Mr. Under Secretary we are tuned in and thanks for the invitation to comment.
http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/under-secretary-work-comments-on-his-own-tac-air-memo/
Your request for the top-level goal of the exercise is simple: “to determine the best-value [TACAIR] alternative, factoring in both cost and capability.”
You also cited an article by Bill Sweetman in Aviation Week and Space TECHNOLOGY. The article is in their “Special Double Issue” “ISR –Where Imagination and Innovation Survive”
Mr. Under Secretary and also to the entire Av Week reporting staff-you both have ventured very strongly into the debate over the future of TacAir AND never mentioned the most demanding and important Electronic Warfare Exercise that the combined forces of the American Military conduct–Northern Edge.
BUT the Joint Program Office, lead by Vice Admiral Dave Vanlet and his team were paying very close attention to the TacAir revolution
6/27/2011 – JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska — Participating in Northern Edge for the second time, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter sensor capabilities were tested in Alaska’s premier multi-operational environment from June 13-24, 2011. Hosted by Alaskan Command, NE is a biennial U.S. Pacific Command exercise that prepares joint forces to respond to crises throughout the Asia-Pacific region. This year provided an invaluable opportunity to observe the performance of the F-35 JSF systems in multiple robust electronic warfare scenarios.
The AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) and AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system (DAS) were mounted aboard Northrop Grumman’s BAC 1-11 test aircraft. Making its debut, the AN/AAQ-37 DAS demonstrated spherical situational awareness and target tracking capabilities.
The DAS is designed to simultaneously track multiple aircraft in every direction which has never been seen in an air combat environment. A return participant, the AN/APG-81 AESA demonstrated robust electronic protection, electronic attack, passive maritime and experimental modes, and data-linked air and surface tracks to improve legacy fighter situational awareness. It also searched the entire 50,000 square- mile Gulf of Alaska operating area for surface vessels, and accurately detected and tracked them in minimal time.
Navy Cmdr. Erik Etz, Deputy Mission Systems Integrated Product Team Lead from the F-35 JSF Program Office, said the rigorous testing of both sensors during NE 2011 served as a significant risk-reduction step for the F-35 JSF program. “By putting these systems in this operationally rigorous environment, we have demonstrated key war fighting capabilities well in advance of scheduled operational testing,” Etz added.
http://www.pacaf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123261716
However, before addressing the American lead TacAir revolution of fielding F-35 world leading combat technology several issues of analytical house keeping is called for because the Under Secretary’s memo cites AvWeek’s Bill Sweetman.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/aviation-week-grounds-top-critic-of-lockheed-jet/
The story Under Fire treats the issue of the future of naval aviation from the perspective of the Tac Air memo we cited earlier.
http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/under-secretary-of-the-navy-robert-works-july-tac-air-memo/
With regard to the article, we were surprised to see the only photo in the story as showing an F-35B landing on AM-2 matting at Pax River. And here we learn that “Aluminum matting is used to protect the surface from the F135 engine exhaust.”
Having watched many Harriers land on AM-2 matting last week at an airfield in North Carolina, we were surprised to learn that AM-2 matting in the photo was being deployed for engine exhaust of another aircraft.
So we decided to call the USMC HQ specialist on the matter. Major Brad Alello and he told us that “AM-2 matting has been used by the USMC since BEFORE the Vietnam War.” But for Av Week’s imaginative purpose they make this a modification for the F-35B. Perhaps some facts checking in the rest of the article might be called for.
Second point; Reporter Sweetman quoted Undersecretary Work as his saying-the case for the F-35B would be much more hazardous in the presence of G_RAMM (guided rockets, artillery, mortars and missiles) threats—I guess the Marine concept of building an agility response group with MV-22s and F-35Bs to go where the enemy isn’t concentrated escaped analysis or comment.
One would think long fixed and known runways would be a zeroed in primary target for remotely fired precision weapons. Also quoting a well-known critic of the F-35 in an e-mail doesn’t enhance ones stated position of “unbiased” analysis, simply bad form.
And your Indian partners have contributed their judgement with regard to your TAC Aircraft mix.
Can you explain why the U.S. should continue to buy the plane the Indians did not want? Nor did it measure well against the competition. We have been clearly told the F-18 was the LEAST competitive of the aircraft in the competition and as one analytical source has indicated that “The Super Hornet offers poorer aerodynamic performance than the Eurofighter or Rafale, due to inherent airframe limiations. Carnegi Endowment’s Andrew Tellis says that last disadvantage was the killer.”
Finally, one last point about any future cost analysis Mr Secretary–please disavow the analytical slur of a “Trillion Dollars” or no DON cost analysis can ever be taken seriously again.
Leave a Reply