JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million

[[email protected]]

"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
JSF continues to slip."

See:

http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/

How expensive is the JSF going to get?

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

wrote:
> "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
> the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
> current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
> JSF continues to slip."
>
> See:
>
> http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/
>
> How expensive is the JSF going to get?

It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
acceptable.

What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.

AHS

[Sunny]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315@edtnps82...
> wrote:
>> "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
>> the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
>> current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
>> JSF continues to slip."
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/
>>
>> How expensive is the JSF going to get?
>
> It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
> acceptable.
>
> What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
> as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
> aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
> deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
> ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
> to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
> artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.
>
> AHS

Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
thing.
As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first,
to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 20, 11:19*pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> wrote:
> > "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
> > the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
> > current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
> > JSF continues to slip."
>
> > See:
>
> >http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/
>
> > How expensive is the JSF going to get?
>
> It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
> acceptable.
>
> What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
> as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
> aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
> deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
> ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
> to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
> artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.
>
> AHS

I ask the question: why do you need stealth to attack a ground target
in the first place? Isn't there someone with enough foresight to
create an aircraft that would duplicate the A-10 in 21st century form?

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Sunny wrote:
> "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
> news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315@edtnps82...
>> wrote:
>>> "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
>>> the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
>>> current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
>>> JSF continues to slip."
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/
>>>
>>> How expensive is the JSF going to get?
>> It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
>> acceptable.
>>
>> What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
>> as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
>> aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
>> deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
>> ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
>> to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
>> artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.
>>
>> AHS
>
> Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
> thing.
> As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first,
> to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
> We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)

One of the points being, not so long ago (20 years at most) there were
plenty of targets that the infantry needed air for, because the
artillery didn't quite pack enough punch. The only artillery PGM we had
was Copperhead, and you'd never use one of those unless you were
fighting Soviet tanks in Germany, and probably not even then. And if you
happened to be in a military that had heavier artillery, like 8 inch,
there were never that many of those either.

So for a long period of time, for a considerable variety of target
types, aircraft-delivered ordnance, mainly bombs, has been the weaponry
of choice. Now, leaving out those situations where artillery is simply
not in range anyway, this reality led to lots and lots of scenarios
where you wanted aircraft-delivered bombs, but the target area was
nevertheless covered by tube artillery...hence SEAD. Might as well
suppress AAA and SAMs if you can, and hopefully that plane might get
through.

The intent back then was not so much to protect the plane because it
cost the entire GDP of a small country, but simply because its firepower
influenced the mission so much.

Now we are in a situation where if tube artillery hasn't become so much
more accurate it damned well ought to be - we've been ****ing around
delaying or stopping PGM programs for artillery and naval guns for
decades, and yet the necessary money would be easily found if we just
didn't build such insanely expensive CAS aircraft. The intent of SEAD
now most certainly will be to protect the bloody plane for the sake of
protecting the plane, and I wouldn't be surprised if missions get turned
down because the risks of losing a plane in order to blow up a bunker
are just too great.

Take some of the money and address deficiencies in tube and rocket
artillery that still make it necessary to request CAS in the first
place. Much better use of money.

AHS

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> * Sunny wrote:
> > "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
> >news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315@edtnps82...
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
> >>> the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the
> >>> current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the
> >>> JSF continues to slip."
>
> >>> See:
>
> >>>http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/
>
> >>> How expensive is the JSF going to get?
> >> It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's
> >> acceptable.
>
> >> What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
> >> as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
> >> aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
> >> deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
> >> ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
> >> to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
> >> artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.
>
> >> AHS
>
> > Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
> > thing.
> > As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first,
> > to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
> > We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 *:-)
>
> One of the points being, not so long ago (20 years at most) there were
> plenty of targets that the infantry needed air for, because the
> artillery didn't quite pack enough punch. The only artillery PGM we had
> was Copperhead, and you'd never use one of those unless you were
> fighting Soviet tanks in Germany, and probably not even then. And if you
> happened to be in a military that had heavier artillery, like 8 inch,
> there were never that many of those either.
>
> So for a long period of time, for a considerable variety of target
> types, aircraft-delivered ordnance, mainly bombs, has been the weaponry
> of choice. Now, leaving out those situations where artillery is simply
> not in range anyway, this reality led to lots and lots of scenarios
> where you wanted aircraft-delivered bombs, but the target area was
> nevertheless covered by tube artillery...hence SEAD. Might as well
> suppress AAA and SAMs if you can, and hopefully that plane might get
> through.
>
> The intent back then was not so much to protect the plane because it
> cost the entire GDP of a small country, but simply because its firepower
> influenced the mission so much.
>
> Now we are in a situation where if tube artillery hasn't become so much
> more accurate it damned well ought to be - we've been ****ing around
> delaying or stopping PGM programs for artillery and naval guns for
> decades, and yet the necessary money would be easily found if we just
> didn't build such insanely expensive CAS aircraft. The intent of SEAD
> now most certainly will be to protect the bloody plane for the sake of
> protecting the plane, and I wouldn't be surprised if missions get turned
> down because the risks of losing a plane in order to blow up a bunker
> are just too great.
>
> Take some of the money and address deficiencies in tube and rocket
> artillery that still make it necessary to request CAS in the first
> place. Much better use of money.
>
> AHS

The excuse is "there are civilians at the target".

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> *...

How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
smoke, or is that still relevant?

jsw

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 21, 9:02*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>
> > *...
>
> How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
> smoke, or is that still relevant?
>
> jsw

GPS and lasers

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:00 am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>> ...
>
> How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
> smoke, or is that still relevant?
>
> jsw
>
Well, I guess if you don't know where you are there's always that
problem. Of course, if you don't know where you are then you've got
bigger problems.

AHS

[Andrew Chaplin]

Jim Wilkins > wrote in news:403ede79-f9c2-4ed1-9568-
:

> How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
> smoke, or is that still relevant?

If indirect fire artillery fired the purple smoke, you order "Excalibur.
Direction 6000. Add 150. [X rounds.] Fire for effect." The observer sends
this via some form of digital message entry device hooked up to a VHF burst
transmitter.

[Generally, however, if you're firing smoke to mark a target, you're
dealing with a target that doesn't require smart ammo.]
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 21, 9:07*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:02*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>
> > > *...
>
> > How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
> > smoke, or is that still relevant?
>
> > jsw
>
> GPS and lasers

I helped develop some of that stuff and would be cautious about
relying on it against a technically sophisticated enemy who could
localize the emissions or spoof GPS with pseudolites.

Enough said, no examples this time.

jsw

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 21, 9:50*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:07*am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:02*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>
> > > > *...
>
> > > How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
> > > smoke, or is that still relevant?
>
> > > jsw
>
> > GPS and lasers
>
> I helped develop some of that stuff and would be cautious about
> relying on it against a technically sophisticated enemy who could
> localize the emissions or spoof GPS with pseudolites.
>
> Enough said, no examples this time.
>
> jsw

When was the last time the U.S. military faced a "technically
sophisticated enemy"? How do you spoof military GPS?

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 21, 9:35*am, Andrew Chaplin >
wrote:
> Jim Wilkins > wrote in news:403ede79-f9c2-4ed1-9568-
> ...
>
> [Generally, however, if you're firing smoke to mark a target, you're
> dealing with a target that doesn't require smart ammo.]
> --
> Andrew Chaplin

Good point. I was thinking of gun positions concealed on a rocky
hillside, able to target laser flashes and kill the designator.

jsw

[Andrew Chaplin]

Jim Wilkins > wrote in news:06e4c642-660b-43ad-ab48-
:

> On Mar 21, 9:35*am, Andrew Chaplin >
> wrote:
>> Jim Wilkins > wrote in news:403ede79-f9c2-4ed1-9568-
>> ...
>>
>> [Generally, however, if you're firing smoke to mark a target, you're
>> dealing with a target that doesn't require smart ammo.]
>
> Good point. I was thinking of gun positions concealed on a rocky
> hillside, able to target laser flashes and kill the designator.

Few if any service lasers "flash," at least not in the visible light
spectrum. Laser designators are usually on only from the report of
"Splash" -- about five seconds. It is a challenge to bring fire to bear
before the guys with the laser f*** off.

If you're talking indirect fire artillery, gun positions are never to be
dealt with lightly; you need a counter-battery policy, the basis of which
should usually be "go big or stay quiet" lest you attract unwelcome
attentions. If you're dealing with DF arty, talk to your nearest tankie.

I'm old school, so if I were bringing in air on guns as you describe, I
would use some sort of load with DPICM submunitions. Those are not
precision weapons and fitting GPS or other targeting aids to them when
you can observe the target is, well, a waste of time and money.

(My own government has sworn off DPICM because of its tendency to leave
UXO all over the show, a policy I think ill-advised. A better idea would
be to go with a bomblet with an extremely low probability of landing
blind.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 21, 10:41*am, Andrew Chaplin >
wrote:
> Jim Wilkins > wrote in news:06e4c642-660b-43ad-ab48-
> :
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:35*am, Andrew Chaplin >
> > wrote:
> >> Jim Wilkins > wrote in news:403ede79-f9c2-4ed1-9568-
> >> ...
>
> >> [Generally, however, if you're firing smoke to mark a target, you're
> >> dealing with a target that doesn't require smart ammo.]
>
> > Good point. I was thinking of gun positions concealed on a rocky
> > hillside, able to target laser flashes and kill the designator.
>
> Few if any service lasers "flash," at least not in the visible light
> spectrum. Laser designators are usually on only from the report of
> "Splash" -- about five seconds. It is a challenge to bring fire to bear
> before the guys with the laser f*** off.
>
> If you're talking indirect fire artillery, gun positions are never to be
> dealt with lightly; you need a counter-battery policy, the basis of which
> should usually be "go big or stay quiet" lest you attract unwelcome
> attentions. If you're dealing with DF arty, talk to your nearest tankie.
>
> I'm old school, so if I were bringing in air on guns as you describe, I
> would use some sort of load with DPICM submunitions. Those are not
> precision weapons and fitting GPS or other targeting aids to them when
> you can observe the target is, well, a waste of time and money.
>
> (My own government has sworn off DPICM because of its tendency to leave
> UXO all over the show, a policy I think ill-advised. A better idea would
> be to go with a bomblet with an extremely low probability of landing
> blind.)
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Or timed self-dee

[Andrew Chaplin]

Jack Linthicum > wrote in
:

> On Mar 21, 10:41*am, Andrew Chaplin >
> wrote:
>> Jim Wilkins > wrote in news:06e4c642-660b-43ad-ab48-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 9:35*am, Andrew Chaplin
>> > > wrote:
>> >> Jim Wilkins > wrote in
>> >> news:403ede79-f9c2-4ed1-9568- ...
>>
>> >> [Generally, however, if you're firing smoke to mark a target,
>> >> you're dealing with a target that doesn't require smart ammo.]
>>
>> > Good point. I was thinking of gun positions concealed on a rocky
>> > hillside, able to target laser flashes and kill the designator.
>>
>> Few if any service lasers "flash," at least not in the visible light
>> spectrum. Laser designators are usually on only from the report of
>> "Splash" -- about five seconds. It is a challenge to bring fire to
>> bear before the guys with the laser f*** off.
>>
>> If you're talking indirect fire artillery, gun positions are never to
>> be dealt with lightly; you need a counter-battery policy, the basis
>> of which should usually be "go big or stay quiet" lest you attract
>> unwelcome attentions. If you're dealing with DF arty, talk to your
>> nearest tankie.
>>
>> I'm old school, so if I were bringing in air on guns as you describe,
>> I would use some sort of load with DPICM submunitions. Those are not
>> precision weapons and fitting GPS or other targeting aids to them
>> when you can observe the target is, well, a waste of time and money.
>>
>> (My own government has sworn off DPICM because of its tendency to
>> leave UXO all over the show, a policy I think ill-advised. A better
>> idea would be to go with a bomblet with an extremely low probability
>> of landing blind.)
>
> Or timed self-dee

They had already tried that and it didn't work reliably. The DPICM
bomblets were, I think, too small for a mechanism that would have done
the trick, having a volume of only about 0.1 litres. Artillery-delivered
minelets are large enough for such mechanism, but they are not (properly)
used to suppress.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 21, 10:41*am, Andrew Chaplin >
wrote:
> ...
> Few if any service lasers "flash," at least not in the visible light
> spectrum. Laser designators are usually on only from the report of
> "Splash" -- about five seconds. It is a challenge to bring fire to bear
> before the guys with the laser f*** off.

Infrared detection is now cheap and easy, to ~1 micron if you want a
sharp image and out to 10 microns if you don't.

jsw

[[email protected]]

It used to be that stealth aircraft were supposed to be the "silver
bullet"
force that knocked down the enemy air defenses in the opening days of
a conflict, so that the cheaper, less-stealthy platforms could follow
up
and do their thing.

Now it looks like the USAF wants an all-silver-bullet force, which is
going
to cause the USAF to shrivel up into a purely air combat and
interdiction
force, while Army UCAV's and attack helos take over the CAS role.

This is a bad idea. There are many missions, such as air-sovereignty
and
air strikes against insurgents, that don't require stealth, and will
only
pile up wear and tear on those expensive stealthy airframes.

The USAF should consider buying more F-16's to fulfill these roles at
a
lower cost than the F-35. I doubt they will though.

Agree/Disagree?

[Sunny]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:00 am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> ...

How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
smoke, or is that still relevant?
jsw

** By radio, only if the arty has direct line of sight to the target.
For indirect fire, why throw smoke? (Unless you are relying on airborne
spotter to relay radio fire missions.)

[hcobb]

On Mar 21, 7:18*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> Good point. I was thinking of gun positions concealed on a rocky
> hillside, able to target laser flashes and kill the designator.
>
> jsw

For that kind of target you go PAM! PAM! PAM!

-HJC

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 21, 7:33*pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:18*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > Good point. I was thinking of gun positions concealed on a rocky
> > hillside, able to target laser flashes and kill the designator.
>
> > jsw
>
> For that kind of target you go PAM! PAM! PAM!
>
> -HJC

Call for your mother?

[Andrew Swallow]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:50 am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 9:07 am, Jack Linthicum >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 9:02 am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>> How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple
>>>> smoke, or is that still relevant?
>>>> jsw
>>> GPS and lasers
>> I helped develop some of that stuff and would be cautious about
>> relying on it against a technically sophisticated enemy who could
>> localize the emissions or spoof GPS with pseudolites.
>>
>> Enough said, no examples this time.
>>
>> jsw
>
> When was the last time the U.S. military faced a "technically
> sophisticated enemy"? How do you spoof military GPS?

China has a few modern weapons.

Andrew Swallow

[Ian B MacLure]

Arved Sandstrom > wrote in news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315
@edtnps82:

[snip]

> What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
> as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
> aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
> deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
> ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
> to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
> artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.

The days of streaking in at tree top level for a lay down attack
are probably over. JTACs can call in PGMs from 20000 ft with
pinpoint accuracy.

IBM

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 22, 3:04*am, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom > wrote in news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315
> @edtnps82:
>
> * * * * [snip]
>
> > What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
> > as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
> > aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
> > deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
> > ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
> > to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
> > artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.
>
> * * * * The days of streaking in at tree top level for a lay down attack
> * * * * are probably over. JTACs can call in PGMs from 20000 ft with
> * * * * pinpoint accuracy.
>
> * * * * IBM

But with no aircraft to engage and UAVs and PGMs taking over for
"streaking in at tree top level" what's a hero-pilot to do back at the
O Club?

[Peter Skelton]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Mar 22, 3:04*am, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>> Arved Sandstrom > wrote in news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315
>> @edtnps82:
>>
>> * * * * [snip]
>>
>> > What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
>> > as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
>> > aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
>> > deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
>> > ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
>> > to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
>> > artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.
>>
>> * * * * The days of streaking in at tree top level for a lay down attack
>> * * * * are probably over. JTACs can call in PGMs from 20000 ft with
>> * * * * pinpoint accuracy.
>>
>> * * * * IBM
>
>But with no aircraft to engage and UAVs and PGMs taking over for
>"streaking in at tree top level" what's a hero-pilot to do back at the
>O Club?

Start with "This is no ****". Nothing changes.

Peter Skelton

[hcobb]

On Mar 21, 6:09*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:33*pm, hcobb > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 7:18*am, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > > Good point. I was thinking of gun positions concealed on a rocky
> > > hillside, able to target laser flashes and kill the designator.
>
> > > jsw
>
> > For that kind of target you go PAM! PAM! PAM!
>
> > -HJC
>
> Call for your mother?

Oh do keep up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System#Precision_Attack_Munition_.28P AM.29

-HJC

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Ian B MacLure wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom > wrote in news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315
> @edtnps82:
>
> [snip]
>
>> What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly
>> as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated
>> aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to
>> deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the
>> ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD
>> to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the
>> artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place.
>
> The days of streaking in at tree top level for a lay down attack
> are probably over. JTACs can call in PGMs from 20000 ft with
> pinpoint accuracy.
>
> IBM

That may be true. But given that radar stealth doesn't mean radar
invisible, flying at 20,000+ feet doesn't exactly make you safe from
SAMs. And even if the F-35 is dropping some PGM glide-bomb from 50 nm
away he's still over some other patch of ground with SAMs and their radars.

And if that's all the plane is going to do is stand off at incredible
distances to launch ordnance, we can't have cheaper planes do the same
thing? Or just build a ****load of cruise missiles?

AHS

[Ian B MacLure]

" Sunny" > wrote in news:xXhpn.14133$pv.11282
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

[snip]

> Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
> thing.
> As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first,
> to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
> We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)

As to artillery, things have changed recently. First round hits
from 30+ km for tube artillery and 75km for MLRS are not uncommon.
A single MLRS or truck mounted version thereof can cover an area
150km in diameter.
What JSF does is give you longer range strike capacity and H hour
ability to take out high value targets undetected until things are
supposed to go pear shaped.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Jack Linthicum > wrote in
:

[snip]

> But with no aircraft to engage and UAVs and PGMs taking over for
> "streaking in at tree top level" what's a hero-pilot to do back at the
> O Club?

Well somebody has to kick the door in. Thats where the JSF applies.
Kick the door in at H-Hour then come back the next day and let it
all hang out.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Arved Sandstrom > wrote in
news:SlSpn.6$Jw4.5@edtnps82:

[snip]

> That may be true. But given that radar stealth doesn't mean radar
> invisible, flying at 20,000+ feet doesn't exactly make you safe from
> SAMs. And even if the F-35 is dropping some PGM glide-bomb from 50 nm
> away he's still over some other patch of ground with SAMs and their
> radars.

And who says the SAMs are going to know the JSF is there until
things start going pear shaped?

> And if that's all the plane is going to do is stand off at incredible
> distances to launch ordnance, we can't have cheaper planes do the same
> thing? Or just build a ****load of cruise missiles?

And weren't we discussing CAS not IDS.

IBM

[Sunny]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
>" Sunny" > wrote in news:xXhpn.14133$pv.11282
> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the
>> thing.
>> As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough
>> first,
>> to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
>> We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)
>
> As to artillery, things have changed recently. First round hits
> from 30+ km for tube artillery and 75km for MLRS are not uncommon.
> A single MLRS or truck mounted version thereof can cover an area
> 150km in diameter.
> What JSF does is give you longer range strike capacity and H hour
> ability to take out high value targets undetected until things are
> supposed to go pear shaped.
>
> IBM

Close Air Support/Close Arty Support?
The old 8 inch were considered to be accurate, but we could never call the
first round closer than 1000 metres, even when we knew our position down
to 25 metres. Shudder to think what the "Close Support" first round
restrictions would be. As a Grunt I hope it would be within ear shot, for
the next correction request.

(Especially with many diverse Infantry Ops within your 150km area) :-)

[Andrew Chaplin]

" Sunny" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>" Sunny" > wrote in news:xXhpn.14133$pv.11282
>> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for
>>> the thing.
>>> As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough
>>> first,
>>> to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
>>> We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)
>>
>> As to artillery, things have changed recently. First round hits
>> from 30+ km for tube artillery and 75km for MLRS are not uncommon.
>> A single MLRS or truck mounted version thereof can cover an area
>> 150km in diameter.
>> What JSF does is give you longer range strike capacity and H hour
>> ability to take out high value targets undetected until things are
>> supposed to go pear shaped.
>>
>> IBM
>
> Close Air Support/Close Arty Support?
> The old 8 inch were considered to be accurate, but we could never call
> the first round closer than 1000 metres, even when we knew our
> position down to 25 metres. Shudder to think what the "Close Support"
> first round restrictions would be. As a Grunt I hope it would be
> within ear shot, for the next correction request.
>
> (Especially with many diverse Infantry Ops within your 150km area)
> :-)

It has been a long time since I have done it so I may be missing a
wrinkle, but DANGER CLOSE could be brought in to four probable errors of
friendly positions from 1000 metres for 155 and 620 metres for 105. If
you have at least 0.45 metres overhead cover, you can bring it onto the
positions if need be. Which PE you use depends on the relationship of the
line gun-target to the positions.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Jim Wilkins]

On Mar 23, 6:45*am, Andrew Chaplin >
wrote:
> ...
> It has been a long time since I have done it so I may be missing a
> wrinkle,
> Andrew Chaplin

The question I poorly stated (purple smoke) was whether standoff PGMs
could completely replace observer-adjusted artillery or more
importantly manned CAS, I think it's possible that an enemy could
create countermeasures against laser designators etc but don't want to
discuss how, lets just assume they can, like assuming that pig the
Natter can fly.

jsw

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Ian B MacLure wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom > wrote in
> news:SlSpn.6$Jw4.5@edtnps82:
>
> [snip]
>
>> That may be true. But given that radar stealth doesn't mean radar
>> invisible, flying at 20,000+ feet doesn't exactly make you safe from
>> SAMs. And even if the F-35 is dropping some PGM glide-bomb from 50 nm
>> away he's still over some other patch of ground with SAMs and their
>> radars.
>
> And who says the SAMs are going to know the JSF is there until
> things start going pear shaped?

Well, I suppose if all the enemy's radars are switched off and we only
fight at night, maybe the SAMs won't.

Like I said, these planes are radar *stealthy*, not radar invisible. And
that depends on angle as well - painted from the beam or not far off,
these planes presumably don't have the RCS of a mosquito.

>> And if that's all the plane is going to do is stand off at incredible
>> distances to launch ordnance, we can't have cheaper planes do the same
>> thing? Or just build a ****load of cruise missiles?
>
> And weren't we discussing CAS not IDS.
>
> IBM

The "close" in CAS is defined by how close the ordnance is blowing up to
friendlies, not how far away the ordnance came from.

AHS

[Ian B MacLure]

" Sunny" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>" Sunny" > wrote in news:xXhpn.14133$pv.11282
>> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for
>>> the thing.
>>> As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough
>>> first,
>>> to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
>>> We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)
>>
>> As to artillery, things have changed recently. First round hits
>> from 30+ km for tube artillery and 75km for MLRS are not uncommon.
>> A single MLRS or truck mounted version thereof can cover an area
>> 150km in diameter.
>> What JSF does is give you longer range strike capacity and H hour
>> ability to take out high value targets undetected until things are
>> supposed to go pear shaped.
>>
>> IBM
>
> Close Air Support/Close Arty Support?
> The old 8 inch were considered to be accurate, but we could never call
> the first round closer than 1000 metres, even when we knew our

Yeah that would be peacetime. In A'stan NATO I think has 700m or
so but when push came to shove it was "Danger Close" and folks
were known to call in fire on their own position in extremsis.
US forces in A'stan routinely call in to 200m IIRC.

IBM>

[Ian B MacLure]

Arved Sandstrom > wrote in news:b_9qn.2$T6.1@edtnps83:

[snip]

> The "close" in CAS is defined by how close the ordnance is blowing up to
> friendlies, not how far away the ordnance came from.

I am aware of that. IDS is generally not a mission that occurs in the
presence of friendlies. CAS is, in fact thats sort of the point of
CAS.

IBM

[Sunny]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
>" Sunny" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>" Sunny" > wrote in news:xXhpn.14133$pv.11282
>>> @news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for
>>>> the thing.
>>>> As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough
>>>> first,
>>>> to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.)
>>>> We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-)
>>>
>>> As to artillery, things have changed recently. First round hits
>>> from 30+ km for tube artillery and 75km for MLRS are not uncommon.
>>> A single MLRS or truck mounted version thereof can cover an area
>>> 150km in diameter.
>>> What JSF does is give you longer range strike capacity and H hour
>>> ability to take out high value targets undetected until things are
>>> supposed to go pear shaped.
>>>
>>> IBM
>>
>> Close Air Support/Close Arty Support?
>> The old 8 inch were considered to be accurate, but we could never call
>> the first round closer than 1000 metres, even when we knew our
>
> Yeah that would be peacetime. In A'stan NATO I think has 700m or
> so but when push came to shove it was "Danger Close" and folks
> were known to call in fire on their own position in extremsis.
> US forces in A'stan routinely call in to 200m IIRC.
>
> IBM>

Not talking about peacetime, but SVN 69/70.
I have called in Kiwi 105, US 155 and 8inch, plus RAN 4.7inch.
The only time "first round on the ground", distance from observer target
was not questioned was when guns were in direct support of unit calling it
in (Locstats were continually updated when moving)

But, getting back to CAS, The JSF cannot cut it when "pop smoke" is
called.
The most important part of CAS is not hitting your own, and you cannot
identify friendly forces from 50km away.
IMHO the Australian Govt. should cancel orders for the JSF and look
elsewhere for our needs.
(Any A10s for sale) :-)