, this relates to:

Training
Equipment
Personnel
Infrastructure
Doctrine and Concepts
Organisation
Information
Logistics
Security

is that genuinely an acronym which is used in anger?
 
Yes - defence lines of development. Personally I would say all of those headings could apply to communications. It was an F-35B of the US Marine Corps that cued a simulated SM2 engagement from the imaginatively named USS Desert Ship.

I look forward to the first test involving a USMC or RN/RAF jet and a real warship.
 
is that genuinely an acronym which is used in anger?
Yep; it’s actually a relatively decent way to cover the various elements of.

Specific organisations are allocated responsibility for each one under a ‘Senior Responsible Owner’ (SRO) who’s normally a 1* and a ‘Business Continuity Manager’ (BCM) who’s normally an OF5.

The problem comes with things like J6 which often sit outside single service and often even programme remit and where everyone goes ‘not me guv’.

...I look forward to the first test involving a USMC or RN/RAF jet and a real warship...
I wouldn’t hold your breath as the USN stated it involved the Coperative Engagement (CEC) and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capabilities which are USN/RAN only at the moment.

Regards,
MM
 
Yep; it’s actually a relatively decent way to cover the various elements of.

Specific organisations are allocated responsibility for each one under a ‘Senior Responsible Owner’ (SRO) who’s normally a 1* and a ‘Business Continuity Manager’ (BCM) who’s normally an OF5.

The problem comes with things like J6 which often sit outside single service and often even programme remit and where everyone goes ‘not me guv’.



I wouldn’t hold your breath as the USN stated it involved the Coperative Engagement (CEC) and Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capabilities which are USN/RAN only at the moment.

Regards,
MM
I think you used less words explaining the acronym than are in the acronym.
 
With regard to the unfortunate loss, and with commiserations to family and friends, Minister of Defense Takeshi Iwaya stated at a June 7 press conference that body parts discovered among the aircraft's dispersed wreckage were confirmed to be Maj. Hosomi's remains.

Maj. Akinori Hosomi of the 3rd Air Wing's 302nd Tactical Fighter Squadron had been classified as missing following the aircraft's crash into the sea after taking off from Japan Air Self-Defense Force's (JASDF) Misawa Base in Misawa, Aomori Prefecture, on April 9, 2019.
Missing Japanese F-35A pilot's death confirmed by Ministry of Defense - The Mainichi
 
Still unclear as to whether the MGCAS was not switched on to Auto mode, if Auto is presently available, or it had been overridden/ignored.

From the air-ground communication pilot seemed calm and in control, indicating that he may have become spatially disorientated rather that GLOC’d.

"“We believe it highly likely the pilot was suffering from vertigo or spatial disorientation and wasn’t aware of his condition,” Defence Minister Takeshi Iwaya told a briefing. “It can affect any pilot regardless of their experience.”...Japan Iwaya said, would increase vertigo training for its pilots, [spatial disorientation SD training] check its remaining F-35s and meet residents living near the base from which they operate, in Misawa, Aomori prefecture, before restarting flights.


Many years ago had a night TO from Taif in Saudi in a Lear24 going back to Jeddah after a drop-off. So very short flight, light fuel load. Airport a fair way from the town so not much surrounding light around the airport. Our TO was in opp direction to the direction back to Jeddah so cleared for a right turn after TO to establish on the airway.

Standard TO no alt restrictions up to enroute 240, just the not above 250Kts below 10,000. It was cool around 20C, Taif just under 5,000’ elevation. TO was brisk with rapid acceleration, gear up, flaps up and steep climbing turn to the right, intiall climb rate is around 7,000’/min to avoid overspeed, pitch black night.

Flying from the left seat and glanced up and to my right automatic check for traffic, to my absolute horror I see the airport in the top right of my windshield, I am over the top of a loop and now inverted diving toward the ground in a hard right turn. It was instinctual with no apparent conscious thought, a quiet, “You have control’.

My Co-pilot without hesitation took over with a calm 'I have control.’ and we carried on diving towards the ground...only I suddenly realised that what I had been looking at was not the airport through the windscreen ahead of us, but the reflection of the airport over and behind my left shoulder reflected on the upper right of the co-pilots windshield, and he was simply continuing our steep climbing right turn.

The sudden onset of tremendous vertigo that occurred as I had glanced up and suddenly lost spatial orientation was very powerful. Had I been on my own, or, had I tried to maintain control instead of handing over, I am pretty sure it would have resulted in a complete loss of control and very possibly CFIT.

We had not so long before been subjected to a loss of Captains HSI in the simulator, the scenario was Air India 855 out of Bombay at night where the HSI had slowly tumbled with the Captain trying to follow it. I would say that exposure to that scenario/training had resulted in my actions.

The speed and power of that total loss of spatial awareness is a memory that remains extremely vivid to this day, my thoughts very much with Maj Hosomi.
 
No, they’re almost identical weights.

I suspect it’s the J6 aspects which have not yet been enabled.

Regards,
MM
Nimitz and Ford Carriers Need Upgrades to Deploy With F-35Cs - USNI News

The modifications required to make each aircraft carrier class able to deploy with F-35Cs don’t require a fundamental redesign of either class. Hernandez described the modifications as involving work to support the long-term deployment of F-35Cs, such as adding classified spaces to the carriers and installing more robust jet blast deflectors.

Each class of carrier is currently able to launch and recover F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, the variant designed for catapult launching and arrested landing on carriers. Without the carrier modifications, the ships are unable to support an F-35C for more than a short visit.

Yet the F-35B of the USMC can happily spend months at sea. I know simulation proved that it does not need JBDs, but surely it is about the same in terms of J6 support (can we call it N6 as it is aboard ship?) needed?

It does make sense that very hot efflux will degrade the JBD, which an not inconsiderable pieces of engineering themselves. When the Royal Navy converted HMS Ark Royal (IV) to operate Phantoms one of the modifications was to upgrade the JBDs to resist the efflux of Speys with afterburner, yet I have seen a picture of a Phantom landing aboard Eagle circa 1970.
 
...the F-35B of the USMC can happily spend months at sea...surely it is about the same in terms of J6 support (can we call it N6 as it is aboard ship?) needed?...
The B is supposedly the least capable of the F-35 variants in a number of respects so there may be slightly less J6 required.

However, a more significant factor is probably that there will be more F-35Cs embarked on a Ford Class CVN than there will be in an America LHA. That dictates a greater number of highly specialised facilities and all the cabling to support them, all of which themselves also need modification.

That’s a LOT of work involving a LOT of integration; far more so than that associated with modifying JBDs I suspect.

In terms of nomenclature, I’d say that ‘N6’ applies only to those internal systems which interact purely within a naval environment. By it’s very nature, if an IT system is designed to interact with - and enable - an aircraft’s systems in the Air domain (where it will also interact with other air platforms and those from other environments), it is by definition Joint.

Indeed, many of the systems on the QECs will be common to those at RAF Marham and deployed operating locations. Therefore, it’s J6 and not N6 or A6 in my view; geography is irrelevant.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top